Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[smjjames]

Today I used the saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" concerning GA gov Nathan Deal's flat rejection of a resettlement plan for Syrian refugees in Georgia, which my brother criticized, so allow me to elaborate: Deal is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but in this case there's just a bunch of people screaming that there's a lot of dirty ass bathwater and that that baby doesn't even deserve to not get thrown out with the bathwater, which doesn't really exist. Deal is basically just throwing a baby out the window for collaborating with the bathwater agenda.

Say what you like but Nathan Deal is using an event where no Syrian refugees killed anyone to justify stopping Syrian refugees from coming to America.

You do know that at least one of the attackers pretended to be a Syrian refugee and slipped through among the real refugees, right? Which is what started the whole thing.

I also think there's a lot of jumping on the bandwagon here just to appear to be in line with the rest of the republicans when the first governors started saying no.

Edit: This really should go in the American Politics thread....

[ggamer]

Today I used the saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" concerning GA gov Nathan Deal's flat rejection of a resettlement plan for Syrian refugees in Georgia, which my brother criticized, so allow me to elaborate: Deal is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but in this case there's just a bunch of people screaming that there's a lot of dirty ass bathwater and that that baby doesn't even deserve to not get thrown out with the bathwater, which doesn't really exist. Deal is basically just throwing a baby out the window for collaborating with the bathwater agenda.

Say what you like but Nathan Deal is using an event where no Syrian refugees killed anyone to justify stopping Syrian refugees from coming to America.

You do know that at least one of the attackers pretended to be a Syrian refugee and slipped through among the real refugees, right? Which is what started the whole thing.

I also think there's a lot of jumping on the bandwagon here just to appear to be in line with the rest of the republicans when the first governors started saying no.

Edit: This really should go in the American Politics thread....

I don't really know all the details surrounding the one(1) attacker who has been pegged as a possible fake refugee, but I do know that there are 4.2 million Syrian refugees, so barring them all from leaving the country seems the slightest bit inane.

I thought about putting this in the ameripol thread, but it seemed like it'd be more relevant here.

[SalmonGod]

This is a nice read on interviews with ISIS prisoners.

But... but... directing hate at an abstraction is so emotionally convenient...

 When he has been taken away we have the chance to find out just what he was found guilty of, how they found him, and what the evidence was. He was a master of the car bomb, detonating at least four of them in Kirkuk itself and also one scooter bomb, which exploded in a crowded souq selling weapons, killing many scores of people and also weakening the ability of local residents to fight ISIS.

What a charming fellow. I'll be sure to pass my love around later.

This individual is not an abstraction, so my comment has nothing to do with him.  The abstraction is the stereotype that bigots wish this individual and his motivations would conveniently fit into.

[Starver]

I don't really know all the details surrounding the one(1) attacker who has been pegged as a possible fake refugee

More than that, he still may well be a fake fake refugee...  i.e. someone posing as someone else who may have posed as a refugee from Syria.  (Or that second one may yet actually be genuine, so a fake genuine refugee.)

Unless something more definitive (one way or the other or the other other or yet another other!) has popped up in the last few hours...

edit: Seconds after I worried about all that, what do I find?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/17/serbian-police-arrest-man-with-syrian-passport-matching-paris-attackers

[Flying Dice]

This is a nice read on interviews with ISIS prisoners.

But... but... directing hate at an abstraction is so emotionally convenient...

 When he has been taken away we have the chance to find out just what he was found guilty of, how they found him, and what the evidence was. He was a master of the car bomb, detonating at least four of them in Kirkuk itself and also one scooter bomb, which exploded in a crowded souq selling weapons, killing many scores of people and also weakening the ability of local residents to fight ISIS.

What a charming fellow. I'll be sure to pass my love around later.

TIL that empathy=sympathy.

Hint: No, not actually. Understanding why people fight for ISIS is an important element of destroying the bases they have for recruitment and expansion, and has the added benefit of shutting down the same sort of efforts on the home front by assholes who are using terrorism and the fears associated with it to shroud their own bigotry and push agendas rooted in hate and ignorance. Not that anything in that interview was particularly surprising to anyone who pays attention to conflict (or even, for that matter, to anyone who isn't already emotionally invested in the "Islam = delusional fanatics hurr durr" line). Shockingly enough, the young men fighting for ISIS are motivated by a range of things, pretty much all of which they have in common with the young men who have fought in literally every conflict in human history: anger about past wrongs, social instability, financial hardship, and the delusional pride of religious belief/nationalism/et-fuckin'-cetera.

