Obama's Mistaken and Incromprehensible ISIS Strategy

[jeremy.lankenau]

It is ludicrous to even think about bringing them over here unless we know who they are.

I do believe the vetting process has been covered extensively earlier in the thread

Have they spoken out against the Islamic terrorist?NO....

This statement alone proves the single source of media you inhale greedily like it was cocaine. A very simple, basic, and cursory search will show the vast majority of American Muslim organizations have come out again...and again...and again against Islamic Terrorism.

Here's an older article, so you can see how consistent it has been over time. It's too easy to find one from Muslim org's condemning Paris: https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ont-more-moderate-muslims-denounce-extremism/

And:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/16/sean-hannity-falsely-claims-muslims-dont-speak/206895 (but I reckon you won't listen to the website)

The only ones I trust are the ones that have converted to Christianity and have publicly denounced Islam. Its not the Christianity that I trust so much because anyone (as we see in this and other threads in this forum) can claim they are may who they are not. What I do trust is the Public denouncement of Islam as this puts them in harms way along with the rest of us. Something OBAMA has not yet done and he was taught to be a good Muslim and it shows.

I. can't. even...

Whether you served or not I do not know and if you did, I thank you for your service. But you are not alone since there are those who saw a nastier part of war during the Viet-Nam era. The wars of the so-called peaceful Muslims trying to annihilate the Jewish people for simply living or rather being God's chosen people. Did you know there were up to five nations against them at one time.

I know I'm not alone..I was just giving a small part of my experience to try and give you some perspective, before you make another sweeping generalization as if you know me.

I'm Jewish, so I know my history. And *gasp*, I still want peace

Have you ever read "The Lemon Tree" by Sandy Tolan..highly recommend: http://www.amazon.com/The-Lemon-Tree-Heart-Middle/dp/1596913436

 

[Frothingslosh]

Good catch, ALC.

What I see the progressive left chipping away at are:

• Officially sanctioned homophobia
• Officially sanctioned racism
• The right of the police to kill whomever they want without oversight or repercussion
• The Right's attempts to eliminate the entire First Amendment (via PATRIOT, pushes to put Creationism into schoolbooks, calls to track, exclude, and/or imprison people for their religious beliefs, etc)
• Officially sanctioned xenophobia
• The slow but ongoing corruption of Capitalism to American Capitalism, the conversion of the Republic into an Oligarchy, and the creeping institutionalization of economic serfdom
• The Religious Reich's ongoing attempts to convert America into a theocracy
• The GOP's relentless assaults on voting rights

If those are the US values Steve holds so highly, then I cannot help but argue that we're better off without those particular values.

 

[Libre]

Should probably be 'hatred of oppression and racism,...'

So right, Froth.
Was reading my post before I read your reply and laughed at the ambiguity of my compound series.
I fixed it before Blade or anyone else could go HA HA YOU IDIOT as if my meaning wasn't abundantly clear.

Reading this thread, it's abundantly clear to me that there are 2 kinds of people, and who is which kind.
It's easy to tell us apart.
There are peace loving, kind and tolerant, yet skeptical and critical thinking folks - like you and I, and the other feeeel gooood liberals - and then there's the other kind. I don't know how to bridge the gap and truly understand the opposite viewpoint.

 

[Alc]

Good catch, ALC.

What I see the progressive left chipping away at are:

• Officially sanctioned homophobia
• Officially sanctioned racism
• The right of the police to kill whomever they want without oversight or repercussion
• The Right's attempts to eliminate the entire First Amendment (via PATRIOT, pushes to put Creationism into schoolbooks, calls to track, exclude, and/or imprison people for their religious beliefs, etc)
• Officially sanctioned xenophobia
• The slow but ongoing corruption of Capitalism to American Capitalism, the conversion of the Republic into an Oligarchy, and the creeping institutionalization of economic serfdom
• The Religious Reich's ongoing attempts to convert America into a theocracy
• The GOP's relentless assaults on voting rights

If those are the US values Steve holds so highly, then I cannot help but argue that we're better off without those particular values.

