How Trump Was Born From Our 9/11 Reaction

[Brischera]

Some of us did not see any real substantive shifts between Clinton and Trump because you could replace those two with a bag of sand and we would still be living in the exact same culture. It has become tiring because nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to step up and admit it was not the GOP or Dems that created Trump. It was us. It was our reaction to 9/11, and not 9/11 itself.

By falsely equating Muslims with terrorism we created the platform of equating terrorism with everyone except non Muslim Caucasians. Why do you think it felt natural for aspiring intellectuals such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who migrated from a reality show into politics (sound familiar?), to call BLM terrorists and not understand why people thought it was wrong. She was simply more committed to the program than others. Who the hell is Ann Coulter? (from an alternate universe where no major terrorist attack happened in the US)

Trump did not bolster or create white supremacy and the false equivalence is the same as saying the GOP created Trump. Their numbers did not increase simply because you finally got a peak into the trend just like you cant create more sand on a beach by simply observing the sand.

A practical exercise in testing this approach is to follow past and current stories on public shootings or attacks and you will see how you helped create Trump by not speaking up against the infinite demonization of Muslims. The breaking “active shooter” lives with an undeniable first question and it is not where, how many are dead, is the shooter still alive, how can we help, or is it over? No. The first question and arguably the only question is:

Can the suspects be tied to Islam or do they have Arabic “sounding” names?

(that’s what you call a two for one deal)

Please pay careful note to the fact it does not ask:

Did the shooters provide a motive?

Why? Because if their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years and they do not provide a motive, we provide one for them. What evidence of a motive do you have that comes directly from any of the 9/11 hijackers? San Bernardino? Orlando? Boston? Where the perps said they were doing it for Islam? If you are experiencing a knee-gut-jerk already forming a response of calling me an idiot I implore you to settle down and really think about those questions because none of those attacks have any independent evidence it was for Islam. In only 2 the perps provided a motive, Orlando claimed to be doing it for three different extremist groups, that happen to be enemies of each other, and in Boston it they said it was due to our actions of killing civilians and Muslims. None of it is justified. Just like none of our actions that kill innocent people are justified.

The San Bernardino attackers also became “radicalized” because they did not provide a motive, so we gave them one to continue the anti Muslim agenda. Do we always assign a motive when the perps do not provide one? No. We only do it when Islam can be blamed.

Did we say Adam Lanza was a terrorist since he did not leave a motive? Fair enough. We do not know his motive so to call him a terrorist in the absence of evidence would be fake news.

Those two attacks are exactly the same but we did not call Adam Lanza a terrorist even though he also did not state a motive.

cont'd

https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/how-trump-was-born-from-our-9-11-reaction-bb3b5f036bad#.x03tkrvou

 

[Crovax]

Some of us did not see any real substantive shifts between Clinton and Trump because you could replace those two with a bag of sand and we would still be living in the exact same culture. It has become tiring because nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to step up and admit it was not the GOP or Dems that created Trump. It was us. It was our reaction to 9/11, and not 9/11 itself.

By falsely equating Muslims with terrorism we created the platform of equating terrorism with everyone except non Muslim Caucasians. Why do you think it felt natural for aspiring intellectuals such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who migrated from a reality show into politics (sound familiar?), to call BLM terrorists and not understand why people thought it was wrong. She was simply more committed to the program than others. Who the hell is Ann Coulter? (from an alternate universe where no major terrorist attack happened in the US)

Trump did not bolster or create white supremacy and the false equivalence is the same as saying the GOP created Trump. Their numbers did not increase simply because you finally got a peak into the trend just like you cant create more sand on a beach by simply observing the sand.

A practical exercise in testing this approach is to follow past and current stories on public shootings or attacks and you will see how you helped create Trump by not speaking up against the infinite demonization of Muslims. The breaking “active shooter” lives with an undeniable first question and it is not where, how many are dead, is the shooter still alive, how can we help, or is it over? No. The first question and arguably the only question is:

Can the suspects be tied to Islam or do they have Arabic “sounding” names?

(that’s what you call a two for one deal)

Please pay careful note to the fact it does not ask:

Did the shooters provide a motive?

