Azalin Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 That's the whole ballgame. Keep everyone divided, keep everyone fighting with everyone else, while the actual folks running the country into the ground get to keep on working in the shadows. But they're not working in the shadows. They're doing all of this right out in the open. That's the only reason that we've got government involvement right now in who has the right to use what bathroom. It's all division politics, and they've got us as carved up into separate groups as is just about imaginable, with everyone at each others' throats. They're playing us like we're a 325 million piece orchestra.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 You are trying to hard. Quoting the shooter, no matter what his frame of mind, is FAR from meaningless. and this line ? Wow, way too hard. . Not sure I follow. This guy wasn't working with a terrorist cell. He's a home grown extremist. That's not the same as being an active member of ISIL or any terror group. Treating this as if it were an act of terrorism (as the term has come to be defined in modern parlance) changes the narrative in a dangerous ways. All crimes are not terrorism. All criminals are not terrorists. But they're not working in the shadows. They're doing all of this right out in the open. That's the only reason that we've got government involvement right now in who has the right to use what bathroom. It's all division politics, and they've got us as carved up into separate groups as is just about imaginable, with everyone at each others' throats. They're playing us like we're a 325 million piece orchestra. No argument. People are starting to see the strings more clearly.
sodbuster Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Not sure I follow. This guy wasn't working with a terrorist cell. He's a home grown extremist. That's not the same as being an active member of ISIL or any terror group. Treating this as if it were an act of terrorism (as the term has come to be defined in modern parlance) changes the narrative in a dangerous ways. All crimes are not terrorism. All criminals are not terrorists. No argument. People are starting to see the strings more clearly. Exactly. It's starting to seem that he was just a guy who hated gays (for whatever reason, maybe even out of his own frustration) who found a group that fit his ideals, and not the other way around.
B-Man Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 Not sure I follow. This guy wasn't working with a terrorist cell. He's a home grown extremist. That's not the same as being an active member of ISIL or any terror group. Treating this as if it were an act of terrorism (as the term has come to be defined in modern parlance) changes the narrative in a dangerous ways. All crimes are not terrorism. All criminals are not terrorists. It WAS an act of terrorism. By any definition, modern or otherwise. I'm not sure what "narrative" you are concerned about. I would refer you to Ambassador Bolton's article that I posted (#2283) and (again) dismissing what the actual killer said IS trying to change the narrative, not the other way around. PS: on a lighter note, I am mad that you answered so quickly before I could correct my "to" instead of "too" error It will haunt me all day
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Exactly. It's starting to seem that he was just a guy who hated gays (for whatever reason, maybe even out of his own frustration) who found a group that fit his ideals, and not the other way around. Yes. And as much as some on here are up in arms about the left turning this into a gun control issue (which I agree is disingenuous), the folks trying to turn this into a "terrorist attack" (again, in the modern sense of the term) are doing so to further push their own agenda at the expense of fact. The ones doing that are hoping that people will associate all crime with terrorism, that way the police state can grow unabated. It WAS an act of terrorism. By any definition, modern or otherwise. I'm not sure what "narrative" you are concerned about. I would refer you to Ambassador Bolton's article that I posted (#2283) and (again) dismissing what the actual killer said IS trying to change the narrative, not the other way around. PS: on a lighter note, I am mad that you answered so quickly before I could correct my "to" instead of "too" error It will haunt me all day Sorry about that, it was unintentional!
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 It WAS an act of terrorism. By any definition, modern or otherwise. I'm not sure what "narrative" you are concerned about. I would refer you to Ambassador Bolton's article that I posted (#2283) and (again) dismissing what the actual killer said IS trying to change the narrative, not the other way around. PS: on a lighter note, I am mad that you answered so quickly before I could correct my "to" instead of "too" error It will haunt me all day Rhetoric doesn't make a crime into terrorism.
sodbuster Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Yes. And as much as some on here are up in arms about the left turning this into a gun control issue (which I agree is disingenuous), the folks trying to turn this into a "terrorist attack" (again, in the modern sense of the term) are doing so to further push their own agenda at the expense of fact. The ones doing that are hoping that people will associate all crime with terrorism, that way the police state can grow unabated. Sorry about that, it was unintentional! It's pretty scary. Remember a few years back when the right was losing their minds about he DOJ and DHS classification of potrntial domestic terrorists? Then last night, I hear Bill O'Reilly say that the government should make use of its war powers to take someone they suspect of terrorism, and lock them away as a POW. Doesn't anybody see a problem with that? Rhetoric doesn't make a crime into terrorism.Exactly. Terrorism, by definition, requires a political goal. For all we know this guy just thought two dudes kissing is icky.