But what is it that Steve sees as being eaten away? There has to be something, or he wouldn't be so concerned. We're not talking about Blade and the imaginary f*cking voices in his head preaching hatred, now.

 

[Steve R.]

1. What are official US values, as opposed to your own personal values? I'm guessing you see a lot of - if not total - overlap.

There is a lot of overlap. There is no set of "official" US values (despite our laws). For example, the US is supposed to be blind to racial preference, but racial preferences are still actively applied.

Additionally, free speech is selectively applied. If you are for LGBT rights, that is endorsed free speech that is profusely complimented. Verbally question LGBT rights, you are automatically designated a bigot. Even worse, you may be found guilty of hate speech and end-up in jail.

The progressive left also believes that laws can be selectively applied and selectively interpreted to serve their political objectives. From the concept that the US is a nation of laws this is wrong. (Of course the political left will not acknowledge this.)

Below is a ludicrous example of how convoluted are society has become in-response to the political lefts challenges of common sense. Mass. woman wins fight to wear colander in driver’s license by citing ‘pastafarian’ religion

2. Does that make people who feel differently about any of those American values un-American? Or is it only if every belief they hold differs? Up to what point are someone's beliefs allowed to differ from yours, before they stop being an American?

It depends to the extent that those moving to the US seek to be assimilated into US culture. Obviously there has to be a compromise in terms of accepting those moving to the US retaining many of their old customs/beliefs. Nevertheless, a "line" is crossed when a group, for example, demands that they are subject to Sharia law and not US law. Or that, because of their beliefs (Honor Killing as an example), that US laws do not apply to them.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Additionally, free speech is selectively applied. If you are for LGBT rights, that is endorsed free speech that is profusely complimented. Verbally question LGBT rights, you are automatically designated a bigot. Even worse, you may be found guilty of hate speech and end-up in jail.

Proof of someone being jailed for verbally questioning LGBT rights or be exposed for the liar you are.

Also, let's compare that fantasy to something that actually happened, like, say, five people being shot for daring to take part in a peaceful protest. I notice you have nothing to say against those three upstanding conservatives, so you must agree with their choice of action. After all, you hold all Liberals responsible for the actions of left-wing extremists, so you must obviously believe all Conservatives agree with the actions of your extremists.

And by the way, someone opposing LGBT rights is BY DEFINITION a bigot. It's right there in the meaning of the word.

The progressive left also believes that laws can be selectively applied and selectively interpreted to serve their political objectives. From the concept that the US is a nation of laws this is wrong. (Of course the political left will not acknowledge this.)

Again, prove it or be shown for the liar we all know you are. The only folks I see selectively applying laws are conservatives and cops, such as when they only decide to file charges against an officer who murdered his victim by shooting him 16 times in 17 seconds, 13 of which the victim was lying on the ground, and only after a 'liberal' judge forced them to release the video proving everything the police had been saying about the shooting was lies.

Below is a ludicrous example of how convoluted are society has become in-response to the political lefts challenges of common sense. Mass. woman wins fight to wear colander in driver’s license by citing ‘pastafarian’ religion

Ah, so now the law must abide by your definition of 'common sense' rather than an explicitly enumerated set of rules. Because you, personally, disagree with something, it shouldn't be allowed. Got it.

It depends to the extent that those moving to the US seek to be assimilated into US culture. Obviously there has to be a compromise in terms of accepting those moving to the US retaining many of their old customs/beliefs. Nevertheless, a "line" is crossed when a group, for example, demands that they are subject to Sharia law and not US law. Or that, because of their beliefs (Honor Killing as an example), that US laws do not apply to them.