Why? Because if their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years and they do not provide a motive, we provide one for them. What evidence of a motive do you have that comes directly from any of the 9/11 hijackers? San Bernardino? Orlando? Boston? Where the perps said they were doing it for Islam? If you are experiencing a knee-gut-jerk already forming a response of calling me an idiot I implore you to settle down and really think about those questions because none of those attacks have any independent evidence it was for Islam. In only 2 the perps provided a motive, Orlando claimed to be doing it for three different extremist groups, that happen to be enemies of each other, and in Boston it they said it was due to our actions of killing civilians and Muslims. None of it is justified. Just like none of our actions that kill innocent people are justified.

The San Bernardino attackers also became “radicalized” because they did not provide a motive, so we gave them one to continue the anti Muslim agenda. Do we always assign a motive when the perps do not provide one? No. We only do it when Islam can be blamed.

Did we say Adam Lanza was a terrorist since he did not leave a motive? Fair enough. We do not know his motive so to call him a terrorist in the absence of evidence would be fake news.

Those two attacks are exactly the same but we did not call Adam Lanza a terrorist even though he also did not state a motive.

cont'd

https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/how-trump-was-born-from-our-9-11-reaction-bb3b5f036bad#.x03tkrvou

I think you are trying to rewrite history

George W Bush said this 9 days after 9/11

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

...

By falsely equating Muslims with terrorism we created the platform of equating terrorism with everyone except non Muslim Caucasians. Why do you think it felt natural for aspiring intellectuals such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who migrated from a reality show into politics (sound familiar?), to call BLM terrorists and not understand why people thought it was wrong. She was simply more committed to the program than others...

Trump did not bolster or create white supremacy and the false equivalence is the same as saying the GOP created Trump. Their numbers did not increase simply because you finally got a peak into the trend just like you cant create more sand on a beach by simply observing the sand.

A practical exercise in testing this approach is to follow past and current stories on public shootings or attacks and you will see how you helped create Trump by not speaking up against the infinite demonization of Muslims. The breaking “active shooter” lives with an undeniable first question and it is not where, how many are dead, is the shooter still alive, how can we help, or is it over? No. The first question and arguably the only question is:

Can the suspects be tied to Islam or do they have Arabic “sounding” names?

(that’s what you call a two for one deal)

Please pay careful note to the fact it does not ask:

Did the shooters provide a motive?

Why? Because if their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years and they do not provide a motive, we provide one for them. What evidence of a motive do you have that comes directly from any of the 9/11 hijackers? San Bernardino? Orlando? Boston? Where the perps said they were doing it for Islam? If you are experiencing a knee-gut-jerk already forming a response of calling me an idiot I implore you to settle down and really think about those questions because none of those attacks have any independent evidence it was for Islam. In only 2 the perps provided a motive, Orlando claimed to be doing it for three different extremist groups, that happen to be enemies of each other, and in Boston it they said it was due to our actions of killing civilians and Muslims. None of it is justified. Just like none of our actions that kill innocent people are justified.

The San Bernardino attackers also became “radicalized” because they did not provide a motive, so we gave them one to continue the anti Muslim agenda. Do we always assign a motive when the perps do not provide one? No. We only do it when Islam can be blamed.

Did we say Adam Lanza was a terrorist since he did not leave a motive? Fair enough. We do not know his motive so to call him a terrorist in the absence of evidence would be fake news.

Those two attacks are exactly the same but we did not call Adam Lanza a terrorist even though he also did not state a motive.

cont'd

https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/how-trump-was-born-from-our-9-11-reaction-bb3b5f036bad#.x03tkrvou

Speaking of motives, what is it with you folks that not only defend, but oftentimes will not, like our lame duck, lost, in over his head Empty Suit and Chief, even say the actual words: Radical Islamic Terrorists. But why? What do you get out of defending those that would, and do, us harm?

San Bernadino? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-possible-motive-as-questions-still-linger/

"A year after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others, authorities are still probing the shooting...

On the morning of Dec. 2, 2015, workers with San Bernardino County’s health department were gathered for a training session when Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the employees, left and returned with his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The pair began shooting at Farook’s co-workers, ultimately firing more than 100 rounds before fleeing, according to a report released by the Justice Department. Four hours later, police tracked the couple down and killed them during a frenzied gun battle on a residential street.

