Quote:This is your quote, not mine: Imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means"
Proxy wars, Coups, covert insurrections, direct military invasion. How do these not fit the above definition of "extending influence" or use of "military force, or other means". Again, I am not stating that this is an American thing, pretty much all of the major players have done it, and even some of the lesser ones like Iran. But the U.S. does have a long history of such actions, so what seems to be your claim that we do such things out of the goodness of our hearts (while not invading, committing coups against, or otherwise 'extending or influence' against countries that are equally oppressive but more aligned to our geopolitical goals )seems to ignore reality..
My first paragraph that you quoted states the distinction in motivation as I see it.
Quote:Also, this may be off topic and a little old but I don't want to rake through pages in this thread about Omar's alleged ISIS relation.
Let's consider the following:
ISIS is notorious for being savage and absolutely ruthless towards homosexuals by regularly be heading them and systematically executing them.
Omar was a usual at the Pulse night club. There are also claims that he was a closeted homosexual.
Why would ISIS, knowing of their hate for anything gay, want to claim Omar as one of them when they would certainly execute Omar if they had the chance to?
Doesn't make sense to me.
Ali Muhammad brown also used a gay hook up act to lure a gay couple to their deaths. His wife has explained that he was actively scouting out locations for this to happen. A guy with his training could do a preliminary security assessmentto determine if pulse had private security, two cop cars outside etc.
In not saying he was or was not gay but their is a plausible demonstrable alternative explanation for those aspects of his behavior.
Moreover, martyrdom itself could be seen as a means of cleansing his sins to enter paradise in parallel to baptism.
Quote:Ali Muhammad brown also used a gay hook up act to lure a gay couple to their deaths. His wife has explained that he was actively scouting out locations for this to happen. A guy with his training could do a preliminary security assessmentto determine if pulse had private security, two cop cars outside etc.
In not saying he was or was not gay but their is a plausible demonstrable alternative explanation for those aspects of his behavior.
Moreover, martyrdom itself could be seen as a means of cleansing his sins to enter paradise in parallel to baptism.
You're a fool if you believe that last sentence that you wrote.
As was already posted in this thread, the number of murderous acts committed in the name of Islam far exceed other religions. My experience with the Bible when I was young was that although church bored me to death I never remember any scripture being quoted that advocated violence or murder. I haven't looked at a Bible in a long time as an Agnostic. If the Bible is innately more violent then I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to the West being innately more civilized as a people and collectively more mature than our generally more prone to violence Muslim cousins. There's a correlation here regardless of whether some choose to ignore it or not. Do we not do anything with that knowledge?
My point on assimilation is best illustrated in a hypothetical example of the U.S. deciding to allow 50 million immigrants over the next 5 years from either Muslim or non-Muslim population samples but not both. Logistics aside, which one would present the smallest threat to this country as it currently stands and which would present the greatest threat and would the threats each one posed be significant in their differences? I think the answers to those questions are obvious and I think it's ok to identify that and choose what's in this country's current citizens' best interest. This is an extreme hypothetical I know, but I use it to illustrate the point that immigration isn't necessarily and automatically a good thing. There are immigration policies that could be used to, in essence, conquer a nation.
Regarding your Ginger example, it's apples to oranges, no pun intended. Perhaps my use of the word trait was incorrect or misleading, but equating a belief to a physical characteristic for comparison purposes doesn't hold water in this instance. One is a choice the other is not. I also get how difficult it would be to prove that someone is a Muslim that didn't admit to it upon entry especially one that means to do harm once inside our borders. I'd like us to be more selective on who is allowed in but maybe that's not feasible in the generalized way I'm describing it. I'd prefer policies that enable people that want to come here and be a part of what has been built over generations and contribute to that rather than enabling those who want to turn us into their homeland or their father's homeland. I'm not one that believes there isn't an answer to this problem, but it's clear there is a problem in the Muslim community.
Quote:As was already posted in this thread, the number of murderous acts committed in the name of Islam far exceed other religions. My experience with the Bible when I was young was that although church bored me to death I never remember any scripture being quoted that advocated violence or murder. I haven't looked at a Bible in a long time as an Agnostic. If the Bible is innately more violent then I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to the West being innately more civilized as a people and collectively more mature than our generally more prone to violence Muslim cousins. There's a correlation here regardless of whether some choose to ignore it or not. Do we not do anything with that knowledge?
