The Beheading

[GoSox05]

The White House condemned the killings of the 21 Coptic Christians. What else do you want them to say? It was pretty obvious why they killed those 21 people. It's not the first time they've killed Christians. They have attacked all kind of religions. Mostly Muslim.

 

I can't help but feel like this is some sort of "Obama hates Christians because he is secretly a Muslim!"

 

Doesn't Newt Gingrich have a history of accusing the President of being a Muslim? He's crazy.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The White House condemned the killings of the 21 Coptic Christians. What else do you want them to say? It was pretty obvious why they killed those 21 people. It's not the first time they've killed Christians. They have attacked all kind of religions. Mostly Muslim.

 

I can't help but feel like this is some sort of "Obama hates Christians because he is secretly a Muslim!"

 

Doesn't Newt Gingrich have a history of accusing the President of being a Muslim? He's crazy.

 

Again, white cops are purposefully killing black teens because they're black and they admit it. Obama calls those actions "random acts of violence." That's acceptable to you? Because it's not to me. Even if it's widely known, i'd still like the mouthpiece for our entire country/people to actually state the facts and not be concerned with offending anyone while doing so.

 

This really has nothing to do with the nonsensical "is he a muslim terrorist/sympathizer" crap. It's a double standard when responding to racially charged issues here in the states versus abroad. He condemned the triple homicide in North Carolina and immediately stated that people shouldn't be targeted because of what they look like or who they pray to (doing so with the knowledge that a white dude killed 3 brown people, that's it).

 

If what The Atlantic author is saying is true, that this intentional, I cannot understand the logic behind it. It doesn't make the situation worse by stating the fact that extremists target specific religious people.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

The White House condemned the killings of the 21 Coptic Christians. What else do you want them to say? It was pretty obvious why they killed those 21 people. It's not the first time they've killed Christians. They have attacked all kind of religions. Mostly Muslim.

 

I can't help but feel like this is some sort of "Obama hates Christians because he is secretly a Muslim!"

 

Doesn't Newt Gingrich have a history of accusing the President of being a Muslim? He's crazy.

Well for one, I'd like them to say "hmmm, maybe bombing Libya and collapsing the government with no replacement plan wasn't the best idea. You know what? Maybe we should hold off on other middle eastern bombing campaigns until we have some plan for what to do with the place."

[Soxbadger]

Eh. Plans are never a guarantee. Sometimes you have to stop something bad and hope for the best.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Eh. Plans are never a guarantee. Sometimes you have to stop something bad and hope for the best.

Sure the last 4 times we've bombed countries in the middle east it's been an abject disaster, but 5th time's the charm.

[Soxbadger]

Sure the last 4 times we've bombed countries in the middle east it's been an abject disaster, but 5th time's the charm.

 

Perhaps you are familiar with technology that lets you view how the world would be if we did not bomb them?

 

Its always easy to say that things would be better if we did nothing.

 

Maybe the Civil War doesnt happen if the US doesnt declare independence from GB. Maybe there is no WWI or WWII.

 

I cant quantify which is better. I can say that eventually, no matter what we did, it would be up to the people in those regions to determine their own fate. So perhaps the US bombing accelerated the process, perhaps it did nothing. I dont know, but I dont generally believe that you stick your head in the sand and pretend that doing nothing solves all the problems.

 

[caulfield12]

This can go around and around forever.

 

Bill Clinton always says his biggest regret was no boots on the ground in Rwanda.

 

Why, because he felt it was an impossible political sell because of Somalia/Black Hawk Down.

 

 

Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia, etc.

 

If you want to go back further, you can look at the US/CiA assassinations of Allende, Patrice Lumumba and Che Guevara. How would South America or Africa be different had they been allowed to live?

 

For a more recent example, you should watch OUR BRAND IS CRISIS...about how a US pr firm (Carville/Greenberg, etc.) deliberately tried to re-elect and sustain a terrible dictator in Bolivia and the consequence that came about was Evo Morales as leader and a wave of socialism/populism/anti-Americanism breaking out all across South America.