The FBI said it was investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism after it emerged that Malik had posted a pledge of allegiance on Facebook to the leader of the Islamic State, a message made on behalf of both attackers. Authorities say both were radicalized for some time before the attack, although investigators said they do not think Malik and Farook were directly guided by a foreign terrorist group.

Investigators have said that both Farook and his wife showed a long-standing interest in potential violence. Before the couple got married and Malik came to the United States, the two exchanged messages online “showing signs in their communication of their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom...” "

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Cont...

Then the guy he plotted with before, whom he had converted to Islam, who bought the guns used in the terrorist attack, and was charged with conspiring to carry out two other attacks?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-be-charged/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.67efc81dc592

"The government document shows Farook as clearly being the force guiding Marquez toward violent extremism.

After Marquez moved to Riverside, his next-door neighbor introduced him to Islam. By 2007, Marquez had converted to the religion and Farook began educating him about the views of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born imam and Islamist lecturer who inspired numerous terrorist attacks and was killed in a 2011 drone strike. The two men read al-Qaeda’s English-language Inspire magazine, which has published directions for building bombs, and watched videos promoting violent extremism."

I think we, the sighted and reasonable, can all agree that goes a little bit further than just, you know, "their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years".



The Orlando shooting? Less than 2 miles from my house that I moved from a year and a half ago, this is extremist terrorism a bit too too close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

"In a 9-1-1 call shortly after the shooting began, Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and said the shooting was "triggered" by the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month. He later told a negotiator he was "out here right now" because of the American-led interventions in Iraq and in Syria, and that the negotiator should tell the United States to stop bombing ISIL."

Boston Marathon Massacre? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing#Motives

According to FBI interrogators, Dzhokhar and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs, but "were not connected to any known terrorist groups"; instead learning to build explosive weapons from an online magazine published by al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen.[19] They further alleged that "[Dzhokhar and] his brother considered suicide attacks and striking [the Boston Pops Fireworks Spectacular] on the Fourth of July;[167] but ultimately decided to use pressure cooker bombs (capable of remote detonation) and other IEDs." Fox News reported that the brothers "chose the prestigious race as a 'target of opportunity' ... [after] the building of the bombs came together more quickly than expected".[168][169]
Dzhokhar said he and his brother wanted to defend Islam from the U.S., which conducted the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan, in the view of the brothers, against Muslims.[8][139][170] Later a CBS report revealed that a note scrawled by Dzhokhar with a marker on the interior wall of the boat where he was hiding said the bombing were "retribution for U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq", and called the Boston victims "collateral damage", "in the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world."

I do not think it takes a Sherlock Holmes to deduce some of the reasonings behind these acts of terrorism... nor would it seem to Sherlock that these are mere coincidences. I mean, omg, what are the chances that of all the world's religions, Islam would be the culprit involved? Pretty decent chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

What Sherlock might have a harder time deducing is why there are so many apologists for these folks. Maybe you can give us a hint?

 

[Thoreau72]

Besides effectively slandering muslims, what do 911, San Bernardino, The Pulse and several other incidents have in common? They were all staged events, "fake news", real events that did not happen the way the media portrayed them. Scott Pelley's deliberate preference to believe "the authorities" over what he had been told by a person(s) who was actually there.

Gawd, we have the government and media we deserve. :3oops:

 

[code1211]

Some of us did not see any real substantive shifts between Clinton and Trump because you could replace those two with a bag of sand and we would still be living in the exact same culture. It has become tiring because nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to step up and admit it was not the GOP or Dems that created Trump. It was us. It was our reaction to 9/11, and not 9/11 itself.

By falsely equating Muslims with terrorism we created the platform of equating terrorism with everyone except non Muslim Caucasians. Why do you think it felt natural for aspiring intellectuals such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who migrated from a reality show into politics (sound familiar?), to call BLM terrorists and not understand why people thought it was wrong. She was simply more committed to the program than others. Who the hell is Ann Coulter? (from an alternate universe where no major terrorist attack happened in the US)

Trump did not bolster or create white supremacy and the false equivalence is the same as saying the GOP created Trump. Their numbers did not increase simply because you finally got a peak into the trend just like you cant create more sand on a beach by simply observing the sand.