Well, my initial thought is to wonder whether you are including war in your definition of violence. This is not to say that war is always wrong, but it is usually violent. Also, do you consider Germany, Russia, Japan, Western? Not sure, but Stalin alone might outrank all Muslim killers combined in the last 100 years.
My point on assimilation is best illustrated in a hypothetical example of the U.S. deciding to allow 50 million immigrants over the next 5 years from either Muslim or non-Muslim population samples but not both. Logistics aside, which one would present the smallest threat to this country as it currently stands and which would present the greatest threat and would the threats each one posed be significant in their differences? I think the answers to those questions are obvious and I think it's ok to identify that and choose what's in this country's current citizens' best interest. This is an extreme hypothetical I know, but I use it to illustrate the point that immigration isn't necessarily and automatically a good thing. There are immigration policies that could be used to, in essence, conquer a nation.
Well, I am not sure, but I think that the total number of deaths caused by Muslim immigrants is greater than other immigrants. I draw this sketchy conclusion from the list
here
. I think one of the killers in the 2015 California killings was an immigrant. I am not aware of any of the others on the list being immigrants of any kind. So I guess it is Muslim immigrants 1, Non-Muslim immigrants 0. How you get conquering a nation from that I have absolutely no idea. Allow me to put it this way - If there were 70,000 cases such as San Bernardino, the number of civilians killed would not equal the number of civilians the U.S. has killed in Iraq since 2000. Yet Iraq is still around. Dysfunctional yes, but still there.
Regarding your Ginger example, it's apples to oranges, no pun intended. Perhaps my use of the word trait was incorrect or misleading, but equating a belief to a physical characteristic for comparison purposes doesn't hold water in this instance. One is a choice the other is not. I also get how difficult it would be to prove that someone is a Muslim that didn't admit to it upon entry especially one that means to do harm once inside our borders. I'd like us to be more selective on who is allowed in but maybe that's not feasible in the generalized way I'm describing it. I'd prefer policies that enable people that want to come here and be a part of what has been built over generations and contribute to that rather than enabling those who want to turn us into their homeland or their father's homeland. I'm not one that believes there isn't an answer to this problem, but it's clear there is a problem in the Muslim community.
From what I understand, the San Bernardino example is a case where an immigrant was granted residency based upon marriage. I also believe they were planning the attack prior to the engagement. I am wondering, though, are you stating that you believe it should be the U.S. policy not to allow citizens to ever marry Muslims of a different nation? Or they can marry, but not allow the spouse into the U.S.? I really don't quite get that based on one example.
Even if you go back generations, I guess you then include a few others. But we are all descended from immigrants. Does the Virginia shooting mean we should exclude Asians? I also didn't see any weighing of the benefits of immigration. What if we lost a few current citizens but save the lives of 10-fold new citizens. 100-fold? I realize this is a hypothetical, just trying to get an understanding of your thoughts on relative values.
Quote:Also, this may be off topic and a little old but I don't want to rake through pages in this thread about Omar's alleged ISIS relation.
Let's consider the following:
ISIS is notorious for being savage and absolutely ruthless towards homosexuals by regularly be heading them and systematically executing them.
Omar was a usual at the Pulse night club. There are also claims that he was a closeted homosexual.
Why would ISIS, knowing of their hate for anything gay, want to claim Omar as one of them when they would certainly execute Omar if they had the chance to?
Doesn't make sense to me.
The only, even remotely logical explanation for this would be via Omar being effectively a "non-practicing homosexual"...and I use the term logical very loosely in this instance. Basically, while he may have had homosexual urges and/or tendencies, if he's not acting on them and not engaging in homosexual activity, he might get a something of a pass. Like I said, it's a stretch and I'm no Muslim theologian...but I view it similarly to any other "impure" thought one might have throughout the course of any given day in that as long as you don't act on it it isn't a "real" sin.
That might then tie into the last sentence jj wrote that you took issue with...? It obviously wasn't
butch queen in drag's first time at a ball (read: Omar's)...and it obviously doesn't take years (not days or weeks...
years!!) to scope out a gay club. In a very Bizarro-World way, what he said actually kind of makes sense if filtered through insane, radicalized, religious goggles.
Quote:You're a fool if you believe that last sentence that you wrote.
