ISIS has come to implement Islam, by the book,

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by yasureoktoo, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, let’s not waste time pretending we have a way of determining a person’s morality by a simple QA you’ll have to admin to every passport holder who tries to come into the country. That is the fallacy of the right. They look for simple solutions that won’t interfere with the wealthy donors who control legislation. You guys play right into their hands.

    The biggest thing the controlling interest on the right fear, is education. Not education from fallacy based religious institutions, but from science based factual institutions. Behavioral sciences should be at the foundation in dealing with terrorism, not just anti religious rhetoric. Spend as much time worrying about the domestic far right terrorism as you do Islamic terrorism, maybe enlightened people will take your suggestions more seriously.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand what you are trying to say - with respect to determination of morality. It is not easy nor will it be that difficult to game the system. What you are missing however, is the ideological point of trying ... a point that is far more about Education and public policy .. than figuring out what question to ask.

    Connecting this public policy - and education - to playing into the hands of the wealthy donors who control legislation - is not necessarily true. I am not a fan of the right - so am not part of "You guys" - hence why you find "Those guys" freaking out on me in this thread.

    As you correctly state in the second paragraph - it is education that is the threat. On the surface this would contradict your previous claim as "education" is what this is about. The reason the MSM refuses to distinguish between Islam - and an Islamist - is because they do not want to educate the US public in the difference as such education would challenge certain "necessary illusions" = the illusion that we follow the founding principles = 1) essential liberty is "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't and 2) that authority comes from we the people.

    It is not just the right that fails to challenge this necessary illusion - the left is just as guilty. You can not educate people in the difference between an Islamist and Islam - without challenging this "necessary illusion".

    Abortion for example: While we can debate Abortion from a moral perspective - there is no legitimate debate from a legal perspective - if one understands the founding principles (from the Declaration) - principles by which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted.

    Fact: There is no "consensus" among subject matter experts that a zygote (single human cell at conception) = a living human. In fact - the opposite is true. There are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins (never mind proving a human exists at this point): Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. Only one points to "conception" as the beginning (genetic) and while popular with the general public - this perspective has fallen out of favor among subject matter experts for reasons I will not get into.

    Fact: "Experts Disagree" = "We don't know"

    So while we can debate the moral question - from a legal perspective - it is preposterous nonsense to make law on the basis of "we don't know"/ "we don't know otherwise" - this would violate so many principles of justice it is not even funny.

    Then from a "Legitimate authority perspective" = messing with essential liberty requires overwhelming consent - at least 2/3rd majority. Good luck with that. It is not even close to an overwhelming majority that want a complete ban on abortion in this nation.

    Utilitarianism - this is one of the favorites on the left. Justification for Law on the basis of "what will increase happiness for the collective". Then you get fallacious Utilitarianism which is even worse. This justification has no regard for - does not consider - essential liberty. It is not part of the calculation. This justification for law then allows for an end run around the safeguards which protect essential liberty.

    You also have the problem of "who gets to decide" - one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

    For example - "If it saves one life" as justification for law / "Harm Reduction". We hear such arguments all the time - Pot/ war on drugs, Sugar, Insurance, war on terror, and for a gazillion other things... and people accept this justification as valid.

    but is it ? If "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? would we not save one life ?

    What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it - one of the most dangerous things one can do.
    In fact one should probably not rise out of bed the morning as one might fall and break neck.

    This is a very insidious justification for law because it sounds good on the surface _ Who does not want to save one life ?

    In reality what this justification does is increase the power of Gov't , allow for and end run around essential liberty - and put us on a path towards a quazi totalitarian police state.

    Since the Establishment (both red and blue) is all about power and control - they do not want to educate people in these principles.

    You say "worry more about the domestic far right terrorism". I do ! and have consistently pointed this out to you. Never mind terrorism though. The risk of harm to a US citizen from a terrorist attack is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking". You have double the chance of being hit by an Meteor.

    The real risk of harm to the US citizen is coming from within - not from the outside. In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens (not that they had not been engaged in this previously).

    12 years of school and we fail to teach a kid the basic principles on which this nation was founded.

    Freedom of Speech/ Information is under serious attack. The right to privacy is under attack. The MSM is a propaganda arm of the state. The rule of law is under attack as are the principles of Justice. We have a political system that is mostly controlled by big money interests.

