Big Lies

[Classic-Xer]

(02-25-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 01:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Noting a nuance in the spin game.  The main stream press is reporting that Trump is asking intelligence agencies for reports that justify policies...  such as the travel ban.  There is a difference between asking for a report to justify a policy and asking for a report on how effective a policy might be.  He has already committed to a policy on political ground, and is asking the intelligence agencies to produce propaganda to justify the politics.  They are in at least some cases declining. 

I have noted that on these forums extreme partisans can live in alternate realities where they cannot agree on what ought to be objective fact.  This seems to be a problem at the highest level of government as well.

I hope blues aren't foolish enough to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism and ignore which region that it's been coming/ will be coming in from and the realities associated with the governments ( 5 currently without a formal government, 1 with a severely weakened government and one state (the largest) sponsor of terrorism) and the condition of the countries (6 hell holes with Islamic radicals and one stable society controlled by Islamic radicals ) involved in  the ban and the impacts that immigration from any of them may have on us/our children as far as the future of America is concerned. I don't live in an alternate reality. I live in reality, so to speak. Do blues live in reality?

I don't see the Islamic religion as being a good indicator of likelihood to commit terrorism.  There are a few political entities, often associated with warlord government and failed states, that believe with some cause that committing acts of terror against the West improves recruiting.  Al Qaida a while back and ISIS now can stand as examples.  That's not a religious motivation.  Thus, I find those calling the guilty 'Islamic terrorists' is not an indication of a reality dweller.  The motivation is political and military.

I also find Middle Eastern terrorists aren't a significant threat.  The death count from terror as compared to cancer of car accidents are trivial.  The US attacks on organizations like ISIS are more apt to motivate ISIS to stronger efforts than to destroy ISIS.  Again, see Powell's Questions.  If one isn't fighting with a plausible path towards victory, perhaps you ought not to be fighting?

But there is a common gut instinct when hit to hit back.  So long as any small number of terror events occur, there will be those who do something.  I'm just not very inclined to do something unless it improves the situation.

So, are saying that they're actions aren't/weren't religiously motivated? I disagree, Abu Ackba (Praise be to God) is an obvious example of a religious expression/motive that's directly associated with Islam to me. Hint: Every Islamic terrorist attack that we have witnessed as a country has been committed by someone related to a Muslim who came here as a refugee/immigrant during the Clinton years who received some sort of clearance to come over here and live with us or by a Muslim who immigrated to/ or visited Europe and then came over here for a short term visit from some place in Europe or by a Muslim who came over here for a short term visit/ as a cleared immigrant directly from an Islamic country. That's a reality. A reality that many blues like you don't seem able to acknowledge or accept or openly state and view as being truthful and as being relevant to the rest of the American population. I'm not sure it's good idea for blues to embrace Muslims as they've been doing politically considering they're positioning themselves to be the ones who are blamed in the future for terrorist attacks.