Yet another spurious claim with no proof. There is no evidence whatsoever (and no, conspiracy theory sites run by hate groups are not evidence) that Muslims in the US have EVER demanded the implementation of Sharia law here; that is yet another lie trumpeted by Fox News in order to stir up the Islamophobia that works so well at keeping the GOP in office.

 

[Steve R.]

Proof of someone being jailed for verbally questioning LGBT rights or be exposed for the liar you are.

Also, let's compare that fantasy to something that actually happened, like, say, five people being shot for daring to take part in a peaceful protest. I notice you have nothing to say against those three upstanding conservatives.



Again, prove it or be shown for the liar we all know you are. The only folks I see selectively applying laws are conservatives and cops, such as when they only decide to file charges against an officer who murdered his victim by shooting him 16 times in 17 seconds, 13 of which the victim was lying on the ground, and only after a 'liberal' judge forced them to release the video proving everything the police had been saying about the shooting was lies.



Ah, so now the law must abide by your definition of 'common sense' rather than an explicitly enumerated set of rules. Because you, personally, disagree with something, it shouldn't be allowed. Got it.



Yet another spurious claim with no proof. There is no evidence whatsoever (and no, conspiracy theory sites run by hate groups are not evidence) that Muslims in the US have EVER demanded the implementation of Sharia law here; that is yet another lie trumpeted by Fox News in order to stir up the Islamophobia that works so well at keeping the GOP in office.

Yawn. Endless thoughtless ad hominem attacks.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Yawn. Endless thoughtless ad hominem attacks.

Only if you can't tell the difference between 'facts' and 'ad hominem attacks'.

Nice try though - you cannot defend your position, so you try to deflect.

 

[Libre]

Steve
Frothingsloth's rebuttal to your posts is precisely the opposite of "ad hominem" attacks. He is stating specific weaknesses in your arguments, pointing out the differences between your statements and reality, and is demanding that you support your statements with specifics.

He is not basing his objections to your spurious and fallacious arguments on your own character- or lack thereof - which is the definition of "ad hominem attack" in case you were unaware.

Not that Frothy needs me or anyone else to deflect your fallacious accusation- as he has already done so admirably, and in far fewer words than I just used.

 

[Steve R.]

Steve
Frothingsloth's rebuttal to your posts is precisely the opposite of "ad hominem" attacks. He is stating specific weaknesses in your arguments, referring to your own statements of supposed "facts" and is demanding that you support these accusations with specifics.
He is not basing his objections to your spurious and fallacious arguments on your own character- or lack thereof - which is the definition of "ad hominem attack" in case you were unaware.
Not that Frothy needs me or anyone else to deflect your fallacious accusation- as he has already done so admirably, and in far fewer words than I just used.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Libre]

You are entitled to your opinion.

The definition of ad hominem is not an opinion.

 

[Alc]

There is a lot of overlap. There is no set of "official" US values (despite our laws). For example, the US is supposed to be blind to racial preference, but racial preferences are still actively applied.

As are racial prejudices. Would you suggest the far left are eroding traditional values by favouring minorities, while the far right are upholding them by prolonging racial inequality? I mean, take away the 'values' bit and that is what's happening - the left is trying to address racial /gender inequality while the right is trying not to - but does it fit in with your 'values' point?

Additionally, free speech is selectively applied. If you are for LGBT rights, that is endorsed free speech that is profusely complimented. Verbally question LGBT rights, you are automatically designated a bigot. Even worse, you may be found guilty of hate speech and end-up in jail.

1. Surely, only the most extreme hate speech results in jail time? Unless you know of examples of people calmly speaking their mind in a reasonable manner and being sent to prison for it?
2. People can only go to jail if they break the law. Are you suggesting laws should only apply to people who agree with them?
3. These same laws protect the KKK, the Westboro Baptists, and other extremist groups. Do you think it's the far left that want these people to have a voice?

The progressive left also believes that laws can be selectively applied and selectively interpreted to serve their political objectives. From the concept that the US is a nation of laws this is wrong. (Of course the political left will not acknowledge this.)