    If this sounds like what happened in the lead up to Tyranny/Totalitarianism throughout history - you would be correct. Did you not notice who our President is ? Trump however is not the problem, Trump is a symptom of a much bigger problem. Its like when Italy elected a porn star into public office - mind you she was not "President" - nor was this the more influential nation on the planet.

    It is not that I don't care about immigration policy - I do but, this desire to educate people in the founding principles has nothing to do with being worried about Muslims and almost nothing to do with being worried about Islamist terrorism or right wing extremist terrorism.

    It has everything to do with the canaries in the coal mine of tyranny - screeching at the top of their lungs.
     
  3. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a lot of people involved. 3 branches of gov't. And the ballot box. Sure, nothing is 100%, but, it's awful tough to change the constitution, even to amend it is hard.
    And our laws have been becoming more secular and less based on some religion.
    I doubt we'd be moving back towards religious laws.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  4. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Forget for a moment that we’re dealing with a particular religion, which is constitutionally wrong at points if entry, but we’re also asking thousands of innocent people to participate in an exercise that’s invasive to their intellectual privacy that everyone is entitled to.

    When coming to America, where terrorism is involved, you should not be immune from questions involved in some behavioral activities that infringes upon the rights of others. This gives you the basis to form legitimate means of keeping the potentially “ bad guys” out.

    Behavior can be quantified, researched and testified to. That’s what questions should be based upon. In legitimate security, they are.

    The idea that you can use questions at a security entrance to educate people, is false canard if that’s what it’s only about.
    People coming through points of entry have to exhibit and explain their past, present and future behavior as that can be quantified and observed. We do it for everything else, we do it for security.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The purpose of public policy is not to educate the people coming through the border (albeit they should be educated as well in the founding principles - the idea that we should not do this is silly) The purpose of public policy is to educate the raging masses in the US .. and those that are not raging :)
     
  6. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Raging masses ? Sounds like more fear mongering. I guarantee, that the vast majority care more about affordable healthcare for themselves then having the govt badger Muslims.
    I guarantee also, that the average liberal has a better handle on the constitution then far right extremeists. .
     
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nothing fear mongering about the term "raging masses".

    I guarantee you that both Red and Blue Establishment have no respect for the founding principles - principles on which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted. Stating which one is worse is like comparing Stalin to Pol Pot.
     
  8. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let’s get off our high horse and stop referring to the constitution when it suits you then paying in no mind when you want to violate people’s rights by discrimination by religion, morality and bothering travelers with questions without relevancy.
    I’m sure the term “raging masses” is not found in the constitution. It’s fear mongering. There are no raging masses. The only masses that are upset, are those concerned with healthcare, taxes and getting a good paying job.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't generally refer to the constitution. You are confusing the Constitution with the founding principles. There is a difference.

    I don't discriminate by religion. As stated to you 5 or 6 times now. The Test I have been suggesting is not a religious test. That you can not comprehend this reality is not my problem.

    The "raging masses" is an economic/historical term used to describe the uneducated mob. . The idea that using this term is "fear mongering" is silliness.

    No idea why you mentioned the obvious fact that the masse are upset about healthcare, taxes and getting a good paying job. The idea that this is all the masses are upset about is a demonstrable falsehood.
     
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If raging masses represents an uneducated mob, just say uneducated peoples. We all get who they are.....Trump followers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are not a Trump follower ? What is your excuse ?
     
  12. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny. Dont throw stones. You belong to the most delusional political group of people in the entire world, not believing in made climate change and thinking religious beliefs are measurable...or even relevant in govt.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What stones .. you made a fallacious generalization about all Trump supporters being ignorant and I merely thew the stone you threw back in your lap - which then cause you to throw a whole bunch of stones - basically proving my claim correct.

    So once again - you inferred that all Trump supporters were ignorant - what is your excuse ? Half of your responses to me contained strawman fallacy - accusing me of things I did not say. This kind of fallacious gibberish is stupid would you not say ... or is it that you do not understand what your fallacy is aka (are ignorant of what fallacy is - at least the strawman kind).

    Then in some kind of mindless rant - you double down on strawman fallacy.

