How does the World view America these days?

[caze]

 

 

 

that's still very different than delusional self-important grown men walking into walmarts and starbucks with AR-15s on their back for no goddamn good reason.

 

correct, and this is why i said it's more to do with the mentality of the community. in the 60s there were television ads for toy guns. can you imagine that happening today, or the amount of warnings that would be included at the end to please certain groups that they're not promoting gun violence? and this is considering that america has been becoming less religious.

 

 

at some point guns went from being tools to weapons, and then subsequently to perpetuate their ease of access and availability, they became coupled not as a privileged necessary to some but a god-given right to all. kids with guns in the 50s and 60s were seen as espousing the ability to hunt and carry the responsibility of handling such a powerful tool which in decades past was a necessity for those living off the land. in the 20th century it went hand in hand with driving back when cars were more dangerous and harder to drive and probably seen to many as an extension of driving a tractor or handing a horse.

 

that's why the NRA went from a pro-regulation gun sporting and gun education association to a gun manufacturing lobby after the 70s. they've distorted the 2nd amendment to become an 11th moral commandment instead of an outdated and vague part of the bill or rights because that's the only way to argue for the status quo. It used to not be that way. George H Bush literally resigned from the NRA publicly in 1995 but now even some Democrats are afraid to challenge the group.

 

Some equivalent of nuclear disarmament with gun ownership will happen. It will have to anyway. I just don't know when but I can only say it will have to be after the GOP loses majority votes. Right now they can't even vote to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns nor agree to focus on mental health...because the latter would involve expanding budget spending.

 

 

The problem is that the NRAs current position is actually perfectly in line with both the spirit and the letter of the law regarding the 2nd amendment, it needs to be repealed.

 

In fact, to really align with the spirit of the 2nd amendment private citizens should be legally allowed, and in a sense morally obligated, to own and maintain tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc.

 

The spirit of the 2nd amendment is completely unworkable in the modern world, there was no way they could have predicted that of course, their reasoning was perfectly sound at the time.

[may be rude]

 

 

 

 

that's still very different than delusional self-important grown men walking into walmarts and starbucks with AR-15s on their back for no goddamn good reason.

 

correct, and this is why i said it's more to do with the mentality of the community. in the 60s there were television ads for toy guns. can you imagine that happening today, or the amount of warnings that would be included at the end to please certain groups that they're not promoting gun violence? and this is considering that america has been becoming less religious.

 

 

at some point guns went from being tools to weapons, and then subsequently to perpetuate their ease of access and availability, they became coupled not as a privileged necessary to some but a god-given right to all. kids with guns in the 50s and 60s were seen as espousing the ability to hunt and carry the responsibility of handling such a powerful tool which in decades past was a necessity for those living off the land. in the 20th century it went hand in hand with driving back when cars were more dangerous and harder to drive and probably seen to many as an extension of driving a tractor or handing a horse.

 

that's why the NRA went from a pro-regulation gun sporting and gun education association to a gun manufacturing lobby after the 70s. they've distorted the 2nd amendment to become an 11th moral commandment instead of an outdated and vague part of the bill or rights because that's the only way to argue for the status quo. It used to not be that way. George H Bush literally resigned from the NRA publicly in 1995 but now even some Democrats are afraid to challenge the group.

 

Some equivalent of nuclear disarmament with gun ownership will happen. It will have to anyway. I just don't know when but I can only say it will have to be after the GOP loses majority votes. Right now they can't even vote to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns nor agree to focus on mental health...because the latter would involve expanding budget spending.

 

 

The problem is that the NRAs current position is actually perfectly in line with both the spirit and the letter of the law regarding the 2nd amendment, it needs to be repealed.

 

In fact, to really align with the spirit of the 2nd amendment private citizens should be legally allowed, and in a sense morally obligated, to own and maintain tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc.

 

The spirit of the 2nd amendment is completely unworkable in the modern world, there was no way they could have predicted that of course, their reasoning was perfectly sound at the time.

 

i like your broader point but i could take the opportunity to point out that the second amendment specifies good regulation, which the nra vehemently opposes

Edited June 14, 2016 by very honest

[caze]

i like your broader point but i could take the opportunity to point out that the second amendment specifies good regulation, which the nra vehemently opposes

 

the 'well regulated' bit in there doesn't refer to federal regulation AFAIK, it just means 'disciplined', 'organised'.