This is arguably being done. Do you feel that this is something that Obama invented, and that it never took place under any Republican administrations? If not, why is it the Left that is actively eroding US values, as opposed to it being an ongoing process?

Below is a ludicrous example of how convoluted are society has become in-response to the political lefts challenges of common sense. Mass. woman wins fight to wear colander in driver’s license by citing ‘pastafarian’ religion

This is, indeed, ridiculous, but it has come about in response to having so many decisions affecting a nation as large as the US made based on religion. It's a (weak) protest against religion, not a dig at the far right (unless they're also religious).

It depends to the extent that those moving to the US seek to be assimilated into US culture. Obviously there has to be a compromise in terms of accepting those moving to the US retaining many of their old customs/beliefs. Nevertheless, a "line" is crossed when a group, for example, demands that they are subject to Sharia law and not US law. Or that, because of their beliefs (Honor Killing as an example), that US laws do not apply to them.

When has this ever happened in the West? People breaking a nation's laws are subject to those laws. There was an "honour killing" a little while back and in spit of the father's statement that it was his right to kill his daughter (for whatever bullsh*t reason his particular brand of sky fairy nonsense came up with), he was charged with murder. I saw numerous lies about parts of the UK being forced to adopt sharia law. All were untrue. I've also seen it about other European countries, none of which were substantiated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country
I can find plenty of urban legends links on extremist sites trying to get the public panicked, but no actual examples of this ever happening. Even in Belgium, where there a huge Muslim population, by percentage, the parliament was quick to limit any power Sharia law might have.

Also, I wasn't specifically referring to immigrants. You said the far left were eroding US values. so I wanted to know at what point you would get to decide that their beliefs aren't as important as yours, so they're no longer Americans?

 

[Frothingslosh]

The definition of ad hominem is not an opinion.

To be fair, I did call him a liar. I suppose it would have been more appropriate (in more ways than one) to say he is known to lie.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Also, I would like to point out one thing to our non-American participants.

Our First Amendment guarantees, among other things, the right to free speech. The ONLY legal exceptions to that freedom are incitement of rebellion, incitement to violence, libel and slander, and technically, 'fighting words'. Oh, and one last category I can't recall the name of, but it's when you yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Incitement of rebellion is pretty straightforward: If you go around calling on people to, right this very moment, take up arms and assault the government, then your speech is not protected (and you are liable to get arrested PDQ).

Incitement to violence, like incitement of rebellion, requires immediacy. "Someone should fight back when that happens" isn't incitement. "Let's go hang the bastard" is incitement to violence. Basically, to lose protection, the speech has to not only call for violence against people or property, but it has to call for it directly and within either a set time frame or immediately.

The 'fire in a theater' thing basically means you do not have the right to falsely cause a panic in a dangerous situation. It's incredibly vague and I'm not nearly legal scholar enough to lay it out for you appropriately.

In the US, not only does speech need to be false to be libel and slander, but there must be ill intent, and it has to be speech that the average person in its intended audience, in possession of all reasonable facts, would believe to be true. For public figures, there are even more restrictions on what is considered libelous - it has to be privileged information on top of everything else. There's a reason international libel cases are NEVER filed in the US.

'Fighting words' is less an exception and more a doctrine that means that the speech in question was so offensive and inflammatory that the average person would resort to violence in response. It is actually not seen much any longer, as it's generally used to justify an assault, and more and more, society refuses to accept violence as an acceptable answer to words.

Other than those exceptions, speech is absolutely protected from government obstruction. The KKK and WBC have every right to spread their message, as vile as it is. Bladerunner has every right to run around screaming to all and sundry that all Muslims are trying to kill everyone else, and Steve has every right to say whatever he thinks about Obama, justified or not.