A practical exercise in testing this approach is to follow past and current stories on public shootings or attacks and you will see how you helped create Trump by not speaking up against the infinite demonization of Muslims. The breaking “active shooter” lives with an undeniable first question and it is not where, how many are dead, is the shooter still alive, how can we help, or is it over? No. The first question and arguably the only question is:

Can the suspects be tied to Islam or do they have Arabic “sounding” names?

(that’s what you call a two for one deal)

Please pay careful note to the fact it does not ask:

Did the shooters provide a motive?

Why? Because if their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years and they do not provide a motive, we provide one for them. What evidence of a motive do you have that comes directly from any of the 9/11 hijackers? San Bernardino? Orlando? Boston? Where the perps said they were doing it for Islam? If you are experiencing a knee-gut-jerk already forming a response of calling me an idiot I implore you to settle down and really think about those questions because none of those attacks have any independent evidence it was for Islam. In only 2 the perps provided a motive, Orlando claimed to be doing it for three different extremist groups, that happen to be enemies of each other, and in Boston it they said it was due to our actions of killing civilians and Muslims. None of it is justified. Just like none of our actions that kill innocent people are justified.

The San Bernardino attackers also became “radicalized” because they did not provide a motive, so we gave them one to continue the anti Muslim agenda. Do we always assign a motive when the perps do not provide one? No. We only do it when Islam can be blamed.

Did we say Adam Lanza was a terrorist since he did not leave a motive? Fair enough. We do not know his motive so to call him a terrorist in the absence of evidence would be fake news.

Those two attacks are exactly the same but we did not call Adam Lanza a terrorist even though he also did not state a motive.

cont'd

https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/how-trump-was-born-from-our-9-11-reaction-bb3b5f036bad#.x03tkrvou

I've heard that the election of Trump and the approval of Brexit were born of the same mind set.

Did the Racist mind set in the US you are citing also inspire the reaction in the UK?

 

[Brischera]

I think you are trying to rewrite history

George W Bush said this 9 days after 9/11

I addressed that red herring with:

"A practical exercise in testing this approach is to follow past and current stories on public shootings or attacks..."

The very reason I gave specific examples was to show the reality in the reporting is what matters. Besides, is there anyone on earth still willing to stand by the claim Bush is trustworthy?

I also believe the Catholic Church gave similar Bush-like responses when the worldwide coverup of sexually abusing children were coming to light.

 

[Brischera]

Speaking of motives, what is it with you folks that not only defend, but oftentimes will not, like our lame duck, lost, in over his head Empty Suit and Chief, even say the actual words: Radical Islamic Terrorists. But why? What do you get out of defending those that would, and do, us harm?

San Bernadino? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-possible-motive-as-questions-still-linger/

"A year after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others, authorities are still probing the shooting...

On the morning of Dec. 2, 2015, workers with San Bernardino County’s health department were gathered for a training session when Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the employees, left and returned with his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The pair began shooting at Farook’s co-workers, ultimately firing more than 100 rounds before fleeing, according to a report released by the Justice Department. Four hours later, police tracked the couple down and killed them during a frenzied gun battle on a residential street.

The FBI said it was investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism after it emerged that Malik had posted a pledge of allegiance on Facebook to the leader of the Islamic State, a message made on behalf of both attackers. Authorities say both were radicalized for some time before the attack, although investigators said they do not think Malik and Farook were directly guided by a foreign terrorist group.

Investigators have said that both Farook and his wife showed a long-standing interest in potential violence. Before the couple got married and Malik came to the United States, the two exchanged messages online “showing signs in their communication of their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom...” "

What is the evidence Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to any group?

When was the last time you referred to the KKK as a radical christian terrorist group? I cannot speak for anyone else but I will not participate in demonizing millions of peaceful people because of the actions of a few.

 

[Brischera]

Cont...

Then the guy he plotted with before, whom he had converted to Islam, who bought the guns used in the terrorist attack, and was charged with conspiring to carry out two other attacks?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-be-charged/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.67efc81dc592

"The government document shows Farook as clearly being the force guiding Marquez toward violent extremism.

After Marquez moved to Riverside, his next-door neighbor introduced him to Islam. By 2007, Marquez had converted to the religion and Farook began educating him about the views of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born imam and Islamist lecturer who inspired numerous terrorist attacks and was killed in a 2011 drone strike. The two men read al-Qaeda’s English-language Inspire magazine, which has published directions for building bombs, and watched videos promoting violent extremism."