[Nebraska]

the rest of the world is doing alright with the no guns thing so it's just a matter of doing what everyone else does, they don't even have to come up with anything just copypaste the laws duh

 

can we also have your leaders? this way, when you guys change or update laws, we get the instant changes/updates as well in real time.

[may be rude]

i like your broader point but i could take the opportunity to point out that the second amendment specifies good regulation, which the nra vehemently opposes

 

the 'well regulated' bit in there doesn't refer to federal regulation AFAIK, it just means 'disciplined', 'organised'.

 

 

it seems you're right. carry on

 

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

Edited June 14, 2016 by very honest

[Rubin Farr]

Disney donates $1 million to OneOrlando fund:

 

https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2016/06/walt-disney-company-donates-1-million-to-oneorlando-fund/

[Nebraska]

Disney donates $1 million to OneOrlando fund:

 

https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2016/06/walt-disney-company-donates-1-million-to-oneorlando-fund/

 

plus the $3 million plus coming from the gofundme crowdsourcing campaign

[joshuatxuk]

 

i like your broader point but i could take the opportunity to point out that the second amendment specifies good regulation, which the nra vehemently opposes

 

the 'well regulated' bit in there doesn't refer to federal regulation AFAIK, it just means 'disciplined', 'organised'.

 

 

I had a very long discussion about this with my parents when we were debating this.

 

When the bill of rights passed, there was no standing army, the continental army was disbanded but after the defeats in battles in the war of 1812 a regular army with militia reserves was formed:

 

- So from 1812 through 1903 there was the regular army with state and local militias, which is why in the Civil War most units were lead by federal army generals but composed of local numbered units organized by the states volunteers came from.

- In 1903 the National Guard is formed, basically to centralize the military which went hand-in-hand with the US becoming a bigger Western Power, forcing states to make their militias part of the organization of the US army (federal) and organize state militias for local defense. To this day a few state militias exist but for the most part most states do not have these anymore, being replaced but other state defense, police, and first responder units.

- WWI occurred and expanded the US army size which then subsequently shrunk until WWII. To give a context at how small the US army was the first division every (a unit of 17,000+) was created ever, the "big red 1" 1st infantry division.

- 1933 - the US national guard becomes part of the US army. WWII occurred in guard forces were deployed as full time active units. At this point the US military had grown immense and had to have a very centralized and with the cold war and a modern air force with nukes the national guard became less and less about local rudimentary defense.

- After Vietnam the US army and National Guard became a "total force" making it impossible for national guard units to be excluded from overseas department. Before 1973 a lot of resentment towards the Guard, which was rarely deployed except for riots in cities and national disasters, because it was a fully trained fighting force not being used to fight overseas while the regular army and marines relied on conscription for infantry replacements. Since so few volunteered and many got out of the draft, those drafted were often lacking in morale, discipline, and other qualifications.

- Gulf War and Iraq, post-cold war conflicts, relied heavily on Guard units to deploy, so much so that it has been argued at the height of Iraq the states like Louisiana actually lacked equipment and manpower to deal with local issues.

- 2016 - militias essentially do not exist. Governors of each state can call the national guard for local issues but they cannot decline sending national guard units overseas, activated for military operations. Police forces are well-armed and given broad powers than essentially negate any need for local militia organization. Guns, imo, are really only needed for home defense or hunting.

 

TLDR: basically my point was this, there is no militia and it has become obsolete and literally and legally irrelevant over 100 years ago:

Edited June 14, 2016 by joshuatx

[Alcofribas]

 

my bad for misquoting you. i entirely disagree with you in any case, his post hardly rises to the level of observation let alone "thought provoking insight."

 

both limpy and lane, who introduced the focus on islam in their posts, have filled many threads with their ideas on the matter so if you want to know what i have a beef with feel free to look them up.

 

I'm well aware of them, but I'll have to disagree with your characterisation of their ideas.

 

i was also speaking more generally about a trend that exists outside of watmm. surely this can't be news to you.

 

well there are at least two trends that exist outside of watmm, there's the trend of actual anti-muslim bigotry, and there's the trend of falsely labeling liberals who have perfectly justifiable grievances with Islamism, and even - to a lesser degree - with broader mainstream conservative Islam, as bigots.

