Meanwhile ol' Bill is eye-fucking someone with incredible focus.

While I enjoy the idea that this is what's happening, who knows what/who he is focused on.

While I agree we have no idea what he's actually looking at...there aren't many things that inspire the lip-bite and subtle nod.

I don't know, he's got front seat to some pretty graphic porn there. A country hasn't been fucked on live television in a generation.

And you can't tell what Joe Biden might be doing just off-cam.

So...you're saying that Bernie was making a veiled reference to you and SE with the Steel(e) chair; that in his heart we were all at the inauguration?

I'm saying we may need to fudge the rules of succession a bit and leave more steel chairs laying around washington.

Jeebus Herbert Christ on a pogo stick - the damn thing sounded exactly like this -

Bane. Gotham is yours

I called it the America First Speech. They knew about this this it was not a accidental use of the term.

This post needs to be +10 Bad Porn. I'll go first.

I agree and haven't seen this done since I found the new SE...I'm in. Well shit I had already modded...sorry.

I think people have forgotten how this works.

To recap: the mod tag with the most instances determines the tag, while the scores sum to create the score. This means everyone upmodding needs to make sure they use differing upmods so that the "bad pr0n" tag has more instances than any one of the upmod types.
EX:
5 x -1 Bad Pr0n
2 x +1 Good
2 x +1 underrated
2 x +1 WTF
Yields +1 Bad Pr0n

Oh, did that happen today? I keep blacking out. Someone wake me for the midterms. Until then I'll be running my business from my bath tub while I play with toy horsies.

Getting closer...

At what cost?

I'm glad your religious bigotry has been sated, and morn for the loss of life it will cost.

Be willing to be the quote is already up on ISIS website.

I believe that calling islamic terrorism what it is will save lives.

Why do you feel lying about it will reduce the death toll?

Honest question.

Wondering if you, or anyone here, has an answer.

You make me wish for a -1 Stupid mod.

"I believe that calling islamic terrorism what it is will save lives."

How could it possibly?


"Why do you feel lying about it will reduce the death toll?"

In the first place nobody is lying...Secondly I'd lie in a New York Fucking Minute if I thought it would save even one life...it is called diplomacy

And why do Republicans who lie to the American people constantly worry about lying?.... Answer is they don't, it is just because you are such a bigot that you want to denigrate a Major religion so much you don't care who dies because of it....sad.

Thank you for you reply. But I am genuinely still confused.

You write:

"In the first place nobody is lying...Secondly I'd lie in a New York Fucking Minute if I thought it would save even one life...it is called diplomacy."

You seem to be saying, in the first six words, that nobody is lying, and then, in the next 21, that lying is the right approach, and will save lives.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think calling islamic terrorism what it is will save lives.

Do you have an unambigous position on this?

Not going to play this game with you.

Nobody is lying and you either say what you think the lie is or we end this....and ya if i thought a lie would work I've got no problem with lying.

And while you are at it explain how Trump insulting the faith of a 1/3 of the world helps anything or anybody.

You are aware of the distinction between lies of omission and lies of commission. The previous administration's refusal to use the term "Islamic terroism" is an example of the former. It is logical, as I have outlined elsewhere, to conclude that that misrepresentation had deadly consequences.

As I read through your comments, I can't quite figure out where you stand on that.

Can you please clarify?

I totally agree with calling a spade a spade. I am not sure I follow the logic in how that relates to saving lives or not.

Basically, before I can answer your question I'd need to know where your unambiguous statement is coming from?

Obama made a point of never referring to Islamic terrorism, this despite the fact that Islamic terrorism was a global scourge throughout his presidency. He went out of his way to defend his refusal to use the term "Islamic terrorism". He was manifestly wrong in doing so. He chose politically correct bullshit over clarity.

If you agree, as you claim, that we should "call a spade a spade", then you should celebrate, with me, in this narrow sense, Trump's rejection of obfuscation in favour of clear language and plain speaking.

Islamic terrorism is a very real thing. Let's call it what it is. It's axiomatic that identifying a problem is central to addressing it. That is how, in answer to your question, it "relates to saving lives or not".

You didn't answer the question, numbers. I agree that terrorism is a problem, I agree that we should call Islamic terrorism exactly what it is, we should do the same for all terrorism. Terrorism is an attempt to enforce a political ideology by fear, it does no one any good to be blindingly ignorant what that ideology is.

However, what you haven't given me is what I asked for. I don't rightly care what you call it, though I will make fun of the logic in trying not call it what it is... I just don't see how it relates at all to saving lives. Can you show me a life that would have been saved if we labelled all terrorism from a Fundamentalist Islamic source as Islamic?

"We should call Islamic terrorism exactly what it is."

Me too. That is the entirety of what I have been saying.

Have a great weekend.

Ok, you've still sort of missed the mark here man. I am sorry.

He can't, the weak minded fool

Might I humbly offer this; https://jrbenjamin.com/2015/03/06/maajid-nawaz-why-not-calling-isis-islamic-hurts-muslim-reformers/

I'm not sure it answers your questions specifically, but it comes close.