If I was a gambling man, I'd put money on most of the real fanatics being people who were born and raised in Europe, North America, &c.--the sons of immigrants who found the rhetoric and in-group environment appealing.

[martinuzz]

Hollande invokes EU law article 42 section 7, which is much like NATO's article 5.
It means, he calls upon the EU member states to provide military support in the battle against IS. (The article states that whenever an EU member state suffers an armed attack within it's own territory, the other EU member states are obliged to provide any and all support they can)

The article has not ever yet been invoked before, but it might very well mean that every last EU country will be forced to start sending troops, planes or other aid to the war, regardless if their parliament / voters agrees or not.

[Helgoland]

Hollande invokes EU law article 42 section 7, which is much like NATO's article 5.

It's heavier, actually. NATO's article 5 just calls for support, without specifying what kind of support, while that bit of EU legislation explicitly demands military action.

[Neonivek]

In all fairness... "This" seems like a much more justified reason to send out strike teams with a MUCH more clearly defined enemy...

Then the whole 9/11 instance.

Though don't tell people that Islamic countries fight ISIS because as bad as it was for Paris, they have to deal with ISIS constantly... People still believe that Islam = terrorist... and we don't want to bust their bubble.

[Radio Controlled]

This probably makes me an awful person, but I couldn't help but laugh at these:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If the USAF was writing a poem to Daseh, it would go some like this.

Roses are red.

Violets are blue.

We covered our JDAMs in swine.

Just for You.

[Helgoland]

I lol'd at the 'From Paris with Love' one.

[Loud Whispers]

This individual is not an abstraction, so my comment has nothing to do with him.  The abstraction is the stereotype that bigots wish this individual and his motivations would conveniently fit into.

This statement is too vague for me to comment beyond k

TIL that empathy=sympathy.
Hint: No, not actually. Understanding why people fight for ISIS is an important element of destroying the bases they have for recruitment and expansion, and has the added benefit of shutting down the same sort of efforts on the home front by assholes who are using terrorism and the fears associated with it to shroud their own bigotry and push agendas rooted in hate and ignorance.

Even the article which focuses on prisoners from ISIS who are immediately hard to find and prone to blowing up rather than surrender or else be executed admits that the interviews are anecdotal and not representative, and it also draws the line between Iraqis and foreign fighters which we've known for long. Understanding why stops being useful when the why means undoing the invasion of Iraq. Can't exactly bring Saddam from the dead.

If I was a gambling man, I'd put money on most of the real fanatics being people who were born and raised in Europe, North America, &c.--the sons of immigrants who found the rhetoric and in-group environment appealing.

Well when we're done reducing the intelligence of this thread to hurrrdurrr, or arguing against the ever surreptitious bigotry, hate and hatebigotry depends on what you mean by fanatic. You would find a range of beliefs and motives, and being a fanatic only means single-minded zeal. I don't know what is directed as who as everyone is being too vague, but eh whatever. As long as it's chill and devoid of passive aggressiveness.

I lol'd at the 'From Paris with Love' one.

Seems porkbullet is now porkbomb

[ChairmanPoo]

porkalator

[TempAcc]

Misswines.

[Starver]

There's a risk that the kind of intelligent bystander who might accept "our people are attacking them, so their people are attacking us", without much rancour beyond the everyday trouble of being drawn into a conflict, might deem 'pig-themed' attacks a level beyond...  A form of Sacred Property, affecting the tendency to accept the usual 'equal gain/equal loss' equations that might lead to some resolution.

i.e., a good joke (I smiled, definitely) and doubtless good bonding material within and amongst various levels of 'our side' (from the bomb-mounting crews themselves to the general (non-Muslim) Western public, but might just create more extremists from the normally fervent but non-extremist locals (or Westerners?) who consider themselves and their(/their associated) property/land 'desecrated' just from the (even symbolic) porcine impacts upon them...

Next thing you know, rumours similar to those that started the Indian Mutiny (well, at least one of them...) could fly around, causing dissent amongst nominally allied Islamic nations...


Just a thought.  And it was a far quicker thought than it ended up being when written down, I'm afraid.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i would skip the missile and just shower dem fucks in actual bacon. only military targets though