That doesn't prevent SOCIAL consequences, nor does it prevent private entities from determining what may and may not be said in areas they legally control (like this website), and those are the consequences that are being discussed when people like Steve whine about those darn liberals calling them bigots just because they don't agree dem faggots should be treated like dey was actual people, or when liberals like myself get pissed because someone starts a boycott campaign against starbucks for not having a snowflake on their new cup.

(Yeah, my bias is showing. Sue me.)

The government cannot restrict your right to speak your mind, but individuals not only can, but will.

If Steve has ANY proof of individuals being imprisoned in the US for simply speaking out against LGBT rights without violating any laws, then I strongly advise him to notify the ACLU, because they LIVE to stomp all over the government for civil rights violations. I know people love to bash them as left-wing extremists, but their clients have included both the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church when those folks' rights had been unconstitutionally infringed.

The fact of the matter, to end this long post, is that, outside a few strictly defined exceptions, the government (federal, state, or local) MAY NOT restrict your speech in any manner, in any format. Unlike in Germany, you're free to deny the Holocaust all you want. Unlike in the UK, you're free to publicly say bad things about people as long as they're true. People may refuse to associate with you afterward, but that's always been the case when you publicly said things people found objectionable, be it that gay people are abominations with no rights, that black people are violent thugs looking only to ra** and pillage (that one's been going around since the US was the US), or that people should be allowed to drink after all. The GOVERNMENT, however, may not, may not take action against you unless you violate those exceptions.

 

[Libre]

To be fair, I did call him a liar. I suppose it would have been more appropriate (in more ways than one) to say he is known to lie.

Not precisely. You said words to the effect of: provide links or be exposed as the liar you are.
Not very chummy, but it's still not an ad hominem attack. Just insulting someone is not an ad hominem attack. That is a specific logical fallacy- one you did not actually commit. If you had said, we can't believe what Steve is saying, because everyone knows Steve is a liar - now THAT is an ad hominem attack and a very weak argument because you're attacking the man himself, rather than the substance of his arguments. But you in fact did address his points rather specifically- thus the charge of ad hominem is unfounded.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Not precisely. You said words to the effect of: provide links or be exposed as the liar you are.
Not very chummy, but it's still not an ad hominem attack. Just insulting someone is not an ad hominem attack. That is a specific logical fallacy- one you did not actually commit. If you had said, we can't believe what Steve is saying, because everyone knows Steve is a liar - now THAT is an ad hominem attack and a very weak argument because you're attacking the man himself, rather than the substance of his arguments. But you in fact did address his points rather specifically- thus the charge of ad hominem is unfounded.

Point.

I've apparently spent too much time here lately and not enough discussing things with people with at least a grounding in reality.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You know, I have to admit, I would love to see Bladerunner's insane troll logic on how Leviticus 19:33-35 doesn't mean what it expressly says, and how Jesus actually means that doing what it says is evil:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Added:

BLADERUNNER! *THIS* is what a good Christian does:

