Jump to content
imatfaal

Not again...

Recommended Posts

But your method of nipping the problem in the bud is threatening to murder people in reaction. The only way you don't murder people in reaction is if you assume that the threat of violence will deter people from ever committing an act that you will respond to.

Historically, that never winds up being the case, so you will have to murder innocent people in order to enforce this solution at some point.

You are correct. One of the best predictors that someone will kill someone or a group of people is that they know they will likely die during the attack. They also get the martyr status and passage to rewards in the afterlife. Considering consequences is not a reasonable deterrent. Especially when many turn to radicalization AFTER they have suffered great losses at the hand of western imperialism. Edited by Willie71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case he claimed to be an ISIS fighter and ISIS is reported to have claimed responsibility.

 

Where did you read that? I have only seen reports that he pledged allegiance to ISIS. But apparently there was bi evidence to any actual links (yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why wouldn't ISIS have claimed credit for the attack if that was the law? They get the propaganda advantage of the attack as well as the propaganda advantage of the world seeing the US execute 50 people in retaliation.

 

That seems like a win-win from ISIS's perspective.

Well that is a difference of opinion.. I think the opposite would prevail. It would have to be tried to see its effect.

 

Where did you read that? I have only seen reports that he pledged allegiance to ISIS. But apparently there was bi evidence to any actual links (yet).

It was on the TV news in NZ. I didn't read it, it was just reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what do we do if someone eventually calls our bluff? Execute innocent people? Or say "No, we were just saying that a deterrent, we would never actually do it"?

 

I'm confused as to what you are advocating we actually do in the event that someone breaks this "execute innocent relatives of the perpetrator" law.

Edited by Delta1212

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no clue whatsoever what the proposal is supposed to achieve, either. Except of course massive escalation that will be a very effective recruiting tool for the radicals. It is not that the threat of death drones has discouraged them much, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also not sure why this is being classified as just a "difference of opinion."

 

The person who nominally cares about the shooters family is the shooter. He is dead. ISIS is an organization that sets people on fire and executed its own people by dumping them in acid if they suspect them of being spies. The leadership could give two shits about the well-being of this guy's family.

 

You're banking on ISIS staying quiet and losing a propaganda opportunity in order to protect the lives of people that in all likelihood have nothing to do with them, are not helping them in any materially way and would serve as a huge coup for the organization in terms of recruitment and anti-US propaganda globally were the US to execute them for being related to the shooter.

 

That's an incentive for ISIS to take credit for more things, including attacks they aren't behind in any form, just to try to provoke a response. It's the opposite of a deterrent for anyone who isn't physically pulling the trigger, and anyone who decides to end their lives by killing dozens to thousands of innocent people is not someone whose mental stability I would bank on to the point of expecting a psychological deterrent to be effective in 100% of cases.

 

Given that, you will have been who carry out attacks in spite of this law existing. So are you advocating that we execute innocent people and why don't you think that won't be a huge gain for every one of our enemies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For every Muslim terrorist act there are 1.5 to 2 right wing terrorist acts in the US. Conservatives. It's getting tiring. Why can't they learn to be human?

The attack in Orlando was horrific. Regardless of the ideology of the shooter, so much suffering and misery. My heart goes out to all those affected.

Right wing terrorist attack definition?

Not to mention facilitating a suspected homegrown terrorist by advocating unfettered access to guns.

Everybody(most people) on either side of the gun argument have their facts wrong.

For gun owners, they aren't trying to take away your guns(some are).

For anti gun owners, we aren't saying give guns to everyone without any background checks what so ever.(once again, some are).

For the most part, these statements are true.

Now where ever you learned that that NRA wants to give away guns unfettered?

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what do we do if someone eventually calls our bluff? Execute innocent people? Or say "No, we were just saying that a deterrent, we would never actually do it"?

 

I'm confused as to what you are advocating we actually do in the event that someone breaks this "execute innocent relatives of the perpetrator" law.

Well the first thing would be to arrest the required number of relatives and or associates. That would give the FBI access to all sorts of private information that could confirm if they knew what was about to happen or if they had similar affiliations. Maybe we could grant leniency to those who are innocent.

 

I have always thought fighting back on their terms would be the best deterrent. That is just an opinion.

Edited by Robittybob1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first thing would be to arrest the required number of relatives and or associates. That would give the FBI access to all sorts of private information that could confirm if they knew what was about to happen or if they had similar affiliations. Maybe we could grant leniency to those who are innocent.

 

I have always thought fighting back on their terms would be the best deterrent. That is just an opinion.

Have their methods of fighting deterred us from attacking them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now where ever you learned that that NRA wants to give away guns unfettered?

