Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terrorist Sympathizers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CarpeDiem
    replied
    Closed for clean up and possible further action
    ACG Staff

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    Yes, criticizing support of terror is... support of terror. Makes perfect sense. You're too sensitive to have an objective conversation on this subject.
    Yeah, something about spending a whole day climbing on the remains of two thousand PIRA-supporting Irish Catholics smoked by 19 Jihadis in the name of their God kinda struck me personally . . . .

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't give a damn about the politics. What I care about are thousands of work-a-day Joe's and their kids being exposed to, being subjected to, random violence all 'cause some hard-on has a politics jones. That offends me on a visceral level. Had I seen it with my own eyes it would have offended me in 1938. I wasn't around for that episode, however. What i can tell you is that it offends me now. That it doesn't offends you just goes to show how you view "politics" as more important than people.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    The virtue signaler can ramble on about how the US supports terrorists, but the second you say the exact same about Israel you're a neo nazi. Take your double standards and shove them up your ass.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowshoveler
    replied
    China,North Korea,Saudi Arabia,Russia and Iran would light the world on fire even more if most of them were not contained.
    The US has done a relatively good job of keeping the peace since WW2 and they still do as long as they can afford to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    FALN wasn't domestic enough for you? The KKK? The Weather Underground? The BLA? Each of those groups could have been viewed as either "rightist" or "leftist," depending on one's persuasion, but the unifying thread -- and threat -- should be clear: the use of random public violence to achieve a political end has in the past been rendered tolerable, even laudable, if the right political "boxes" were "checked." That's the scary part.



    I'm "normalizing" terrorism -- or was it normalized long ago? And in your next post, you unzip your fly.



    Who are you, Ward Churchill, or a contemporary Neo-Nazi? You've already revealed your feelings towards Jews, so don't start playing indignant now. Aren't you now playing the same game for which you're criticizing Pres Trump?
    Yes, criticizing support of terror is... support of terror. Makes perfect sense. You're too sensitive to have an objective conversation on this subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    How has the US and Israel support terrorist?
    Technically he's not wrong. The US "Phoenix" program in RVN was, for all intents and purposes, a terror campaign. So were Shtern and Irgun in embyonic Israel. I just don't see how that justifies al Qaeda nowadays. Al Qaeda, despite the rhetoric, was never about protesting US or Israeli policy: if they were, then all of those rich Saudis and Kuwaitis who contributed to al Qaeda would instead have lobbied their own governments to treat Palestinians like actual people, instead of like dogs, which is how Palestinians have been treated in the Gulf Arab countries for decades. No, al Qaeda was fighting some other kind of war, one about their principles' own interests, not their "people's," and not God's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    One of the biggest issues standing in the way of global peace and stability, is the fact that the US and Israel has and continues to support terrorists.
    How has the US and Israel support terrorist?

    One of the issues standing in the way of global peace is the constant attacks on Israel either by resolutions in regards to the UN or outright hostility by Israel's neighbors that want the Israeli people terminated.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    Sure there have been terrorist sympathizers in various ways at high levels of the govt. I think people's outrage is dealing with a president who sympathizes with domestic terrorists.
    FALN wasn't domestic enough for you? The KKK? The Weather Underground? The BLA? Each of those groups could have been viewed as either "rightist" or "leftist," depending on one's persuasion, but the unifying thread -- and threat -- should be clear: the use of random public violence to achieve a political end has in the past been rendered tolerable, even laudable, if the right political "boxes" were "checked." That's the scary part.

    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    So you're trying to normalize this? This is something that I should view as acceptable given the US' terrible history.
    I'm "normalizing" terrorism -- or was it normalized long ago? And in your next post, you unzip your fly.

    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    One of the biggest issues standing in the way of global peace and stability, is the fact that the US and Israel has and continues to support terrorists. I'm well aware of this and have been trying to convince American's who refuse to believe that their country has ever supported, backed and armed Muslim extremists, that this is exactly what's happening. For them, America can do no wrong, especially when their preferred party is in power. They're blind patriots. The equivalent of drones and lemmings. They claim (rightfully) that Obama supported terrorists, then pretend as if Trump isn't continuing the same strategy in Syria. A strategy that supports Muslim extremist.

    I do not view the US as the good guys who are anti-terror, so I do not need this history lesson. It's nothing new to me.
    Who are you, Ward Churchill, or a contemporary Neo-Nazi? You've already revealed your feelings towards Jews, so don't start playing indignant now. Aren't you now playing the same game for which you're criticizing Pres Trump?

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    One of the biggest issues standing in the way of global peace and stability, is the fact that the US and Israel has and continues to support terrorists. I'm well aware of this and have been trying to convince American's who refuse to believe that their country has ever supported, backed and armed Muslim extremists, that this is exactly what's happening. For them, America can do no wrong, especially when their preferred party is in power. They're blind patriots. The equivalent of drones and lemmings. They claim (rightfully) that Obama supported terrorists, then pretend as if Trump isn't continuing the same strategy in Syria. A strategy that supports Muslim extremist.