 

i don't know that i'd be able to provide a truly insightful analysis of the role religion plays in the minds of those who make the decision to wage war on other countries, i'm not an expert. but it is perfectly evident that those who do so quite uniformly espouse christian beliefs which clearly underpin their fundamental worldview. even the muslim obama has talked of how he is doing "god's work." this is nowhere near the level of some one who straps a bomb on their chest in the name of jihad but it is also not a completely orthogonal relationship. i mean, you do recall that bush said he was on a mission from god, right? this does not describe an orthogonal relationship between religion and war in the u.s. sorry. so yes, there is a religious aspect.

 

I'm pretty sure Obama is an atheist (or agnostic at a minimum), read his autobiography if you doubt me. You might have a point re Bush, if it weren't for the fact that he had very little to do with the foreign policy implemented under his presidency, and the ideological underpinning of neoconservatism was liberalism, not christianity.

 

 

 

barack obama is a christian who has talked about his faith and belief in god quite explicitly so nice try there.

 

and you're dichotomy of trends is insufficient. to suggest that on the one hand there is actual anti-muslim bigotry and on the other just falsely labelling liberals who have legitimate grievances with islam is insufficient. in what category do you include some one like lane or limpy who come into this thread and just say random shit about islam without any consideration of the facts of the particular case nor proof for their claims? lane literally came in saying there were multiple people involved, that there's no way this could be a lone shooter, that the shooter's random (and now seen to be quite contradictory) support for islamic terrorism is the real issue and that he was unwilling to discuss this because no one here is willing to accept this. this does not seem to me to be an informed, compelling analysis of this particular case.

 

and i find it fairly peculiar that you would claim that the leader of the u.s. claiming that he received messages from god himself to wage war in the middle east to liberate the population and bring democracy to its people has "very little to do" with his foreign policy. i realize of course that it's not like george bush just sat around calling all the shots but to suggest that the fact that he was a born again christian who thought god talked to him is irrelevant seems pretty rich.

[Alcofribas]

so that i don't feel obliged to keep replying to minutia about this let me just say i'm more or less in agreement with you and don't find anything you've said to be off point (excepting that limp's post was insightful lol). nit-picking certain details, playing devil's advocate about religion or attempting to expand upon the broader question of how religion influences foreign policy decisions seems like a rather different thread. i'm personally just really tired of reading things like lane's post or limp's post on this forum. in the particular shooting i really don't see, given what we've been able to learn about this shooter's life, why his religion is the go-to grievance for certain people. you may find limpy's post insightful, good for you, but i find it tiresome and unhelpful. 49 innocent people were murdered and i really don't think "hey, this guy's dad said god will deal with the gays and in the same city a muslim preacher said death to the gays" sheds much light on the incident. it seems like he was a homophobic piece of shit, not a product of islam. should there be a serious discussion about homophobia (and other bullshit) in islam? yes. have lane or limpy made any serious contributions to that discussion? according to you, yes. according to me, nah.

[chenGOD]

Just to be clear - what the father actually said was: "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality ... This is not for the servants of God." In other words, it would get sorted in the great gig in the sky, and those of us down here on the mortal plane should leave that ish alone.

 

One theory going around is the guy(Mateem) was a closet homosexer.

[Alcofribas]

Just to be clear - what the father actually said was: "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality ... This is not for the servants of God." In other words, it would get sorted in the great gig in the sky, and those of us down here on the mortal plane should leave that ish alone.

 

One theory going around is the guy(Mateem) was a closet homosexer.

 

 

in threads like these i always look forward to the arrival of chen. chen is all you need.

[marf]

 

I follow about 500 isis members on twitter

 

 

 

Really

 

 

I think they must be on Meth or some speed to tolerate their own brutality. American soldiers are killing themselves from ptsd, i dont know how they live like that indefinitely.

 

Well most die or leave before they get in really dangerous battles. I don't follow any of daesh or other Islamic stuff on twitter or FB but I do admit frequently watching stuff in r/combatfootage which unsurprisingly is heavy on Syria/Iraq and, when it was more active, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. the thing about many if not most Islamic extremist fighters as well as many middle eastern government forces is they are sloppy as hell and lack tactical skills, so for as much as they go all in and get killed they also endlessly waste ammo on each other without gaining ground. if you watch Kurdish militia or Syrian units or Iraq spec ops, US/UK advisors, etc. though it's a completely different tone and pace.

 

it is a cluster fuck. There are other groups like al-Nusra. I think Isis is trained by ex Ba'athist military. Most of the men organized in the interment camps during the Iraq war.