I think we, the sighted and reasonable, can all agree that goes a little bit further than just, you know, "their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years".



The Orlando shooting? Less than 2 miles from my house that I moved from a year and a half ago, this is extremist terrorism a bit too too close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

"In a 9-1-1 call shortly after the shooting began, Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and said the shooting was "triggered" by the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month. He later told a negotiator he was "out here right now" because of the American-led interventions in Iraq and in Syria, and that the negotiator should tell the United States to stop bombing ISIL."

Boston Marathon Massacre? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing#Motives

According to FBI interrogators, Dzhokhar and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs, but "were not connected to any known terrorist groups"; instead learning to build explosive weapons from an online magazine published by al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen.[19] They further alleged that "[Dzhokhar and] his brother considered suicide attacks and striking [the Boston Pops Fireworks Spectacular] on the Fourth of July;[167] but ultimately decided to use pressure cooker bombs (capable of remote detonation) and other IEDs." Fox News reported that the brothers "chose the prestigious race as a 'target of opportunity' ... [after] the building of the bombs came together more quickly than expected".[168][169]
Dzhokhar said he and his brother wanted to defend Islam from the U.S., which conducted the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan, in the view of the brothers, against Muslims.[8][139][170] Later a CBS report revealed that a note scrawled by Dzhokhar with a marker on the interior wall of the boat where he was hiding said the bombing were "retribution for U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq", and called the Boston victims "collateral damage", "in the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world."

I do not think it takes a Sherlock Holmes to deduce some of the reasonings behind these acts of terrorism... nor would it seem to Sherlock that these are mere coincidences. I mean, omg, what are the chances that of all the world's religions, Islam would be the culprit involved? Pretty decent chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

What Sherlock might have a harder time deducing is why there are so many apologists for these folks. Maybe you can give us a hint?

Already addressed the Mateen issue:

"Omar Mateen accidentally revealed his motive was just a cover because the info he provided simply came from common media stories and even FBI Director Comey highlighted his proclamation of loyalty to groups who were enemies of each other made no sense."

 

[Brischera]

I've heard that the election of Trump and the approval of Brexit were born of the same mind set.

Did the Racist mind set in the US you are citing also inspire the reaction in the UK?

Im not nearly familiar enough with background on the UK and Brexit to comment but I also do not think it was racism in and of itself that helped create Trump. The driving force behind equating all Muslims with terrorists is selling our foreign policies of torture, kidnapping, sending drones anywhere we want, etc.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Already addressed the Mateen issue:

"Omar Mateen accidentally revealed his motive was just a cover because the info he provided simply came from common media stories and even FBI Director Comey highlighted his proclamation of loyalty to groups who were enemies of each other made no sense."

When did it ever make sense to join a terrorist organization, when did it make sense to strap bombs on oneself and then detonate and kill innocent people, when did it make sense to learn how to fly a plane but not land a plane because you were going to kill yourself and everybody on board... making sense is not a prerequisite to being a terrorist or committing terrorists acts.

Brilliance, consistency and logic are not a major attributes of lone wolf terrorists either. You tell me, in the absence of much else, why not take him at his word?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

What is the evidence Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to any group?

When was the last time you referred to the KKK as a radical christian terrorist group? I cannot speak for anyone else but I will not participate in demonizing millions of peaceful people because of the actions of a few.

I am not an investigator on the case, I can only give you what is reported. I question our government, at the same time I expect them to protect us that would do harm to myself and fellow Americans... so I have to weigh things and I will trust, in this case, investigators who found all the bomb making materials and guns etc... over the ones that killed my fellow Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/u...pgtype=article&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

What has what I refer to the KKK as have to do with anything on this thread? We contained the KKK... if the KKK started mass killing innocents worldwide? Damn straight I would be calling them a terrorist group and, since they are white we could, and would, without fake calls of racism, go after them like we did the Nazis and every other group that posed such a threat to the rest of humanity. What do you call a few, by the way? Problem is that Muslims represent 1.6 billion world wide. Even if the percentage were only 1%, and its far more than that, that agreed with jihad that would be those millions, 16 million correct me if my math is off, you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

While it happens, I think Christian vs Muslim terrorism is much more minor in scale and threat.