And thank you for the link, and might I humbly offer this fun fact about Mr. Nawaz:

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists Maajid Nawaz as an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist', this despite the fact he runs a counter-extremism think tank.

Oh yeah, I've been seething about this for some time. Ayaan Hirsi Ali also made the list, which bespeaks an ethical blindness that ought to earn one the "Noam Chomsky award for Moral Confusion" which I just invented.

Brandeis University backed off giving her an honorary degree for the same perceived sins.

As for the SPLC, they jumped the shark some time ago. There are enough bad guys in the world without inventing them.

I'm curious, would a "Noam Chomsky award for Moral Confusion" preclude him from being a recipient?

No. He should get ten.

I get what he is saying there, and it many ways mirrors my own stance.

What I am not seeing is the lives being saved. I am seeing the call for clarity, and sanity.

With respect, I believe I did address the issue of saving lives.

I said that it was axiomatic that identifying a problem is central to solving it.

You may disagree with that formula, but most people, I think, would agree with the proposition.

If you can't call a thing what it is, you are less able to deal with it effectively.

I am an atheist, in the same way Christopher Hitchens was, and Sam Harris (whom you've obviously brushed up on) and they, and I will absolutely agree with your sentiment on grounds of sanity.

Harris might even twist himself into a pretzel to accept your tortured logic in how "calling it Islamic terror saves lives." Hitchens would make exactly the point I am going to.

I am just going to point out that believing something without any solid reason is exactly the reason de entre. There is absolutely no evidence that calling islamic terrorism has or could save anyone's life. It certainly would make combating terrorism easier in intellectual circles, but jihadist are hardly exploding themselves in rooms full of sceptics (yet.)

In every real sense fighting "terrorism" is fighting "islamic terrorism" too. That's just true. I am sorry to say that I care far more about combating the issue that I do about a mostly meaningless and symbolic war of phrasing. If I am going to make fun of people who are too PC for being scared of words that effectively get across meaning, I am going to get on the case of non-PC people who seem to think that a sudden outbreak of realism in words is some how going to have any kind of effect other than in their own feelings.

This is an undeniable fact...

Counterterrorism experts warn that Trump’s them-against-us approach both encourages extremists and makes it harder to detect their plots, by discouraging cooperation from moderate Muslims. The likely result is a dangerously escalating cycle of attacks and reactions that fuel more attacks.

Framing it is one religion vs. another is not only wrong it is dangerous. And numbers is not going to show anything to back his bullshit because..it is bullshit. This is CRUSADER Speak...get used to it.



' “ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad,”

This is now the basis of US foreign policy.

Read the Koran sometime. It really is "us vs them" to anyone actually following the book. ISIS may not be popular, but they are sure as fuck Islamic.

They are Islamic as the KKK is Christian. ISIS is just an end of the day cult who uses the trappings of Islam to recruit members. Calling the violence in the Middle East and Africa Islamic is akin to calling all Christians Racist or screaming pedophile every time you see a priest.

The point is it will do nothing to end the problem and will make people hate you that otherwise would help you eliminate the threat. But most importantly is is done by another end of days cult (Christians) out of bigotry and hate.

"

Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated global group of churches and individuals devoted to a racialized theology which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, making them God's chosen people. It has been associated with groups such as the Aryan Nations, the Aryan Republican Army, the Army of God, the Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. It has been cited as an influence on a number of terrorist attacks around the world, including the 2002 Soweto bombings"

It's not the trappings, it's the direct doctrine. Read the damn books. I hold Christians to the same standard, however I can tell you the difference in length of the book means it much easier for Christians to find loopholes to justify not being dicks.

And yeah, The Covenant and Army of God types? Those are also Christians who understood what Jesus was saying when he said he came with a sword. When those people do terrorist shit, lay it at the feet of the doctrine - Christianity.

Point is...again. Calling it ISLAMIC TERRORISM...doesn't hep shit is dangerous and motivated by religious bigotry.

You don't fight these sorts of idiots by not confronting the shit out of them and people just somewhat like them.

The reasons Christians stopped blowing up abortion clinics is because people starting saying that's what Christians do. Point out this awful shit justifications to them, and it becomes their own interest to moderate.

And I get there are still plenty of attacks on clinics and other targets that offend Christians, but it's been awhile since I've seen a letter-bombing campaign.

"Really, Peter? You want to bomb an abortion clinic? Could you be anymore cliche?"

Disaster Averted! 😂😂😂

We are just going to have to disagree on this one...I think it is counterproductive to lump all Muslims under the terrorist umbrella and that is that phrase does.

We're never going to get rid of religion, or dangerous fundamentalist. If there was a God, I'd thank him everyday for the fact that billions of his followers don't do exactly what he asks them to do and murder us all like lambs.

The only way this problem gets fixed, is to address it's root. Now, I am not going to tell you that suddenly calling it Islamic Terrorism is going to make us safer. Like I said, we're never getting rid of these people. But on the same hand, you're not getting rid of these people. You had better understand them. Even if you share a religion with them, you should understand where it's coming from.