 

If you prefer seeing how American corporate interests have probably even bigger negative impacts on the development of a country's infrastructure and growth, there's BIG MEN by the same documentary director, about how the US and European oil companies tried to exploit the first major deposit of oil reserves off the coast of Ghana...corruption in that government and its dealings with oil companies...and the spillover effect into Nigeria. Pretty eye-opening stuff.

 

At any rate, to summarize, there's no guarantee that BETTER will be the replacement. There's only the guarantee you're getting rid of one...but often when you attempt to manipulate/control a successor, that's where the US has typically tended to get into trouble foreign-policy wise.

[caulfield12]

http://news.yahoo.com/the-fight-against-ex...-171017296.html

 

Now that they're listening to Jenks and Fox News, what will conservatives have to complain about with this admin? Seems like they've finally reversed course to take his advice.

[Balta1701]

Its always easy to say that things would be better if we did nothing.

We're in a thread discussing how both our allies and our enemies are beheading hundreds of people and killing thousands of others.

 

Yeah, I think this is a particularly impressive case.

[Jenksismyhero]

No one else is at least critical of that? Seriously? Not at least an internal "yeah that's pretty f***ed up?"

[Soxbadger]

We're in a thread discussing how both our allies and our enemies are beheading hundreds of people and killing thousands of others.

 

Yeah, I think this is a particularly impressive case.

 

Well its completely irrelevant. We arent fighting ISIS because they behead people.

 

 

No one else is at least critical of that? Seriously? Not at least an internal "yeah that's pretty f***ed up?"

 

Im not sure what Im supposed to be mad about?

[Jenksismyhero]

http://news.yahoo.com/the-fight-against-ex...-171017296.html

 

Now that they're listening to Jenks and Fox News, what will conservatives have to complain about with this admin? Seems like they've finally reversed course to take his advice.

 

Yeah that justification still doesn't require him to call specific acts of violence against Jews or Christians "random." I can get, I suppose, not wanting to say these terrorists are actually Muslims following Islam, but not admitting that they are targeting specific religious groups is moronic.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well its completely irrelevant. We arent fighting ISIS because they behead people.

 

 

 

 

Im not sure what Im supposed to be mad about?

 

I wouldn't call it "mad," just upsetting.

 

When he talks about terrorist acts committed by Islamic groups like ISIS he's fearful of labeling them or talking about them in a factual way. We have terrorists specifically targeting a group of people (Christians or Jews) and he calls them "random" acts of violence. There was nothing random about either attack. They were both deliberate and the perpetrators admitted that.

 

Yet here at home he has no problem saying a crazy white guy that killed 3 brown people did so specifically because they were brown and Muslim with no basis for doing so.

 

Edit: just call a f***ing spade a spade, that's all i'm asking.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

I wouldn't call it "mad," just upsetting.

 

When he talks about terrorist acts committed by Islamic groups like ISIS he's fearful of labeling them or talking about them in a factual way. We have terrorists specifically targeting a group of people (Christians or Jews) and he calls them "random" acts of violence. There was nothing random about either attack. They were both deliberate and the perpetrators admitted that.

 

Yet here at home he has no problem saying a crazy white guy that killed 3 brown people did so specifically because they were brown and Muslim with no basis for doing so.

 

Edit: just call a f***ing spade a spade, that's all i'm asking.

 

Which is more important, calling out ISIS or stopping them from recruiting more soldiers with anti-American sentiment? It seems that slowing the creation of new hate groups would be a good idea.

 

There are still plenty of randomness about the murders. They aren't targeting specific people, they are crimes of opportunity. They don't want a specific Christian, anyone would do. If they find this person and not this person, no big deal, any random person will fill their needs. If they find them here and not there, no big deal taking them from any random spot is fine, and more terrifying. If you know they are only attacking churches, then stay out of churches, but their locations, times, etc are random.

 

Yes, some aspects are not random, but to say 100% not random is giving them too much credit for long term planning.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Do you have the actual quotes?

 

I can guess at the strategy behind it, but without seeing exactly what was said its mere speculation.

[StrangeSox]

I wouldn't call it "mad," just upsetting.