 

[Brischera]

When did it ever make sense to join a terrorist organization, when did it make sense to strap bombs on oneself and then detonate and kill innocent people, when did it make sense to learn how to fly a plane but not land a plane because you were going to kill yourself and everybody on board... making sense is not a prerequisite to being a terrorist or committing terrorists acts.

Brilliance, consistency and logic are not a major attributes of lone wolf terrorists either. You tell me, in the absence of much else, why not take him at his word?

I cited all the evidence proving Mateen was not part of any terrorist group and why his attack was based in homophobia trying to hide behind terrorist groups. He pledged allegiance to three different groups that are all enemies of each other and considering the lengthy FBI investigation pre-Pulse produced no evidence of ties to any group, it is clear he was afraid of his homosexual lifestyle being revealed and that was the motive.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Some of us did not see any real substantive shifts between Clinton and Trump because you could replace those two with a bag of sand and we would still be living in the exact same culture. It has become tiring because nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to step up and admit it was not the GOP or Dems that created Trump. It was us. It was our reaction to 9/11, and not 9/11 itself.

By falsely equating Muslims with terrorism we created the platform of equating terrorism with everyone except non Muslim Caucasians. Why do you think it felt natural for aspiring intellectuals such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who migrated from a reality show into politics (sound familiar?), to call BLM terrorists and not understand why people thought it was wrong. She was simply more committed to the program than others. Who the hell is Ann Coulter? (from an alternate universe where no major terrorist attack happened in the US)

Trump did not bolster or create white supremacy and the false equivalence is the same as saying the GOP created Trump. Their numbers did not increase simply because you finally got a peak into the trend just like you cant create more sand on a beach by simply observing the sand.

A practical exercise in testing this approach is to follow past and current stories on public shootings or attacks and you will see how you helped create Trump by not speaking up against the infinite demonization of Muslims. The breaking “active shooter” lives with an undeniable first question and it is not where, how many are dead, is the shooter still alive, how can we help, or is it over? No. The first question and arguably the only question is:

Can the suspects be tied to Islam or do they have Arabic “sounding” names?

(that’s what you call a two for one deal)

Please pay careful note to the fact it does not ask:

Did the shooters provide a motive?

Why? Because if their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years and they do not provide a motive, we provide one for them. What evidence of a motive do you have that comes directly from any of the 9/11 hijackers? San Bernardino? Orlando? Boston? Where the perps said they were doing it for Islam? If you are experiencing a knee-gut-jerk already forming a response of calling me an idiot I implore you to settle down and really think about those questions because none of those attacks have any independent evidence it was for Islam. In only 2 the perps provided a motive, Orlando claimed to be doing it for three different extremist groups, that happen to be enemies of each other, and in Boston it they said it was due to our actions of killing civilians and Muslims. None of it is justified. Just like none of our actions that kill innocent people are justified.

The San Bernardino attackers also became “radicalized” because they did not provide a motive, so we gave them one to continue the anti Muslim agenda. Do we always assign a motive when the perps do not provide one? No. We only do it when Islam can be blamed.

Did we say Adam Lanza was a terrorist since he did not leave a motive? Fair enough. We do not know his motive so to call him a terrorist in the absence of evidence would be fake news.

Those two attacks are exactly the same but we did not call Adam Lanza a terrorist even though he also did not state a motive.

cont'd

https://medium.com/@brylarfoustark/how-trump-was-born-from-our-9-11-reaction-bb3b5f036bad#.x03tkrvou

Another far fetched analogy.

 

[LessBiased?]

Caution: the following is not politically correct.

Islam needs to be viewed as both a religion, and as a religion attached to various cultures. As a religion, just looking at its doctrines, IMO Islam is similar to Christianity, which isn't surprising given the historical connections between the two. Among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I believe the latter two are more similar to each other than Judaism.

From a cultural standpoint, during the 'middle ages', Islamic cultures were sophisticated, and made considerable contributions to science, mathematics, philosophy, etc. However, achievement in those areas then historically shifted to western cultures tied with Christianity, while Islamic cultures stagnated, or even regressed in some ways, to the extent that they are now amongst the most conservative and anti-progressive cultures in the world. This has fostered ideological extremists who are willing to use violence and terrorism if necessary. That's not to say that most or all Muslims are prone to violence or terrorism, I'm only referring to the extremist wing.

