Why are the progressives and left of the US so aggressive?

Post Reply New Topic

Whole countries in the Muslim world teach extremist views. Millions upon millions of muslims believe in fighting s holy war against unbelievers. I remember watching 60minutes growing up and seeing s woman from the Middle East Egypt I believe talking about how horrible the schools are there teaching about jhad and killing infidels, and how she hated it. Yeah there good muslims who follow the tru Islam, but there's way way more who are raised and taught the extremist Islam. This is why beheading and stonings are still accepted there. They want everyone to convert or die. Sure. Or all of that majority will actively go out and do it but it's enough they support it. The ones who don't live in fear of being stoned or beheaded or they move.

I read of community in cananda where they keep to themselves and teach their kids how to behead in their schools.

If they want to come here and leav that culture behind and adopt our culture fine. But they come and build mini Middle East towns where they keep all the culture they supposedly ran away from.

Wanna live in a nation? Learn their language and culture. Don't come and expect to turn that nation into the one you left.

And what exactly is our culture here in America?

The problem in some of the countries you talk about is theocracy, they base some of the laws and system on religion which as one can see can certainly encourage extremist thinking. There are more and more regular people in these countries questioning things and some people who aren't even muslims and I have even heard some people trying to start fighting for changes and more religious freedom, but all anyone here ever hears about in mainstream media is terrorism and terrorists of the middle east.

If we had a christian theocracy here I imagine people would get it in their head we need to spread it around even to the point of forcing it on people, we did have christian based societies in early america before the revolutionary war and all that and they burnt people alive as 'witches' so yeah I am not so sure the problem is which religion, but rather when religion is infused into the government system and laws.

Ok? Sources: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442189/steve-bannon-trump-administration-alt-right-breitbart-chief-strategist http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442168/bannon-not-just-conservative

The National Review is a very old Republican news source, and Jonah Goldberg's criticism of the left is fairly well documented.

Even tehn, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a healthy margin, meaning that most voters actually supported her.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-popular-vote-trump-2016-election-231434

So, you're not actually starting off on good grounds, especially since I do not need to make baseless accusations.


NSEERS is an older program that focused on people entering the US from certain countries. It was phased out for a program more focused on whether visitors matched with known terrorists. Regardless, a lot of the problem is, like in your example, people who self-radicalize and not merely people who enter as radicals. And that's a bigger problem since you can't stop people from self-radicalizing with just angry words and raw machismo.

I wouldn't tend to cite post 9/11 actions as strong precedents though.


You're equating a trend among 20 year old college students with the death of American ideals? Is the fact that stores also say Happy Holidays a sign of the anti-Christ? I mean, you make words about "pacifist pushovers", but somehow lack the... fortitude to deal with whining children? I've dealt with actual social justice warriors both online and off, and somehow I imagine that unless you're just a complete pushover, you can deal with your fellow human beings. I know it's hard. I know that many of us have social challenges that require a more cautious approach to social interaction.


The US also stands for the ideal of freedom, and has done so rather explicitly for longer than I have been alive. Reagan took the biblical imagery of the shining city on a hill and applied it to this nation rather persistently during his presidency, and he was neither the first nor the last.

Regardless, stupid warmongering is not really a winning strategy. I'll even note really quickly for anybody else reading that you actually don't know my position on warfare, who I read on foreign policy, who I respect or anything else. You might as well have gone "This person disagrees with me... PACIFIST PUSHOVER! PACIFIST PUSHOVER!", which... honestly is contemptible. It suggests a complete lack of fitness to know when to pursue a course of warfare and when to abstain.


Do you know them personally? Because I think that would be very helpful to know them to know their motivation. I know a few personally, and while some had better and worse hands in life, spoiled isn't the central description I'd pick.

I mean, largely I'd say that the people who whine about such things do so less because their opponents are spoiled, and more so because they're bitter. I really wish I knew how to fix other people's bitterness, but I think in the end it falls down as a matter of personal responsibility for them to recognize that this personality flaw exists so that they may resolve it and improve as individuals. Sadly, just like coddling can lead to people being spoiled in a way hard to fix, a lifetime of continued failure can lead to a nearly invincible shell of bitterness.