I left work at 3:30am, stopped for gas a speedway in Flint after a 12 hour shift. As I was pumping gas this man came running from behind speedway yelling, "sir! Sir! Can you help me?" I'm immediately on high alert, my adrenaline is pumping and I yell for him to stop where he is as he was drawing to close to me far to fast for a stranger at 3am. After all I am standing in the dark at 3am in the murder capital of this country. As he stops I see his clothes are tattered, his teeth are non existent, his coat was thin and he was wearing one shoe and a slipper that looked destroyed from miles walked on concrete. He seemed more scared than threatened. I won't try to lie, my heart was pounding and I was ready to go to war if need be. I was scared for a second. But as he spoke I felt less threatened. The guy had been kicked out of speedway hours earlier, was freezing and needed a ride to an abandoned house where he sleeps sometimes. He didn't ask, he begged for $2.... 2 f@cking dollars was all he wanted. I can't even explain the emotions I felt. I went from caught off guard to scared, to confused, to angry, to empathetic and lastly worried in a matter of less than 90 seconds. I'm sitting here with a tear in my eye typing this. What a messed up world we live in. As he talked and talked out of worry he wasn't convincing me he was being honest, I reached for my wallet. When I did he threw his hands up and screamed, "please do not shoot me sir!" Sir? I seriously felt like I was on a tv show or about to be punked. I told him to relax, to breath and I opened my money clamp. I had $22. The thought never crossed my mind to give him the $2. I gave him the whole $22 and told him to save the $2 for someone else he knows that is homeless. Whether he will or not I don't care. I put the idea of giving into his head at a time when we should all already be thinking it. I asked him to walk with me into the store. I let him fill a couple days worth of snacks, drinks, hot speedway food and a coffee into some bags he had and swiped it on my debit card and never once thought twice about how much booze he may have drank, if he was an addict, how many people he may have scared or harmed etc. Though it didn't start out appearing as such, I was given an opportunity to do something good; something I knew I would get nothing out of. But now that I'm home I realize I gained much more than I gave to this stranger. I realize I am now in a place where I can and should give more....and I will... He thanked me over and over, called me an angel (which I am not) and cried. At that point I had to get out of there or I was going to give him a credit card... As I left I called him a cab. Maybe I'm getting soft... Maybe working at a trauma center in flint is getting to me. Maybe becoming a husband and parent is making me more empathetic. Or maybe being blessed over and over and over and given chance after chance at life to accomplish my goals and live my dreams has made me HUMAN...

 

[Bladerunner]

I do believe the vetting process has been covered extensively earlier in the thread


I'm Jewish, so I know my history. And *gasp*, I still want peace

Have you ever read "The Lemon Tree" by Sandy Tolan..highly recommend: http://www.amazon.com/The-Lemon-Tree-Heart-Middle/dp/1596913436

Then you should know what God has in store for His people (YOU). Is that the reason you do not believe in him.. If you ignore him, he will go away. You more than anyone else know God helped Israel during the independence war of 1948 and again in the 6-day war, 1967 and the 1972-3 war. The enemy saw Armies of Angels and simply gave up.........You deny this....... Evidently I am more in tune with your people than you are.

May you have a nice Thanksgiving with your family.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

But what is it that Steve sees as being eaten away? There has to be something, or he wouldn't be so concerned. We're not talking about Blade and the imaginary f*cking voices in his head preaching hatred, now.

MY my,,,,we keep going further down in the gutter.........

Having said that,,,really hope you have a nice Thanksgiving Holiday!

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Proof of someone being jailed for verbally questioning LGBT rights or be exposed for the liar you are.

Also, let's compare that fantasy to something that actually happened, like, say, five people being shot for daring to take part in a peaceful protest. I notice you have nothing to say against those three upstanding conservatives, so you must agree with their choice of action. After all, you hold all Liberals responsible for the actions of left-wing extremists, so you must obviously believe all Conservatives agree with the actions of your extremists.

And by the way, someone opposing LGBT rights is BY DEFINITION a bigot. It's right there in the meaning of the word.



Again, prove it or be shown for the liar we all know you are. The only folks I see selectively applying laws are conservatives and cops, such as when they only decide to file charges against an officer who murdered his victim by shooting him 16 times in 17 seconds, 13 of which the victim was lying on the ground, and only after a 'liberal' judge forced them to release the video proving everything the police had been saying about the shooting was lies.



Ah, so now the law must abide by your definition of 'common sense' rather than an explicitly enumerated set of rules. Because you, personally, disagree with something, it shouldn't be allowed. Got it.



Yet another spurious claim with no proof. There is no evidence whatsoever (and no, conspiracy theory sites run by hate groups are not evidence) that Muslims in the US have EVER demanded the implementation of Sharia law here; that is yet another lie trumpeted by Fox News in order to stir up the Islamophobia that works so well at keeping the GOP in office.

in other words you are a certified card carrying left wing liberal extremist.

You too have a nice Thanksgiving Holiday.

Blade