At the same time, US foreign policy towards Islamic countries has caused a backlash towards the US. We've supported corrupt rulers in Muslim countries to fend off the Soviets during the cold war, and also to maintain access to oil, which has angered the Muslims in those countries and motivated the extremists to target the US. We've similarly supported Israel over the Palestinians because we believed that served our interests, and because Jewish lobbies are powerful, and that has also contributed to the backlash.

So IMO, we need to work on two fronts to address this problem:

- We need to protect ourselves against terrorism, recognizing that terrorists are indeed most likely to be Muslims originating from Muslim countries. I believe that Trump's thinking on this is realistic.

- We need to change our foreign policy in the Middle East such that the extremists there lose their motivation or justification to target the US. That would take time, and hopefully it's not too late. Trump hasn't said much about this, but I agree with the idea of knocking out ISIS, and I understand that he also wants to involve his son-in-law in brokering an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

 

[Brischera]

I am not an investigator on the case, I can only give you what is reported. I question our government, at the same time I expect them to protect us that would do harm to myself and fellow Americans... so I have to weigh things and I will trust, in this case, investigators who found all the bomb making materials and guns etc... over the ones that killed my fellow Americans.

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

What has what I refer to the KKK as have to do with anything on this thread? We contained the KKK... if the KKK started mass killing innocents worldwide? Damn straight I would be calling them a terrorist group and, since they are white we could, and would, without fake calls of racism, go after them like we did the Nazis and every other group that posed such a threat to the rest of humanity. What do you call a few, by the way? Problem is that Muslims represent 1.6 billion world wide. Even if the percentage were only 1%, and its far more than that, that agreed with jihad that would be those millions, 16 million correct me if my math is off, you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

While it happens, I think Christian vs Muslim terrorism is much more minor in scale and threat.

Three days after the shooting:

"Law enforcement officials are poring through evidence as they try to uncover the motives of Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, who allegedly killed 14 people and injured 21 others in Wednesday’s
shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California -- a case that is now a
federal terrorism investigation."

"However, Comey also said, "We have no indication that these killers are part of an organized larger group or form part of a cell. There's no indication that they are part of a network."

Investigators Searching for Motive in Deadly San Bernardino Shooting - ABC News

 

[Brischera]

Another far fetched analogy.

With such a thoughtful explanation that is hard to deny.

 

[Brischera]

Caution: the following is not politically correct.

Islam needs to be viewed as both a religion, and as a religion attached to various cultures. As a religion, just looking at its doctrines, IMO Islam is similar to Christianity, which isn't surprising given the historical connections between the two. Among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I believe the latter two are more similar to each other than Judaism.

From a cultural standpoint, during the 'middle ages', Islamic cultures were sophisticated, and made considerable contributions to science, mathematics, philosophy, etc. However, achievement in those areas then historically shifted to western cultures tied with Christianity, while Islamic cultures stagnated, or even regressed in some ways, to the extent that they are now amongst the most conservative and anti-progressive cultures in the world. This has fostered ideological extremists who are willing to use violence and terrorism if necessary. That's not to say that most or all Muslims are prone to violence or terrorism, I'm only referring to the extremist wing.

At the same time, US foreign policy towards Islamic countries has caused a backlash towards the US. We've supported corrupt rulers in Muslim countries to fend off the Soviets during the cold war, and also to maintain access to oil, which has angered the Muslims in those countries and motivated the extremists to target the US. We've similarly supported Israel over the Palestinians because we believed that served our interests, and because Jewish lobbies are powerful, and that has also contributed to the backlash.

So IMO, we need to work on two fronts to address this problem:

- We need to protect ourselves against terrorism, recognizing that terrorists are indeed most likely to be Muslims originating from Muslim countries. I believe that Trump's thinking on this is realistic.

