He was a Major, you lying sack of shit.
He gave his life protecting the soldiers under his command.
Why don’t you crawl back into that extra small hole of yours and pull the pebble with you.
Speaking out isn’t milking anything, coward. Quit lying, though I doubt you even know how to be honest.
What a pathetic coward you are.
You are an utter fucking moron. Does BENGHAZI ring a bell with you, you fucking moron? That’s an example of fucked in the head morons using deaths for political purposes. Khan’s father stated that regardless of religion, his son gave his life for his country, and that was a far greater sacrifice than Trump has ever dreamed of giving for his country. A simple messege lost on thick skulled fucked in the head Republicans, which is most of them.
The Greater Good.
Chris Murphy says that Trump’s order will get Americans killed:
And Vox itself says that this is a gift to ISIS.
This is a liberal talking point that should have been, and mostly was, retired 15 years ago. You want to know what non-liberal Americans hear when this argument is made?
“Muslims are not terrorists and only a tiny percentage cause trouble! Unless you make them mad.”
/Looks over at the Stupid Republican thread.
Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? A statement that frankly can be quite true and your rather bizarre speaking for any and all ‘non-liberals’?
You really think this can’t be used as a recruiting tool?
The fact remains that vanishingly few of those living in the affected countries are terrorists.
Claiming a need for “extreme vetting”(2 years isn’t enough?) and claiming “we don’t know where these people are coming from” are not only the words of cowards but a total lie.
Can you name any refugees that have committed acts of terror in this country?
ETA: @adaher
Then how come Trump’s Mexico rhetoric doesn’t pose a risk of Mexican terrorism against the US?
And I don’t have to speak for all “non-liberals” to know that this common argument is grade-A stupid. The logical inference is that, “Muslims join terrorist groups when you make them mad.” That’s not an argument that should be made, and most liberals have learned not to make it over the years.
There are potentially violent people in every religion. How many “Christians” have shot up abortion clinics? McVeigh identified as Christian.
The KKK is very “Christian”.
Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS
It’s a logical inference that works for any big group. But it particularly works for terrorism and Muslims because there is a powerful narrative coming from ISIS that this latest rule and similar rhetoric reinforces. Most Muslims will never join the extremists, no matter what we do. But things like this can tip some small but significant number over the fence, to where they might see ISIS as a better ally than us.
But that’s not all there is to it. We need the cooperation of large numbers of moderate Muslims in order for extremist to be defeated. Policies like this could potentially sway large numbers of moderate and peaceful Muslims that will never become violent, but they might be less likely to cooperate with us and our allies, and just totally withdraw from the conflict altogether.
So it’s a disastrous and harmful policy that weakens America and weakens our national security in multiple ways.
And yet no one argues that making white people made increases recruitment.
Then why isn’t the argument ever made for any other big group?
I think you’re missing nuance in the argument as commonly presented (or maybe I’m seeing a layer that isn’t there - doubt it, but hey).
Arguing that radicalization becomes easier when the US government is doing bad shit to Muslims is not the same as saying “Muslims join terrorist groups when you make them mad.” Like most bad things, political radicalization can have many causes, and hence requires more than one kind of solution or preventative action.
(I won’t go searching back to check - god knows I don’t need to relive pre-election threads - but I’m wondering about adaher’s thoughts at the time on the fallout from Clinton’s “deplorables” comment. Do conservatives vote Trump when you make them mad?)
That group is in power and making policy.
True odds of dying in a terrorist attack in the US.
The whole article is filled with such comparisons but I can’t quote the whole thing thus giving you an excuse to not read it.
:rolleyes:
Besides what iiandyiiii noted, I don’t see Mexicans in a war zone helping American troops and they in turn to be marked people for doing so. A policy like the one Trump imposed means that right now a lot of Iraqis that are helping the American and allies that are fighting against ISIS will be less reliable or willing to continue helping. Worse when one remembers that Trump said also recently that their oil should be taken.
As iiandyiii noted the stupid thing going on here is to carry water for Trump and henchmen.
I heard that Jews own all the banks. Money is always the root cause of war. We should do something about those Jews.
It is. Many people have made the argument that unfair and disparate treatment of African Americans (or other groups) is partially or directly responsible for greater statistical associations with criminal behavior, or lesser education and wealth, or other disparities.
Political radicalization is a result of insulting behavior or mistreatment. Extreme violence is a result of a culture that glorifies such violence.
Voting a certain way in response to insulting or oppressive behavior is rational and predictable. Throwing your life away to join a terrorist group is not. To the extent that people do join terrorist groups, religious radicalization is the proximate cause.
As I noted before, it’s not just about people joining terrorist groups. It’s also about whether the great mass of peaceful Muslims decides that they’re afraid of both America and the extremists, rather than preferring (and aiding in ways big and small) America and the west in general.
But not terrorism. The argument made by Murphy is correct in one respect: insulting or oppressive behavior can increase radicalization. Terrorism is not a logical result of radicalization, at least not from being oppressed or insulted. Political action is the usual response, or blowback, if you will.
And I’ll also concede that there is SOME truth to the argument. But not enough to justify the harm the argument does. Politics is in part the art of knowing how your words affect people. Murphy and many other liberals don’t seem to get what many people hear when they say what they say. “9/11 happened because of our foreign policy towards Muslims” may sound nuanced to a liberal, but to most non-liberals, what they hear is, “9/11 happened because we pissed off Muslims.” And now they are apparently going to come and kill us because we won’t let them come and kill us.