That said, our rhetoric here doesn't change how they confront terrorism there. At best, you can claim ISIS attacking Paris and such on "inflammatory language." That doesn't change the fact that the fight is most often within the borders of people who share the same basic faith. Do you think those people are lumping all Islam in with terrorist? Has it saved them from being attacked?

It's magic thinking. While I think it would ultimately be helpful for muslim nations to confront this and prove that Islam is not the mideveal barbarism that is found within it's documents... they will only be offering themselves as targets which hasn't stopped these people so far.

You are acting like any of this is based in reason...its not. It is superstition all of it.

One end of days cult throwing insults at the other. I wish we could make them all go away...but we can't we are less than 10% of the world. Like you said lots of people have made the logical case...it don't work.

The idea is to keep the death toll down.

George Carlin- The God Question


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-WWXTpH0E0

I know you didn't ask for a history lesson, but this has been our fight for awhile now. The Treaty of Tripoli was signed under the idea that since we are not a Christian nation, muslim terrorist pirates had no cause to invade us citing the Crusades.

So instead they cited the Quran, and one of the first things we did as nation on the international stage was to kick their asses until they stopped capturing and killing our people. You are not going to keep the death toll down by calling it what it is. Just like you're not going to raise it by dancing around it either.

People with guns, power, and ready built mind control will try to take over every fucking chance they get. It's simply far more sane to understand the "why?" of terrorism. You don't do that by ignoring the fact it's a political statement, and you need to understand those politics if you want to fight them.

Epsiode Name: Red Mass

Character quote: Leo (the President's Chief of Staff)
It's that I don't know what winning looks like. What does it look like. Is it... I mean, is it
honestly the U.S. flag flying over Mecca? Is that what's going to straighten this out? And if
that's the case, why are we postponing that? What are we hoping is going happens in the meantime

I am not going to promote an all out war on a religion. I am just saying the people that are calling for all out war on us don't care if we make such a distinction.

I have no hope of effecting what they do. It is the vast majority of Muslims who are not at war with us that concern me, and by lumping they in with the likes of ISIS does nothing but harm and relieve pent up anger from the right and the left it would seem.

Harris doesn't twist himself in knots to say this, he banged on about it for months. Here's what he suggested Hillary might have said on the topic; (before the election)

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/what-hillary-clinton-should-say-about-islam-and-the-war-on-terror

Hitch wasn't reticent on the topic either. He was indirectly responsible for coining of the phrase 'Islamofascism' though what he said was 'fascism with an Islamic face' (referencing the Czech Dubcek's quip about 'socialism with a human face')

For what it's worth, here's how I see the connection between honest clear speech and the saving of lives; As Maajid mentioned, if we don't speak about 'Islamism' as the problem, then people will jump to thinking that 'Islam' is the problem. This lends credence to the far right's narrative, leading to potentially dangerous swings to the right in the west. This could lead to revenge attacks against innocent Muslims in the west, and misguided military adventurism overseas. Distinguishing Islamism from Islam also pulls the rug out from under the feet of the Islamist preachers who say that their version is the only 'real' Islam.

We simultaneously create a space for moderate Muslims to occupy when they critique the regimes under which they live, or have lived. This could (I contend) steadily erode the nastiness of many backward regimes who see Islamism as a useful political tool to wield to subjugate their populations, while also perhaps fracturing the extent to which they collectively identify with the Umma as a geopolitical counterweight to the west. If we can facilitate a conversation within Islam that moderates its political aspirations even slightly we might ameliorate, or even indefinitely postpone, a conflict that could cost many lives.

Granted, there are lots of 'ifs' and 'maybes' but considering the stakes the potential good is vast.

You might want to listen to Sam Harris recently: https://youtu.be/dNVtfzyZtTE?t=4m42s

Hitchen's absolutely tied Islam to fascism, because fascism is commonly at the root of theocracy. He said many times "you could remove the word fascist from every European government that took part in the Holocaust and just as easily be correct calling them Catholic."

He's demand you call it what it was, which Islamic terrorism. He'd likewise tell you to call abortion clinic bombing Christian terrorism. But don't tell me he'd expect anyone to accept that just changing a word would make things better. When you boil down the PC vs non-PC phrasing arguments both sides believe this stupidity. Both sides are pretty wrong.

To the fundamentalist, it makes no difference what we might call their terrorism. Their still going to believe we are fucking heathens worthy of hellfire and slavery. Being nice about or being direct about changes that not a bit. As far as the moderates, this is also their problem. While everyone has been careful not to call terrorism inspired by Islamic doctrine Islamic, we still had attacks. And guess what? When countries call it what it is, they also get attacked.

Fundamentalist, of all stripes, primarily fuck up their OWN countries. Do you really think they give a shit what moderates think? If moderates start speaking out against them in greater numbers, I imagine they will just start blowing people up in greater numbers.

We could have a contest. mookie mcmookface?