    So what is this ignorant political group - "most ignorant in the entire world" that I belong to ? Feel free to throw out insults all you like but at least tell me what this group you are referring to is - so I know not to continue associating with them ! You don't say what this group is but I assume you mean "Trump Supporters" since you said all these people were ignorant.

    The problem is - I am not part of that group. I hate Trump and bash the heck out of him on this forum on a regular basis. You really need to stop falsely accusing others of your made up nonsense. That by the way is what strawman fallacy is. Now go and learn.

    Then you make some really off the wall nonsensical comment about me not believing in man made climate change. Since we never discussed this topic - I have no idea where you get this from - and nor is it true. Strawman 2. I spent over a decade cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater (as a research scientist and project manager) - often using cutting edge techniques such as bioremediation - a technique which actually cleans up the contaminant rather than moving it from one place to another - "dig and dump"

    I have never been a denier of mans contribution to climate change and have extensive knowledge of the subject - and the academic credentials to actually understand the material.

    Strike 3 I never claimed that religious beliefs were measurable ? What nonsense is this. Obviously you can tell what someones religious beliefs are by what they say and/or write but - what you are talking about is nonsense.

    Last (the only comment in your entire post that is not strawman fallacy) - Of course religious belief is relevant to holding political office - especially in the case where ones religious beliefs will impact one's political decisions. Any belief- religious or otherwise is relevant to political office - if that belief will impact one's political decisions.

    For someone who goes around generalizing about the ignorance of whole groups of people - aka - throwing stones - you sure do live in a glass house. Talk about pot calling kettle black on steroids.

    3 strawman fallacies - and the only claim that was not fallacious gibberish was uninformed nonsense - and you run around calling others "ignorant". Priceless :)
     
  14. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ignorance does not mean stupid. It means a person is just unaware of the facts or simply pretends not to be. You want to go through life throwing your lot in with some one or group who Doesn’t believe in science, fine. Just don't expect to be taken seriously....


    Anyone who follows Trump around like he actually knows what he is doing, has to decide what kind of a descriptive term they want to be called by. None will sound very good.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
  15. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  16. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know what ignorant means ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
  17. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct - and I used the term properly so why are you blubbering on about the meaning of the word. You are completely unaware of what strawman fallacy is = ignorant of what strawman fallacy is.

    I agree that you seem to be pretending to be unaware of the obvious throughout our conversations - I doubt it is all about not knowing - although you do seem to have no clue what strawman fallacy is.

    Why you are going on about not believing in Science - I have no clue .. we have never discussed science - and given that I have been a research scientist for decades- your comment certainly does not apply to me.

    With respect to being taken seriously. Your last post contained 3 strawman fallacies and the one comment that was demonstrable nonsense. How you expect to be taken seriously with posts containing nothing but strawman and demonstrably false nonsensical gibberish .. I do not know.

    OK -but, how was Obama any better with respect to significant issues ? Perhaps Obama knew what he was doing more than Trump but, how did this make Obama better if what Obama was doing was bad - and Obama knew it was bad - turned his back on everything he previously believe in - knowingly armed Al Qaeda (the 911 terrorists) and others of the same Ilk in Syria - with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment - stuff like surface to air missiles - perfect for taking out civilian airliners.

    Don't take offense but - most people are "ignorant" of the how truly corrupt and nasty the Establishment in this nation is - and the Establishment is both red and blue.

    Not sure what your measurement stick is - or if you even have one. One of my measures you already know - if a politician knows the difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

    You seem to hate that measurement stick - which shows a either a lack of understanding or a lack of respect for the founding principles. Not sure which is worse.

    OK fine - lets use another measurement stick. How about arming the 911 terrorist group with sophisticated military technology - and other extremist Islamist Jihadists of the same ilk - an action which led to the worst humanitarian crisis so far this decade, 500,000 dead, the refugee crisis, and the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS.

    Surely a majority in congress would disagree with arming and supporting Al Qaeda right? I mean really ... if a congressman/woman can not meet that bar ..they truly are "human garbage" wouldn't you say ?

    The "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" - a bill which proposed prevent this from happening again - garnered only 14 co-sponsors (albeit bipartisan) in the House - out of 435. When Rand Paul introduced this bill into the Senate ? - Zero co sponsors were received.

