The Sicatoka Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 How about we start blaming the perpetrators and quit making excuses, rationalizations, justifications, etc. 3
Oxbow6 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Don't use common sense in this! It is so much easier to just blame Obama for all of it...or blame him for everything.... Lol. Can't wait to read who's fault it is for EVERYTHING bad after the 2016 elections for Oxbow! I'll just move to Canada with Alex Baldwin...........oh wait..........
bigskyvikes Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 How about we start blaming the perpetrators and quit making excuses, rationalizations, justifications, etc. I..........couldn't agree more with you on this!!!
wxman91 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 How about we start blaming the perpetrators and quit making excuses, rationalizations, justifications, etc. Because people want to use everything for a political motive. There can't just be a tragedy - there has to be someone to blame behind it - something that went wrong. On the left it is easy access to guns and the demonization of Muslims, on the right it is the lack of guns and the failure to eliminate terror groups. The problem is, in reality, there is likely nothing that could be done about this. If the US went over and blew up every training camp in ISIS territory it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. If we banned the sales of all but pea-shooters, this a**hole would have found a gun anyway. We can be sad about this event, but in the end, nothing can or should change in relation to this attack.
petey23 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10408623_1000430293314447_6154011498491881522_n.jpg?oh=3bb2fda600f1d009712b197f806b9d06&oe=5614FC1D 1
The Sicatoka Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Because people want to use everything for a political motive. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." -- Rahm Emanuel It's the new mantra of (both sides of the aisle) American politics.
Oxbow6 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Well, there are always society's reaction that needs to be taken into account. If you immediately go out and say this is an example of domestic radical Islamic terrorism you will suddenly have vigilantes all over the country on the watch for terror suspects and you can guess where that goes. If you start off with the more conservative "lone gunman" you keep the panic point low while the facts are still being gathered. I'm not sure what Obama's motives where here, but given what I know of the situation (albeit, not all that much) I would probably handle it this way. There's always time to declare it was an act of domestic terrorism. You can't step back from that if you were wrong, however. It just wouldn't work. No disagreeing with your post but that was not even close to what happened in the SC shootings. "Lone gunman" was never used in that situation.......it jumped right away to racially motivated and an act of terror by a white supremacist......then the flag issue caught fire for justification and rationalization. Again seems like some want to have it both ways when you tread lightly as is comes to Islam and the shooting in SF.
wxman91 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 No disagreeing with your post but that was not even close to what happened in the SC shootings. "Lone gunman" was never used in that situation.......it jumped right away to racially motivated and an act of terror by a white supremacist......then the flag issue caught fire for justification and rationalization. Again seems like some want to have it both ways when you tread lightly as is comes to Islam and the shooting in SF. In SC, almost immediately you had in hand a manifesto from the shooter stating that he was trying to start a race war. We are all pretty sure we know what yesterday's attack is, but it is not nearly as cut-and-dried, and to say that the president is somehow in the wrong for using cautious words reflects your own bias rather than speaking to his.
Redneksioux Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 In SC, almost immediately you had in hand a manifesto from the shooter stating that he was trying to start a race war. We are all pretty sure we know what yesterday's attack is, but it is not nearly as cut-and-dried, and to say that the president is somehow in the wrong for using cautious words reflects your own bias rather than speaking to his. The shooters in all of these tragedies are or were nut jobs. Why would anyone take anything these crazies say and even take it seriously? Oh wait I think my question was already answered by sicatoka above!
Oxbow6 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 In SC, almost immediately you had in hand a manifesto from the shooter stating that he was trying to start a race war. We are all pretty sure we know what yesterday's attack is, but it is not nearly as cut-and-dried, and to say that the president is somehow in the wrong for using cautious words reflects your own bias rather than speaking to his. But a foreign born Muslim seeking out and killing Marines requires some deciphering as to motive? 1
wxman91 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 But a foreign born Muslim seeking out and killing Marines requires some deciphering as to motive? Probably not, but wouldn't it also be good to know whether this was just a disillusioned lone actor who was seduced by online militant rhetoric or whether this was someone who actively sought out overseas training, etc.? I sure would like the President to be informed about these things before making sweeping statement about an attack that had just occured.
The Sicatoka Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Probably not, but wouldn't it also be good to know whether this was just a disillusioned lone actor who was seduced by online militant rhetoric or whether this was someone who actively sought out overseas training, etc.? I sure would like the President to be informed about these things before making sweeping statement about an attack that had just occured. Say it turns out to be such (someone who actively sought out overseas training, etc.). What will the President do then?
dlsiouxfan Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Say it turns out to be such (someone who actively sought out overseas training, etc.). What will the President do then? Well then hopefully he continues what he has been doing which is the best of a bunch of bad options. We're fighting ISIS with drone bombs and special ops forces. That's the best option we have unless we want to partner with one of ISIS' numerous enemies in the region. At this time, ISIS is at war with Iran, the Iraqi Shia militias, the Taliban in Afghanistan, off and on with Al Quieda, the Kurds, and Bashar Assad's regime in Syria among others. Which one of those groups do you want to align with? Please don't even mention the Free Syrian Army as the group is pretty much a fabrication of the U.S. media. 1
wxman91 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Say it turns out to be such (someone who actively sought out overseas training, etc.). What will the President do then? Then he can speak freely about this being a terrorist attack and continue to pursue reasonable measures to diminish the threats posed by ISIS and associated groups. But this is just something we are going to have to accept will happen in a free and open society.