 

When he talks about terrorist acts committed by Islamic groups like ISIS he's fearful of labeling them or talking about them in a factual way. We have terrorists specifically targeting a group of people (Christians or Jews) and he calls them "random" acts of violence. There was nothing random about either attack. They were both deliberate and the perpetrators admitted that.

 

ISIS is targeting Christians, Jews, Muslims, Yazidis, basically anyone they come across. I don't know that Christians are any more threatened as a group than anyone else who isn't a radical Islamic millenialist are. So in a narrow sense, yeah, they're driven by anti-Christian sentiments, but they're also equally driven by a lot of other things. "Random" isn't exactly the right word, but focusing on discrete ethnic groups might limit understanding what is really driving them. The scope of their ethnic cleansing is pretty broad.

[Balta1701]

Link

In a 4,000-word speech, Jeb mentioned the word “Islamic” once, the word “Muslims” twice, and never mentioned the words “Islam” and “jihad” at all. In today’s GOP, that’s astonishing. For months now, the biggest Republican foreign-policy applause line has been that Barack Obama is too politically correct to talk about the problem with Islam. Ted Cruz likes to say that the 9/11 hijackers “weren’t a bunch of ticked-off Presbyterians.” And when he attacks the Obama administration for not defending freedom, the first examples he gives are of Christians persecuted in Muslim countries. Bobby Jindal warns against admitting into the United States “non-assimilationist Muslims [who] establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.” Mike Huckabee says that, “everything [Obama] does is against what Christians stand for, and he’s against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community.”

 

In today’s Republican Party, Islam has become the new evil empire. Lindsey Graham says, “We are in a religious war.” Bill O’Reilly says America is fighting a “holy war.”

 

But Jeb Bush, like his brother before him, wants no part of it. Sure, he talks about destroying ISIS. Yet he refuses to describe the fight in the religious and civilizational terms now common in his party. The reason: He’s not a populist. Republican elites are, in Walter Russell Mead’s phrase, “Hamiltonians.” They want America to guarantee a stable world order where commerce can flourish. That’s Jeb in a nutshell. He doesn’t want to call out Islam. He wants to patch up America’s ties to its old friends in Riyadh and Cairo. “We have to rebuild our relationships with allies and key relationships in the Middle East, including the Persian Gulf states and of course Egypt. We will not be successful unless we invest in the much-needed coalitions and partnerships and develop the personal relationships that make it possible to garner worldwide support,” he told the crowd in Chicago. Try rousing a crowd of Iowa caucus-goers with that.

 

In contrast to GOP elites, the Republican rank and file are “Jacksonians.” They’re not interested in managing far-flung regions. They’re interested in destroying the savages who threaten America, and then, heading home. In the words of Ted Cruz, who best articulates this Jacksonian impulse, America should “bomb [iSIS] back to the Stone Age.” It should “go in with overwhelming force and then get the heck out.”

 

Politically, the problem with Jeb’s Chicago speech is that it was about foreign policy. His rivals, by and large, are merely using foreign policy to express the sense of Christian victimhood and superiority that lurks just below the surface in today’s GOP. The storyline is familiar: Yet again, Christians are under attack from ruthless, totalitarian foes. Last year it was the Hobby Lobby case. Now it’s ISIS.

 

Jeb deserves credit. His speech was neither demagogic nor hateful. It was also painfully dull. It would not rouse a single grassroots GOP activist. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the media keeps treating him like the Republican mostly likely to be his party’s presidential nominee.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is more important, calling out ISIS or stopping them from recruiting more soldiers with anti-American sentiment? It seems that slowing the creation of new hate groups would be a good idea.

 

There are still plenty of randomness about the murders. They aren't targeting specific people, they are crimes of opportunity. They don't want a specific Christian, anyone would do. If they find this person and not this person, no big deal, any random person will fill their needs. If they find them here and not there, no big deal taking them from any random spot is fine, and more terrifying. If you know they are only attacking churches, then stay out of churches, but their locations, times, etc are random.