They do take amphetamines. A drug called captagon. Nothing new in war. They really love to make mad max style trucks the size of a dump truck. Weld it into a fortress of TNT.. Send off some young boy to blow himself to allah at a checkpoint. They line up for it. Endless supply of idiots. Lots of that. If they ambush they can cut your head off in 30 seconds. Ive seen it and was alarmed to say the least. Some broken ignorant ass people.

Edited June 14, 2016 by marf

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

I follow about 500 isis members on twitter

 

 

 

Really

 

 

it is a cluster fuck. There are other groups like al-Nusra. I think Isis is trained by ex Ba'athist military. Most of the men organized in the interment camps during the Iraq war.

They do take amphetamines. A drug called captagon. Nothing new in war. They really love to make mad max style trucks the size of a dump truck. Weld it into a fortress of TNT.. Send off some young boy to blow himself to allah at a checkpoint. They line up for it. Endless supply of idiots. Lots of that. If they ambush they can cut your head off in 30 seconds. Ive seen it and was alarmed to say the least. Some broken ignorant ass people.

 

Yeah i know too the yemeni rebels use knat or whatever its called from the horn or africa.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Lane Visitor]

Cmon now Alco,

 

I realize I came in here on a sort of negative note that there wasn't a thread for this particular tragedy, but I quickly remembered, realizing the type of thread I posted it in too, so it kind of makes sense given the sorta bitter attitude toward the U.S. that some of the politically conscious watmm members hold.

 

But anyway, when time and time again, these types of events occur and people discuss them, you seem to want to paint anyone who merely mentions the word Islamic or Islam--when its simply paired with the word extremism or radical--as ignorant or offensive. I find this in itself offensive. It's offensive to the truth, and its offensive to the countless people that have been slaughtered under brutal regimes that belong to those radical, militant schools of thought, for not following their twisted versions of Islam. Just as aggravating, you seem to equate me mentioning those specific terms with me talking about the whole religion in general, which is flat out mischaracterization of myself and twisting my words, and completely uncalled for. I've never once in the history of my posts, mentioned anything remotely negative about the religion as a whole or in general, or its followers--some of whom are close friends of mine.

 

You and several other members constant search to build cases or making a baffoon out of anyone who merely mentions these phrases "Islamic extremism" or "Radical Islam" when simply discussing current events of terrorist acts carried out by either groups or lone people that identify with those movements, is quite frustrating, because we can't even get on the same page about discussing the topic as you refuse to acknowledge real issues and turn people that mention thing or bring them up into some kind of ignoramus. I mean sure, I can omit the phrase and change it to religious fundamentalism, religious extremism or what you'd prefer in order not to be specific and ignore the type of extremism, but you'd better have an academic/logical argument for why ignoring it is more logical or sound to speak in more general terms rather than specific (and you don't), before painting me out as some kind of moron.

 

Stop condoning George Orwell novel realities and spousing 1+1=/= 2 nonsense.

 

Using the phrase "Islamic Extremist" or "Radical Islam" is equivalent to calling apples that have gone rotten, bad apples. You're not giving all apples a bad name when using it, and you're certainly not offending the idea of an apple or what it means to be an apple. All things have negative strains. Stop acting like everything is so pure that it can't have offshoots. Christianity, Judaism, all religions have extremist movements. I'm Jewish, and I'm proud to say that the Satmars (Jewish extremists/fundamentalists) are batshit crazy, completely backwards and have no right to oppress the people they oppress in their neighborhoods. Of course, it's not making constant headlines, but I'll call it out for what it is- just like Abortion clinic bombers are wacko christian fundamentalists. WHY ON EARTH can't we use the same logic and describe the same thing when we discuss the 2nd largest religion in the world? Why?? Please give me a good reason.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[Alcofribas]

I have no problem whatsoever using the phrases "radical Islam" or "Islamic extremism." not sure what you're on about mate.

 

but let's be clear, you popped into this thread and threw out the term and peppered some commentary with no links in which you placed emphasis entirely on the notion that this was an organized terrorist attack by an Islamic radical. if you want to use the phrase, fine by me. but be prepared to back dat shit up.

 

note that my response to you directly was in no way a rejection of your terminology but with you excited straying from the facts. and as more facts roll in this seems imho to be a case in which radical islam really wasn't the singularity here.