    I do not view the US as the good guys who are anti-terror, so I do not need this history lesson. It's nothing new to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    The US has had plenty of terrorist sympathizers in high office.

    Andrew Cuomo

    Peter King



    Bill Clinton

    Barack Obama

    You see, when the political context is "agreeable," then the terrorist -- and his terrorism -- is agreeable. It's hypocrisy writ large. Donald Trump didn't invent this kind of mendacity, he merely inherited it is all. We went years and years and years not holding our elected officials' feet to the fire for not condemning terrorism in the strongest possible terms. Instead we rewarded them with yet higher offices.





    So the shock and dismay over Donald Trump today is either rather novel, or rather disingenuous.
    So you're trying to normalize this? This is something that I should view as acceptable given the US' terrible history.

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    So the shock and dismay over Donald Trump today is either rather novel, or rather disingenuous.
    Sure there have been terrorist sympathizers in various ways at high levels of the govt. I think people's outrage is dealing with a president who sympathizes with domestic terrorists.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    [b]Terrorist Sympathizers
    The US has had plenty of terrorist sympathizers in high office.

    Andrew Cuomo

    Peter King



    Bill Clinton

    Barack Obama

    You see, when the political context is "agreeable," then the terrorist -- and his terrorism -- is agreeable. It's hypocrisy writ large. Donald Trump didn't invent this kind of mendacity, he merely inherited it is all. We went years and years and years not holding our elected officials' feet to the fire for not condemning terrorism in the strongest possible terms. Instead we rewarded them with yet higher offices.





    So the shock and dismay over Donald Trump today is either rather novel, or rather disingenuous.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackhat View Post

    I agree with the first statement, but I would contest the second somewhat. My area is full of blue-collar Democrats, and in my personal interactions and conversations with them I'm finding more and more openly admitting to jumping ship to Trump based on the real world economic impacts they're experiencing first hand, and the hyperbolic rhetoric run amok from their own party. Like '16, they may not admit it to a pollster or their Democrat friends, but come election time a lot will be checking a box they never checked before. Hard to gauge the real number, but the trend does appear to be growing around here.
    The majority of Americans, blue or red, care about the almighty dollar above all else. It's what makes America, America. If all the democrats have to run on is racism, they're doomed. Americans are not going to sacrifice their money to protect equality. This is why I say BLM and similar activists are naive and foolish. Protesting, raising awareness, talking etc. is a waste of time. If you want people to take notice you have to hit them where it matters. The economy. If blacks used their 1 trillion dollars of yearly buying power to their advantage, then and only then would you start to see people take notice.

    But, is progress worth it when that's what's required to enact change? Probably not. So I go back to my original point in us not having anything to discuss.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackhat View Post
    My area is full of blue-collar Democrats, and in my personal interactions and conversations with them I'm finding more and more openly admitting to jumping ship to Trump based on the real world economic impacts they're experiencing first hand, and the hyperbolic rhetoric run amok from their own party. Like '16, they may not admit it to a pollster or their Democrat friends, but come election time a lot will be checking a box they never checked before. Hard to gauge the real number, but the trend does appear to be growing around here.
    I'm starting to notice that also on my weekend visits up there.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackhat View Post
    Racism, white supremacy, white nationalism has been used as a political cudgel to silence any opposition. That, to me, has become the primary problem. When any argument or counterpoint is dismissed out of hand as racist you force conflict and push back. That is where we have gotten to.

    We made real sociological headway in the 60-70s when it comes to race relations and the removal of institutional barriers. We did it through talking honestly and openly, with people like MLK forwarding the charge. Now, claiming the appropriate "ism" or "phobia" is enough to disregard any arguments and shut down communication. That tactic seems to be the one the progressive left has chosen. The problem with that tactic is that it's self-defeating. Witness the video of the Democratic Socialist convention that just happened.

    There will always be racism. It is naivete to think otherwise, but it's general prevalence and acceptance in a society is something that can be changed. We were headed that direction until racism got repurposed as a political weapon and a power and money grab a la Sharpton and the like. If you shut down dialog and demonize any contrary viewpoints, you force conflict as the only recourse, and I don't see that approach being taken from the conservative perspective. If one side considers me no different than a cross burning, lynching kkk member because I question the validity of, say, reparations, then you destroy any hope of civil discourse. The half of the country you appear to assume to be so racist that they can't be redeemed only want to be able to have conversations, not conflict.
    2 things.

    1. There's nothing for us to discuss. The people you need to have an open dialogue with are the people who are anti diversity and hostile towards diversity. Until then, there's nothing for you and I to discuss.

    2. The more we talk the further apart we'll grow.

    Also, political progress was made. Separate from cultural progress which was merely a facade. Laws do not change the way the general public thinks and behaves.

    Keep in mind the political progress was the result of a vocal minority. The majority of Americans, according to polls of that time, did not like MLK. So do not invoke his name as though the majority of country rallied behind him and supported his cause. They did not.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X