A lot of things produce violent extremism. If you just read over reports on terrorism, the history of it, how it emerges, and everything else, you'll find that there are so many things that people are terroristically attached to that it can make your head spin.

I mean, regardless, there are many peaceful Muslims. I have had the pleasure of working with several in my career. As well, Islam was recognized as a major religion by the founders of our country. John Adams in the treaty of Tripoli made explicit that we had no quarrel with that religion.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

The Supreme Court building even has a picture of Mohammad, honoring him as a major law giver in human history.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/01/14/muhammad-sculpture-inside-supreme-court-a-gesture-of-goodwill/

Hilariously, the depiction was created in the early 20th century, and caused a bit of tension until Muslims calmed down and recognized this artwork as a matter of warm regard and decided to reciprocate.


You mean my fellow citizens who are too emotionally fragile over a practically non-existent threat that they forget some care for civil liberties that keep our country stable? Honestly, I'd rather ask them to grow-up, and tell them that they are more likely to be shot to death by a random gun owner than killed by a terrorist. The government exists to maintain our freedoms and to maintain civil order, not to cater to your overwrought imagination by making up baseless restrictions.

Seriously, we have more pressing concerns with Russian aggression than a bunch of maladjusted virgins. Hell, we have more problems with maladjusted Americans than we do with Islam. Do you want me to give you numbers? Or can you calm down? SJWs are not as dangerous to our country as delusional chicken-hawks. SJWs don't send soldiers to die overseas.

Ok, then let's think about integrating people. Integrating people seems a more productive task than pointless fear-mongering. It's also something that America is generally good at.


They've really calmed down after the national government reclaimed the South. I'd say they killed too many though just the same, and that the root point is that radicalism isn't on a strict ethnic line. It really isn't heartening either how many people wrap themselves in that damned flag of secession from our lawful government.


I've studied enough religion to say that no religion's values are truly compatible with Western society. What happens is that Western society comes along, succeeds by being awesome, and then people try to make sense of how that all worked and how they can bring themselves and their families into it. I see no reason why that process should cease so long as we continue to believe in our Western society and our Western values.

Well for starts it's not stoning women for being raped.

Your claim was that he's a "white nationalist". The links you have provided do not support that claim. What "white nationalist" views has Bannon espoused?



Relevance?



Around 48% of voters stayed at home, meaning less than 30% of those eligible to vote supported her. What this has to do with your "white nationalist" claim is beyond me.



Still waiting for your basis for calling Steve Bannon a "white nationalist".



The phrase "self-radicalized" is meaningless drivel used by Islam apologists. The narrative invariably falls apart when it comes to light that the person being described as "self-radicalized" has ties to al-Qaeda, like Omar Mateen did. Nor did I make mention of "self-radicalized" when relaying the news that a local man was arrested on terrorist charges. If you have information I'm not privy to, I'm sure the local police would be interested in it.



Why?



No.



Pardon?



What on earth gives you the impression that the SJWs are the root cause of the problem? What gave you the impression that I view them as a cause rather than a symptom? You've constructed a ridiculous strawman on minimal information here.



Reagan's foreign policy was to enforce change in foreign nations whose own policies were hostile to the US. Reagan was strongly opposed to Communism, both at home and abroad, on the basis that the ideology was intrinsically flawed and harmful.



Whereas smart warmongering invariably is.



At no point have I made mention of your position on warfare-



Which makes the above yet another misshapen man of straw.



I've inserted the point I was responding to here in order to provide context to my own statement. Your personal belief that some friends of yours are not spoilt brats does not alter the fact that the protest is against the democratic process by which the republic chooses the POTUS. I make the same characterisation of them as I do those who protested against the Brexit referendum, with justification. They are complaining about having the right to take part in the political process, yet not having the right to get what they want when the system doesn't produce the result they wanted. That, to me, is a prime example of egocentric narcissism .