 

Any measure to control access to guns is looked upon by the NRA and their cronies as "Obama wants to take our guns".

 

You are a thousand times more likely to be killed by your neighbor's negligence with guns than a terrorist.

 

Just how "safe" does that make you feel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have their methods of fighting deterred us from attacking them?

Are you talking about bombing them in Syria and Iraq? It is how you handle it back on the homeland I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any measure to control access to guns is looked upon by the NRA and their cronies as "Obama wants to take our guns".

 

You are a thousand times more likely to be killed by your neighbor's negligence with guns than a terrorist.

 

Just how "safe" does that make you feel?

Oh really? Evidence.

I already know about the neighbor part. But when there are 20000 times more neighbors then terrorists, don't you think that's biased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing terrorist attack definition?Everybody(most people) on either side of the gun argument have their facts wrong.

For gun owners, they aren't trying to take away your guns(some are).

For anti gun owners, we aren't saying give guns to everyone without any background checks what so ever.(once again, some are).

For the most part, these statements are true.

Now where ever you learned that that NRA wants to give away guns unfettered?

Right wing terrorist. Substitute radical Muslim for right wing or conservative. Same idea.

Well the first thing would be to arrest the required number of relatives and or associates. That would give the FBI access to all sorts of private information that could confirm if they knew what was about to happen or if they had similar affiliations. Maybe we could grant leniency to those who are innocent.

 

I have always thought fighting back on their terms would be the best deterrent. That is just an opinion.

Are you an Isis recruiter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing terrorist. Substitute radical Muslim for right wing or conservative. Same idea.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. When was the last time a right wing politician strapped a bomb to his back and ran out and blew some people up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry. When was the last time a right wing politician strapped a bomb to his back and ran out and blew some people up?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

 

It's been known for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already know about the neighbor part. But when there are 20000 times more neighbors then terrorists, don't you think that's biased?

Numbers are what kill people. You want to be safe focus on the statistics.

 

 

Can't say I'm surprised it was an assault rifle. Basically only limited by the number of bodies in front of it. Takes about a minute to raise a pistol and fire, in that time they could have emptied an entire 100 round magazine into a crowd. Glad NRA is fighting to keep us safe!

 

Somewhat worse, typical for armed security to be familiar with wearing body armor.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry. When was the last time a right wing politician strapped a bomb to his back and ran out and blew some people up?

 

How soon they forget Timothy McVeigh, "radical Christian" extremist. Funny how conservatives never use that terminology to describe the single most largest homegrown terrorist in US history, especially since the term "radical Islamic" rolls off their tongues at every opportunity.

 

He tore a page out of the conservative doctrine and paired it with NRA talking points to justify murdering women and children. According to CNN, his only known associations were as a registered Republican while in Buffalo, NY in the 1980s, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the Army. McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic. During his childhood, he and his father attended mass regularly. McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985. In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

 

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

 

"I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets"

 

"I'm not looking for talkers, I'm looking for fighters... And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn't "enforcing freedom" an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan did – and your family will lose"

 

"To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball and cry just because the victims want me to do that."

 

"If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war."

 

Are these true Christian core beliefs? No, of course not. I'm only suggesting the hypocrisy of neocons to be extreme toward one faith while turning a blind eye to the bad deeds another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did say politician. Not that it matters. Core point is the same, and he's simply not yet aware of it... At least not until corrected here. The question is whether these corrections will penetrate and whether his thinking on this will deflect closer toward reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly in Germany setting fire to asylum homes (luckily only a few cases with people inside) as well as the murders committed by the right-wing terror organization NSU were often not listed as acts of terrorism in a number of statistics. The latter presumably because the murders stretched over a decade and the former not being well-organized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did say politician. Not that it matters. Core point is the same, and he's simply not yet aware of it... At least not until corrected here. The question is whether these corrections will penetrate and whether his thinking on this will deflect closer toward reality.

Why politician is relevant is unclear to me. I brought up the right wing terrorist. Maybe there was an assumption that right wing meant politician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now where ever you learned that that NRA wants to give away guns unfettered?

 

 

"Unfettered access" was used. Nobody said "give away", other than you. Stop with the straw men

Oh, I'm sorry. When was the last time a right wing politician strapped a bomb to his back and ran out and blew some people up?

 

 

Politicians don't have to. They just pass laws (or fail to pass laws, depending on the situation) that exacerbate the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from WashingtonPost:

"Meanwhile, Sitora Yusifiy, Mateen’s ex-wife, said in an interview Sunday that he beat her repeatedly during their brief marriage and that Mateen, who was a Muslim, was not very religious and gave no indication that he was devoted to radical Islam."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.