 

Yes, some aspects are not random, but to say 100% not random is giving them too much credit for long term planning.

 

I'd like an argument for how saying "these ISIS terrorists deliberately targeted non-Muslims, in this case [Christians/Jews]" will incite these f***ing crazy assholes to hate us more than just saying these are "random" attacks.

 

For the third time, i'll bring up my analogy that no one has responded to: White cops are targeting black teens and killing them. They admit that's what they're doing. The President doesn't bring up hate crimes or racism, he says it was just random acts of violence for fear of pissing off police/making people distrust the police more. Your response is, oh well, that's fine. Right? No, not a chance. And I wouldn't like that either.

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you have the actual quotes?

 

I can guess at the strategy behind it, but without seeing exactly what was said its mere speculation.

 

I linked The Atlantic article that went over it all. The yahoo story from a couple of pages ago also goes over it. This isn't a question of IF Obama said this or IF his words were taken out of context, it's whether the admitted White House policy of being vague about this stuff is appropriate.

[Jenksismyhero]

ISIS is targeting Christians, Jews, Muslims, Yazidis, basically anyone they come across. I don't know that Christians are any more threatened as a group than anyone else who isn't a radical Islamic millenialist are. So in a narrow sense, yeah, they're driven by anti-Christian sentiments, but they're also equally driven by a lot of other things. "Random" isn't exactly the right word, but focusing on discrete ethnic groups might limit understanding what is really driving them. The scope of their ethnic cleansing is pretty broad.

 

Fine, still doesn't prevent him from saying they were attacks against non-Muslims, or people who don't follow their perverted view of Islam. They're not just "random" acts of violence, no matter how you want to qualify it.

[Balta1701]

I'd like an argument for how saying "these ISIS terrorists deliberately targeted non-Muslims, in this case [Christians/Jews]" will incite these f***ing crazy assholes to hate us more than just saying these are "random" attacks.

 

For the third time, i'll bring up my analogy that no one has responded to: White cops are targeting black teens and killing them. They admit that's what they're doing. The President doesn't bring up hate crimes or racism, he says it was just random acts of violence for fear of pissing off police/making people distrust the police more. Your response is, oh well, that's fine. Right? No, not a chance. And I wouldn't like that either.

There's a big difference in this case. Saying that we're in a "holy war" or whatever people want him to say against Daesh could easily be viewed as making them even more legitimate as a religious group and as a direct adversary of the United States...helping their recruiting.

 

Calling out cops in that case hopefully wouldn't encourage more angry white people to found police forces.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's a big difference in this case. Saying that we're in a "holy war" or whatever people want him to say against Daesh could easily be viewed as making them even more legitimate as a religious group and as a direct adversary of the United States...helping their recruiting.

 

Calling out cops in that case hopefully wouldn't encourage more angry white people to found police forces.

 

Why does he have to go to the extreme and say we're in a holy war? Why can't he just be factual?

 

And at this point how are they not a legitimate group? They have a name. Its members perform these acts under that name. That strategy is just burying your head in the sand and pretending a problem doesn't exist.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I can totally understand being sensitive about calling these guys Muslims or Islamic followers or whatever without qualifying it to add that they are an extreme subset that should be differentiated from the hundreds of millions of Muslims out there that don't follow the nonsense they follow. I get that. I get that we should be careful about referring to Muslims generally.

 

But this strategy logically doesn't work to that end. Not being factual and purposefully muddling the facts in an attempt to prevent that sort of viewpoint is irresponsible, just like the opposite - claiming something is a hate crime/racist based on the fact that the victims were brown and the murderer was white - is also irresponsible.

[Balta1701]

Why does he have to go to the extreme and say we're in a holy war? Why can't he just be factual?

 

And at this point how are they not a legitimate group? They have a name. Its members perform these acts under that name. That strategy is just burying your head in the sand and pretending a problem doesn't exist.

Bombing them = pretending a problem doesn't exist?

[Jenksismyhero]

Bombing them = pretending a problem doesn't exist?

 

Acting like these guys are performing random acts against random people IS pretending a problem doesn't exist, whether you drop bombs on them or not.