Trump versus Clinton?

[abaris]

Yeh a lot of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims, it's because they have to live around other Muslims, and a lot of the time if they decide to change their mind and not become a Muslim it could result in death.

Yes, figures. Business as usual. Muslim is muslim. No need for distinction and to actually take a look at the underlying problems. Got it all figured out, the usual bigot way.

[Brian37]

I am not afraid of Sharia Law or a global takeover of Islam, but it is not something to be ignored anymore than any other religion, and right now it is still on average still more stuck in a theocratic past than the west, which has had benefit of secular law as a leash on it.

You have to put things into proportion. One thing, our media never does. Two days ago, it was Brussels. Terrible, and the outrage is more than justified. But in other news, today another suicide bomber blew himself up in Bagdad, claiming as many lives. That's not Islam or muslims waging war on the West. That's backwards sects waging war on everyone not fitting their bill of perfection. Terror is a daiily phenomenon in the Middle East. Only we don't take note, unless it's in our comfort zone. It simply doesn't interest us or our media. The majority of victims still are fellow muslims. So it's kind of blaming the victims when someone pulls out the broad brush to say, it's Islams or muslims. Several, relatively small militias and terrorist organisations are at the core of the problem. And we would be well adivsed if the sane parties were working together instead of just blindly blaming entire groups.

I am not ignoring the infighting at all, infighting exists in under all religious umbrella labels. It is just that the west as I said, has had a longer period of managing differences to a more civil degree. Nobody should be blaming entire groups. That is not what I mean by the East is more theocratic. 

Again, skip the violence you still have one Umbrella label "Christian" with sub sects that don't agree, such as a tea party Evangelical Ted voting baptist and still another Obama voting baptists. Time and western secular law is what we are used to. Sunnis and Shiites Iran and Saudi Arabia and the east on average has not shared that same history. There are certainly differences and certainly blaming all Muslims is NOT the answer, but like all Christians,  all those sub sects have different competing ideas as to how the general umbrella should conduct itself, and that is what is causing the divisions. It does not have to be a majority, but just enough.

Yes certainly depending on conditions everyone has been a victim depending. Sunnis have been victims of Shiites, Shiites have been victims of Sunnis, Christians have been victims in the east as well as atheists. But Muslims also live in fear living in the west depending. 



QUOTE "Several, relatively small militias and terrorist organisations are at the core of the problem." Yes, but they are still using a the same holy books and writings as those who don't have violent intent. Same ignorance of Christianity here in the states that it is the same bible a non violent liberal uses as say the abortion clinic bomber uses. It  is a different conclusion on the very same book. 

That is not saying we should make sweeping judgments, just that people of all labels ignore that every religion has competing sub sects that interpret the same holy writings that lead the different sub sects to different conclusions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Brian, I'm not advocating "doing nothing". I'm saying we should stop our meddling and bombing and nation-building.

[Brian37]

Brian, I'm not advocating "doing nothing". I'm saying we should stop our meddling and bombing and nation-building.

The "nation building" is about the only thing I can agree to and ground invasions as well. But no, if it takes sending a missile up the ass of Isis, I see that as no different than what we did to Bin Laden. It is still unreasonable to expect someone not to respond to a sucker punch. 

I do not think we should invade Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Iraq, of course not. We busted up two nations already and that hasn't helped, but I am sure for going after violent nutcases.

[abaris]

The "nation building" is about the only thing I can agree to and ground invasions as well.

Sorry for putting it that bluntly, but that's outright dumb. Try to walk in the shoes of the ones getting invaded and nationbuilded. Even if it's the same culture, you will get resentment. If it isn't, you will get even more. And - I feel obliged to point that out - that's not about religion. That's simply the fact that noone likes to get foreign boots on their soil, calling the shots.

[Brian37]

The "nation building" is about the only thing I can agree to and ground invasions as well.

Sorry for putting it that bluntly, but that's outright dumb. Try to walk in the shoes of the ones getting invaded and nationbuilded. Even if it's the same culture, you will get resentment. If it isn't, you will get even more. And - I feel obliged to point that out - that's not about religion. That's simply the fact that noone likes to get foreign boots on their soil, calling the shots.

TYPO, I meant to type "CANT"

Sorry I missed the error before I hit submit. NO we should NOT  be nation building our having ground invasions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Brian, I'm not advocating "doing nothing". I'm saying we should stop our meddling and bombing and nation-building.

The "nation building" is about the only thing I can agree to and ground invasions as well. But no, if it takes sending a missile up the ass of Isis, I see that as no different than what we did to Bin Laden. It is still unreasonable to expect someone not to respond to a sucker punch. 

I do not think we should invade Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Iraq, of course not. We busted up two nations already and that hasn't helped, but I am sure for going after violent nutcases.

The problem with airstrikes is that even using PGMs, they are inherently inaccurate. Dead innocents generate lifelong enemies.

Airstrikes also rely on good intel, and that means friendlies on the ground in most counterinsurgency situations.

[abaris]

Sorry I missed the error before I hit submit. NO we should NOT  be nation building our having ground invasions.

Well, OK then.

[Sterben]

          How is sexist to be anti-transgender? That makes no sense, some people are just uncomfortable around those types. Being uncomfortable does not make you sexist. If your blood line is primarily _______ that's what you are no matter country you live in. How does Satan play a role in your argument?

Not sexist, but bigoted. Do you really think most male to female or female to male transgendered look to assault you in a bathroom? "Those types"......... How is your fear of them their problem? How many have you known personally?

Sexual assault is primarily committed by men on females and most of that does not happen in a bathroom in any case. Men and women share bathrooms with gays and lesbians all the time, and how would you know just by looking what their sexuality is? Transgender does not make someone automatically attracted to you nor does it mean they will assault you. And what the fuck does bloodline have to do with a person's sexual identity?

scoobysnack Wrote: Sure because in the people confuse national identity with race. So when they hear the term Chinese, they think Chinese people, instead of the Chinese nation, or Mexico with Mexicans. They are nationalities, not races. Latinos, and Asians would be considered races, but even then, there is no race but the human race. It's just a divide and conquer technique used. I used to be a leftist, and consider myself liberal, but now liberal means something different. They are not the true Jeffersonian liberals like the founding father, they are aligned with Marxism, and classism, so everything has been inverted, and just like Satan, it's inverted to the point that we have the morons walking around saying it's racist to be against a religion, or now sexist to be against transgendered. It's always about being against something. Their isn't the uniting of people, except uniting the underclass against the upper class. The word human or people doesn't exist in the left anymore, because they gain their power by pitting groups against eachother. And to be honest, that has been done throughout history. Tribalism, has moved towards nationalism, and then we have globalism. With globalism, we have people that want to divide and conquer however, so it's almost like forcing a sorority to have a male member.          
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
            I was talking about scooby's point on race and nationalism and how he points out that it's sexist to be sexist to anti-transgender. I know that transgender people pose no threat to anyone really, and I was using the term "Those types" to stay in neutral position on the matter of the transgender issue. I'm not 100% on what scooby was carrying on about, I was trying to get his key points about race and his apparent phobia of transgender people. I never said anything about a persons race impacting there sexuality.

[IATIA]

Does anyone think that killing Hitler and his top generals would have had a major effect on the outcome of the war?