I didn't say it could work I said that's how its sold.
Quote:I didn't say it could work I said that's how its sold.
Sold? You never mentioned that either.
Quit throwing [BLEEP] at the wall in hopes of seeing if it will stick.
Quote:Also, this may be off topic and a little old but I don't want to rake through pages in this thread about Omar's alleged ISIS relation.
Let's consider the following:
ISIS is notorious for being savage and absolutely ruthless towards homosexuals by regularly be heading them and systematically executing them.
Omar was a usual at the Pulse night club. There are also claims that he was a closeted homosexual.
Why would ISIS, knowing of their hate for anything gay, want to claim Omar as one of them when they would certainly execute Omar if they had the chance to?
Doesn't make sense to me.
None of it makes sense. You aren't supposed to try connecting the dots because there are none. It's just a story made up in Langley.
Quote:None of it makes sense. You aren't supposed to try connecting the dots because there are none. It's just a story made up in Langley.
What?
Quote:What?
He's our resident tinfoil hat guy. I think if you go back earlier, he was claiming that Sandy Hook, the marathon Bombings, all of them were faked. Don't mind him, he's just trolling.
Langley, VA. They like to make up stories there. Like how 9/11 was a fantasy about a guy in a cave who ordered NORAD to stand down. Stuff like that.
Quote:He's our resident tinfoil hat guy. I think if you go back earlier, he was claiming that Sandy Hook, the marathon Bombings, all of them were faked. Don't mind him, he's just trolling.
I'll play along
Shooting survivor, Luis Burbano, claims he barricaded other people inside while he fled outside and held the exit door shut. Seems pretty heartless of an act and even more cold when he recalls the incidents.
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://youtu.be/X75iFs10g8A'>https://youtu.be/X75iFs10g8A</a>
Luis Burbano - IMDb actor and here's his page
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://m.imdb.com/name/nm3483499/'>http://m.imdb.com/name/nm3483499/</a>
Quote:He's our resident tinfoil hat guy. I think if you go back earlier, he was claiming that Sandy Hook, the marathon Bombings, all of them were faked. Don't mind him, he's just trolling.
Do trolls usually provide 392 pages of documentation backing them up? The link is a PDF.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Nob...dyHook.pdf
If you think Sandy Hook, 9/11, the Orlando shooting, etc have anything to do with a government conspiracy, then you are a horrible person.
Quote:If you think Sandy Hook, 9/11, the Orlando shooting, etc have anything to do with the government, then you are a horrible person.
I'd certainly move if this is what our govt does. Bunker life would get boring.
Quote:Do trolls usually provide 392 pages of documentation backing them up? The link is a PDF.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Nob...dyHook.pdf
OK, seems to me we ought to break this down. Either you are trolling, and this is just a continuation of that, or you truly believe that the mass shootings were faked. If the former, I will repeat my earlier comment about disrespecting the dead, and causing additional pain to those who already suffered the loss of loved ones. I consider your actions reprehensible.
HOWEVER - Here does exist the possibility that you sincerely believe this. If so, I encourage you to open a new thread titled something like 'The mass shootings are all hoaxes'. Pick your title, just want to get a separate area to deal with the issue. If you truly believe that they are hoaxes, then two possibilities exist. Either your actions still disrespect the dead and cause suffering to the ones that loved them, or you are correct, there are no dead or loved ones to disrespect, and others realize it and you have done a great service. I doubt this, but hey, it is at least a logical possibility, although one that I consider extremely unlikely. If you create the new thread, I will respond there. However, I will take a few seconds and post a link in response to your pdf, which took me all of a few seconds of google-fu to find
here.
Quote:Sold? You never mentioned that either.
Quit throwing [BAD WORD REMOVED] at the wall in hopes of seeing if it will stick.
I stand by every word I said.
So after 26 pages what do we know?
The shooter was Muslim and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
The shooter might have been gay.
President Obama refuses to use the term "Islamic terrorist" regarding the incident.
Trump wants to "ban all Muslims".
Some on the left think that it's an attack on gays.
There are a few fringe people on the right including some preachers in certain churches that think that these Americans deserved to be murdered because of their lifestyle.
Some (mostly on the left) think that we need to pass more gun control laws, even though the laws already on the books have failed.
When all else fails, blame Bush.
Am I missing anything?