 

my beef is not at all with people who use those terms or who have rational and legitimate issues with islam, which as I mentioned is a religion rife with all kinds of repulsive ideas and doctrines. What I have a problem with is people who basically just see that a crime was perpetrated by a Muslim and then make lame, half-baked comments about all the problems with Islam and muslims. I mean let's be clear, lumpy returned from the grave to point out that the guy's father said something offensive and a leader at a mosque in the city of Orlando preached violence against homosexuals. He then downplayed the role of mental illness. This was met by at least one poster agreeing that his comments were insightful.

 

Basically, when you and caze or whoever are prone to see me and others as people who irrationally refuse to admit there is anything wrong with Islam and who insist upon denigrating those who even mention the words "radical Islam" I find that precisely to be a kind of straw man argument. I think Islam is fucked up mate. I think the same about most religions tbh and clearly when people commit these terrible crimes in the name of Islam that is a seriously fucked up problem. but we have to go further than just vilifying Islam or simply taking nut jobs at their word and making some huge uneducated claims about Islam vs civilization. The fact is we live in a world in which this basic characterization of Islam is already promulgated by the most powerful nations. It's unnecessary to merely parrot shit I can read on trump' Twitter page.

 

In lushness my vapor wave warrior.

[goDel]

"merely mentions the word Islamic or Islam"

 

Understatement of the day?

 

This is merely mentioning those words: "Islam or Islamic". See?

 

This is not:"It's offensive to the truth, and its offensive to the countless people that have been slaughtered under brutal regimes that belong to those radical, militant schools of thought, for not following their twisted versions of Islam"

 

That's a statement open to discussion. Perhaps you need to accept that?

[goDel]

can't edit post anymore. realise i shouldnt have made previous post. haven't actually read any of what went before it, so please ignore. i'm not interested in a discussion. certainly not on islam, etc.

 

so please consider previous post as made by some ignoramus, if you didnt already. not discussion/response worthy at all.

 

minus 2 cents

Edited June 15, 2016 by goDel

[xox]

my only problem with the phrases ''islamic extremism'' and ''radical islam'' is that they're not precise enough and could be misleading, but i could be wrong, as a non-native english speaker

 

imo, afaik, extreme means something outermost but still part of it. knowning islam (and other relligions very well) i don't see terrorism as a part of islam (nor any other religion that i know of)

 

secondly, radical = arising from or tied to a root. here also, the root islam is the true islam. in islam anything that deviates from that is wrong islam, like terrorism. but if someone thinks that islam is static because of this doctrine knows nothing about islam and that person see everything in the black-white terms.

word 'radical' as a negative connotation was firstlly tied to some christian movements 200 yrs ago and it can't be transfered to islam cause it's a totally different religion, it was founded differentlly and it has been progressing differentlly...no matter they're both of the same/similar path as abrahamic religions.

[caze]

Radical Islamism (or Jihadism or Militant Islamism) is a more accurate term, plain Islamism doesn't imply anything about terrorism or violence in general, it just means the imposition of the religion of Islam through political means, the other 'modifier' terms mean the end state of political Islam is achieved through violent means (not necessarily terrorism, but it's usually part and parcel).

 

The problem is greater than simply Islamism though, mainstream conservative Islam is inherently homophobic, and combining that with an American society which has it's own problems with homophobia, gun control, and mental health, isn't likely to lead to good outcomes.

 

So broadly speaking, Islam in general has a lot of work to do to reform it's mainstream positions if it wants to get along with a western society that has been forced to do much reforming itself in recent decades (and still has a way to go). Failure to reform will only help more extreme forms to prosper at the fringes.

[chenGOD]

I'm just gonna leave these here:

 

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ex-wife-pulse-patrons-omar-mateen-was-gay-regularly-attended-lgbt-nightclubs

 

http://wnep.com/2016/06/14/baptist-pastor-on-orlando-attack-are-you-sad-that-50-pedophiles-were-killed-today/

[caze]

[xox]

WHAT A MORON

 

edit: but i'd like to hear the rest of the speach first. i'll try to find it later

Edited June 15, 2016 by xox

[azatoth]

The underlying reason for the Orlando massacre was homophobia. The homophobia that permeates society is why the murderer did what he did, since he couldn't accept himself and it manifested in this awful way. All this talk about radical Islam is just deflecting the underlying issue which can be found in both cultures. And the hypocrisy of conservatives who now are quick to act like they support LGBTQ rights since their Islamophobia trumps their homophobia is sickening.

Edited June 15, 2016 by azatoth

[Alcofribas]

i think we can all agree the appropriate term is Badical Islam