The Sicatoka Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Let's put this in hockey terms: One team is playing North American, up close and make them bleed, grind 'em style; the other side is playing fluffy, Euro style (with drones). The Brits have told their "fourth liners" they can "go" at will. Has the US?
dlsiouxfan Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Let's put this in hockey terms: One team is playing North American, up close and make them bleed, grind 'em style; the other side is playing fluffy, Euro style (with drones). The Brits have told their "fourth liners" they can "go" at will. Has the US? It says right in that article that they'll be working with US Navy Seals and special ops teams? It's not like those guys deployed themselves. Obama has used special ops to combat Islamic terrorism throughout his presidency. Do you really want to see a wider scope of engagement? What's that look like and what is your objective? If you can't answer those questions then you really shouldn't widen the scope of a military engagement.
cberkas Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Let's put this in hockey terms: One team is playing North American, up close and make them bleed, grind 'em style; the other side is playing fluffy, Euro style (with drones). The Brits have told their "fourth liners" they can "go" at will. Has the US? The SAS is just like the SEALs and JW Grom I wouldn't call them "4th liners."
The Sicatoka Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 To my knowledge the US Special Forces deployed do not have "go" clearance. They have to get "up the chain" approval to wipe their nose after a sneeze. (<-- G rated version of what I wanted to say ) cberkas: In hockey terms, SAS, SEALs, Delta, they're fourth liners. They know the job; they take pride in doing it and being able to do it. "Demo Dickie" Marcinko (former CO of SEAL Team Six) is more Ryan Reeves (STL) than Sidney Crosby (PIT). Military "first liners" are pretty-boy pilots: "look at us, aren't we pretty and getting all the girls and good press" poster children. Everyone says, "My look at them go!" but people that know the "game" know you need those fourth liners to go out there and get dirty in the corners and bang on the other guys in their zone.
MafiaMan Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Probably not, but wouldn't it also be good to know whether this was just a disillusioned lone actor who was seduced by online militant rhetoric or whether this was someone who actively sought out overseas training, etc.? I sure would like the President to be informed about these things before making sweeping statement about an attack that had just occured. But some 21 year old white kid with racist views shooting up a traditional black church is an indictment of every white guy in the south?
MafiaMan Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Don't use common sense in this! It is so much easier to just blame Obama for all of it...or blame him for everything.... Lol. Can't wait to read who's fault it is for EVERYTHING bad after the 2016 elections for Oxbow! Blame Obama for everything? From 2007 until about a year ago, every Dem in DC was STILL blaming the previous tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for everything that was wrong in this country. Education Minnesota recently blamed Bush and "No Child Left Behind" for teachers helping students cheat on exams. Funny that no one ever mentions that legislation's chief author and sponsor in the Senate, isn't it? His name was Ted Kennedy.
bison73 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 But some 21 year old white kid with racist views shooting up a traditional black church is an indictment of every white guy in the south? Or every gun owner for that matter unless you are of a certain religious affiliation. Then you are a lone wolf.
MafiaMan Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Or every gun owner for that matter unless you are of a certain religious affiliation. Then you are a lone wolf. That's the part I don't get. A 24 year old Muslim needs to be analyzed for months for being a victim of brainwashing by extreme Islam and ISIS, but a 21 year old white kid is an indictment on anyone wearing a Confederate bandana on their head or t-shirt. Let's not forget that Kanye West made a ton of money slapping that flag on some of his merchandise and selling it at outrageous prices - that's OK though. Hall pass. 1
Oxbow6 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 That's the part I don't get. A 24 year old Muslim needs to be analyzed for months for being a victim of brainwashing by extreme Islam and ISIS, but a 21 year old white kid is an indictment on anyone wearing a Confederate bandana on their head or t-shirt. Let's not forget that Kanye West made a ton of money slapping that flag on some of his merchandise and selling it at outrageous prices - that's OK though. Hall pass.To your first point.....it is brainwashing because Islam is a religion of "peace and non violence". To your second point...did not seem to effect the "black community negatively" in that Kane example. Falls into roughly the same double standard of blacks using the N word as they see fit. You have not and you won't here any of these words uttered from Obama on the TN shootings......"radical Islam", "terrorist" or "jihad". His uber PC mentality on situations like this is pathetic. 2
Oxbow6 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Or every gun owner for that matter unless you are of a certain religious affiliation. Then you are a lone wolf. Think you are onto something here. And can the media please stop with this "lone wolf" nonsense as it pertains to those types like the TN shooter. 1
Fetch Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 We just need to go to war with all Evil & have a Dept. of Homeland Evil or Worldwide Evil ? or both ?
Recommended Posts