Azalin Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Rhetoric doesn't make a crime into terrorism. Exactly. Terrorism, by definition, requires a political goal. For all we know this guy just thought two dudes kissing is icky. While all that is true, I think it's a safe bet that gays, especially gay people in Orlando, are feeling pretty terrorized right now.
IDBillzFan Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 While all that is true, I think it's a safe bet that gays, especially gay people in Orlando, are feeling pretty terrorized right now. Exactly. The left is bending so far backwards on this, I'm reading that Barry is giving a presser right now because Donald Trump says he refuses to call the enemy "radical Islam." Says Obama: "What exactly would a label accomplish?" No. Really. The leader of the party that loves to label people is asking this question. And the media is sopping it up with a loaf of sourdough.
Azalin Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Exactly. The left is bending so far backwards on this, I'm reading that Barry is giving a presser right now because Donald Trump says he refuses to call the enemy "radical Islam." Says Obama: "What exactly would a label accomplish?" No. Really. The leader of the party that loves to label people is asking this question. And the media is sopping it up with a loaf of sourdough. He knows as well as anyone what a label will accomplish.
IDBillzFan Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 He knows as well as anyone what a label will accomplish. Apparently his press conference is about Trump, where he is mocking "politicians who tweet" or who "appear on cable news shows." Barry is reportedly more upset at Trump than he is about 50 gays being murdered by a Islamic terrorist. And yet, who here is surprised by that? Precisely no one.
Nanker Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Apparently his press conference is about Trump, where he is mocking "politicians who tweet" or who "appear on cable news shows." Barry is reportedly more upset at Trump than he is about 50 gays being murdered by a Islamic terrorist. And yet, who here is surprised by that? Precisely no one. Too bad Trump didn't run against B. O. the last time. They're two sides of the same Trojan-enz. Reminds me of this retouched photo of OJ from back in the day.
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 While all that is true, I think it's a safe bet that gays, especially gay people in Orlando, are feeling pretty terrorized right now. Victim anecdotes and feelings defining events? That's Critical Race Theory.
Maury Ballstein Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Another peaceful Islamist. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/14/man-who-reportedly-claimed-allegiance-to-isis-kills-french-police-chief-wife.html
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Exactly. Terrorism, by definition, requires a political goal. For all we know this guy just thought two dudes kissing is icky. It's actually more complicated than that - it requires not just a political goal, but an a priori context and framework in to which it fits. "Political revolutionaries" and "disaffected morons lashing out" are two sets with some overlap...but they are still two different sets of people, no matter their allegiances, beliefs, or motivations.
LeviF Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Apparently his press conference is about Trump, where he is mocking "politicians who tweet" or who "appear on cable news shows." Barry is reportedly more upset at Trump than he is about 50 gays being murdered by a Islamic terrorist. And yet, who here is surprised by that? Precisely no one. Well you have to remember, if they can't be politically exploited they're just a bunch of dead, irrelevant fags. Gotta love the collective priapism on both sides here, with no attempt to hide it.
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Maybe Critical Gender Theory is a subset of CRT. It is. CRT includes gender - any self-described minority, basically. It should be called "Critical Victim Theory," to be honest.
Magox Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Unless we are arguing semantics, it appears to be a case of terrorism.
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Unless we are arguing semantics, it appears to be a case of terrorism. There's no arguing with that. Only because it's a childishly empty dismissal of any argument. "It's terrorism, and anyone who disagrees is just arguing semantics."
Recommended Posts