    Next time you want to point fingers at Red - even though you might be 100% correct - you should also look at the Blue flaws.

    So in closing - you say - all those who support Trump are "Ignorant" ... OK .. what about all those who support politicians who are in favor of arming Al Qaeda - with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military technology ? Since this is almost every Blue in congress what does this say about supporters of the Dems ? .
     
  18. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How did all this bullsh-t get on a thread about ISIS..
    start your own thread.
     
  19. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever you say internet policeman.
     
  20. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot of party loyalty babbling going on but realistically, none of it makes any sense. There is no comparison between trump and really, any president before him. ISIS was founded in the backs of GOP decisions. Deal with it and stop blaming everyone .
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2019
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Babbling ? I am not the one that keeps making completely out of the blue accusations and ignoring reality in some blind partisan haze.

    Of course ISIS in Iraq was founded on the backs of GOP decisions What does Bush being responsible for ISIS in Iraq have to do with the Obama Admin arming Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups in Syria with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military technology in Syria ?

    You are the one that is trying to Blame Bush for Obama's actions. Once again you are projecting your flaws onto others.

    I call a spade a spade. I was critical of the Iraq war from the beginning - and am currently in a debate with a poster who is trying to claim that the Bush admin did not lie our way into war - a claim that is demonstrably false. As the evidence builds against his case "in the form of a mushroom cloud" the poster goes into deeper and deeper levels of denial - pretty much to the point of declaring that water is not wet.

    You are not quite there yet but getting close - same partisan blindness - just different sides of the fence. I could list the absurd things you have accused me of - but, you already know what they are. Things that were not even discussed and have no relation to the topic - next you will be accusing me of shagging Stormy Daniels or some such thing.

    This is mindless psychobabble - akin to the reaction of some religious zealot when they come across factual information that conflicts with religious belief. Symptoms of this "thought stopping reaction" are characterized by the adherent doing everything in their power to avoid the "Bad Thought" - avoidance - denial (on the level of denial that water is wet) and the classic favorite - demonization of the messenger.
     
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You’re all over the map trying to rationalize the idea that religion and morality can be measure and quantified I guess ? . Isn’t this suppose to be about terrorism ? Yes, you are ignoring reality like anyone tied to the apron strings of Faux and Heritage.
     
  23. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the last post you blamed Bush for Obama arming and supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS. I then pointed out the obvious flaws in this reasoning. In response you completely switch topics - level some made up accusation at me that has no basis in fact and nothing to do with Obama's support for Islamist extremists.

    This is completely all over the map - and an attempt to avoid reality - the reality that your argument made no sense.

    Then you accuse me of being all over the map and ignoring reality.

    This is textbook Projection disorder but fear not - help can be found here https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection
     
  24. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama didn’t support going into Iraq, only chasing OBL.
    Once in, pulling out was slow and tedious. But we did get out and draw down. You have only to look at the facts. Next, you’ll blame Obama for Bush's recession. Obama was head and shoulders over Bush and Trump in understanding the world stage. Both of the peer Republican presidents had the mentality of mature cucumbers.

    So let’s get real. Trump and the Gop by Trumps own admission, luv the uneducated. That means, they luv support of people who aren’t fact based when it comes to terrorism....and just about anything else.

    To hear the gop, you’d think ISIS was coming up from Central America.

    . You should be giving equal time HOMEGROWN to right wing extremism which fear mongering promotes.
     
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you post some information has nothing to do with Obama arming Al Qaeda in Syria- then accuse me of saying something I never said - something that has little or no relation to Obama arming Syria ... then go on some name calling rant on the basis of something I never said. Classic Strawman fallacy.

    Then you go on about Trump - Something which has nothing to do with Obama arming Al Qaeda and the rebel extremists that coalesced into the modern incarnation of ISIS in Syria

    Then you go on about the GOP xenophobia - again having nothing to do with Obama arming Al Qaeda in Syria.

    Then - to finish off - you build another strawman by accusing me of not giving equal time to home grown extremism.

    What is it that you would like to discuss ? - and is it possible for you to have a discussion without accusing the other of things they did not say ?
     

Share This Page