These are protesters. Their stated goals are made evident by their chants, their signs and their statements made in front of countless cameras, across social media, etc. It is not necessary to be personally acquainted with millions of people in order to understand the universal message they're conveying.



Whereas you choose to interpret their behaviour as "bitterness". Rather than dismiss your interpretation as invalid, I think it's more apt to say that there's an overlap between "bitterness" and "overindulged narcissism".



The existence of other causes of violent extremism is not an argument against the prevalence of terrorism which is intrinsically tied to Islam.



Did your 200 year old peace treaty stop ISIS from declaring war on the US?



Do gestures of goodwill render irrelevant hostile actions?



Is the threat practically non-existent because of or despite the tightening of security measures that formed part of the response to 9/11? San Bernardino and the Orlando shooting are sufficient reasons for US citizens to be concerned with terrorism, whatever rhetoric you employ to dismiss such fears or responses to such as "baseless".



Putin has expressed a desire to work with America, not against it. Had Clinton won, the possibility of Russian hostility would have been far greater.



"I perceive one problem to be greater than the other, so I dismiss the other as not being relevant."



To what end?



That would be difficult. If I became any calmer, I may be pronounced dead.



This pithy nonsense is based on the same gleeful insertion of your own flawed understanding of my position. Repeat after me: "SJWs are a symptom. One does not cure the disease by treating the symptoms.".

Dox 47, so you are saying it is alright to kill people, who kill unborn babies, with the mothers consent? Murdering murderers is hardly logical and is joining them in a negative judgement call. It is people's minds that need to be changed, not their bodies and also the question arises is whose body is it? It's not yours is it? You're not a mother or baby are you?

Is it leftists/ liberals who go around shooting everybody in America? I see a little hypocrisy going on here, from across the water in the UK. People protest against Trump getting voted in but who hung black people within living memory? Are you trying to convince people with half a brain that this was the liberal elite?

Dox was describing the process by which immoral acts are justified by the perpetrator. His own moral position may be deduced contextually.



If your perception of America includes the belief that the opposite of "leftists/liberals" is "KKK", your opinions of America are many steps removed from being merely unqualified.

I'm just going to point out sharia law does NOT call for stoning women who were raped. It calls for stoning for adultery where both the man and the woman are killed, but if the woman was raped she is innocent and not to be stone, and it takes four witnesses to stone someone for adultery. So when a woman gets stoned for rape it's not Islam, it's just misogyny.

That looks aggressive alright

Wait, there's a law that allows Hillary to become president?

In my political career, I have witnessed Democratic Party leaders advocating and discussing such things as "Republicans bend rules and break laws, so we should, too. We need a level playing field."

But, the good news is knowing that anger is the one human emotion that is impossible to maintain. Unlike fear, sadness, happiness and satisfaction, anger is momentary. It is hardwired that way for a reason.

So, pissy Democrats, like pissy Republicans, will soon get bored with being angry all the time, and turn their attention to something else ... like the Superbowl.

Why did neo con Tim McVeigh blow up a building? If you look at the trolling the right does on social media it becomes clear who is aggressive.

If we had biblical law in this country then we certainly would have things like that, ever read the bible? There is some sick stuff in there.

Either way I have a hard time identifying a specific U.S.A culture that we could really impose on immigrants....even regular citizens who have been here for generations care about their pre-american heritage there isn't really a single culture. Immigrants are always going to likely retain some parts of their culture/heritage...and I don't really see the problem there. Also I'd imagine people are more open to exploring a new culture and new ideas when its not shoved down their throat but they observe and become interested.

Obviously sharia law is illegal here, so if someone tries to stone a rape victim or a homosexual or anyone else then they'd face criminal charges...but I am willing to bet a lot of immigrants from the middle east are here because they weren't too fond of such laws back in their respective countries and thought life would be better here.

Because the right, like Trump supporters, are never aggressive:

http://jezebel.com/tracking-racist-inci ... 1789058519