- We need to change our foreign policy in the Middle East such that the extremists there lose their motivation or justification to target the US. That would take time, and hopefully it's not too late. Trump hasn't said much about this, but I agree with the idea of knocking out ISIS, and I understand that he also wants to involve his son-in-law in brokering an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Do you think it would be helpful to stop calling all mass shootings in US as "terrorism" simply because the perps can be skewed as being Muslims?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I cited all the evidence proving Mateen was not part of any terrorist group and why his attack was based in homophobia trying to hide behind terrorist groups. He pledged allegiance to three different groups that are all enemies of each other and considering the lengthy FBI investigation pre-Pulse produced no evidence of ties to any group, it is clear he was afraid of his homosexual lifestyle being revealed and that was the motive.

Certainly in the era of lone wolf terrorists, self initiating they do not have to be affiliated to be inspired by Islam and Islamic terrorists committing atrocities worldwide, they is no requirement that they be card carrying members of one group or that they cannot consider themselves aligned with more than one or other or even of several conflicting groups.

Your creating of a dummy scenario where we blame people only because, "if their name, travels, or any family or close friends ever visited or drove by a Mosque in the last twenty years and they do not provide a motive, we provide one for them. " That is almost insulting in its insinuation...no, it IS insulting. If there name were Smith or Jones and they were committing these acts of violence, which were indeed factual acts of violence, and they told us it was because they were affiliated or inspired by some Islamic cause or another after they had made trips to, say, Muslim dominated nations, converted to Islam, agreed with terrorist groups and thereupon started buying weaponry and building bombs for which they later used to harm Americans... I think they would get treated pretty much the same as other Islamic terrorists.

That they commit terror in the name of Islam while others they do not personally know are doing the same, sorry, I think that is a distinction without sufficient difference to make us reevaluate how we, after the fact, label these people with a penchant to harm fellow Americans in the name of Islam.

You argument is non persuasive. The actual point that you are trying to get us to agree with is not logical.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Three days after the shooting:

"Law enforcement officials are poring through evidence as they try to uncover the motives of Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, who allegedly killed 14 people and injured 21 others in Wednesday’s
shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California -- a case that is now a
federal terrorism investigation."

"However, Comey also said, "We have no indication that these killers are part of an organized larger group or form part of a cell. There's no indication that they are part of a network."

Investigators Searching for Motive in Deadly San Bernardino Shooting - ABC News

Again, there is no requirement that Islamic terrorists be a part of one group or another, why is that such a sticking point for you. If you looked at their history, the conversion of another friend who bought the gun they used, to the Islamic faith, that they had, together with this friend, planned other attacks not carried out...

Why are you straining so hard to apologize for them and discredit their own self proclamations of this being done in Islams name?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Do you think it would be helpful to stop calling all mass shootings in US as "terrorism" simply because the perps can be skewed as being Muslims?

I think each case should be looked at individually. I agree with the calls of Islam made in the two referenced cases and have no problem, in fact would so demand them to be called Islamic terrorism.

 

[LessBiased?]

Do you think it would be helpful to stop calling all mass shootings in US as "terrorism" simply because the perps can be skewed as being Muslims?

If the motive is to terrify a general population for the sake of an ideological objective (religious and/or political), I would go ahead and call it terrorism. So I would put some domestic attacks by non-Muslims also in the category of terrorism. If someone engages in mass shooting mainly because of a mental problem, I wouldn't call that terrorism.

It's unfortunate that the label terrorism has become so associated with Islam, but to correct that, IMO Muslims also bear some responsibility to put their house in order and control their own extremists. As I noted, I believe the blame for this situation needs to be shared between both Muslim cultures and a US foreign policy which seems to have played out to be net detrimental for various parties, including the US. We're spending/wasting a lot of money on homeland security that could be put to much better uses, and living in fear isn't good either.

BTW, though I'm not religious myself, I have many Muslims in my extended family, so I have direct exposure to Muslims and Muslim culture (in the US) which many in this forum probably don't have. They're generally normal people just trying to live their lives, like everybody else. And the current generation of young adult Muslims appears to be more assimilated into American culture than those who were immigrants a generation or so ago.

 

[Brischera]

I think each case should be looked at individually. I agree with the calls of Islam made in the two referenced cases and have no problem, in fact would so demand them to be called Islamic terrorism.

As noted with the boston bombing, it was not due to simply Islam. The motive they gave was retaliation for killing muslims and others in the ME. Why is it okay for us to kill unknown numbers of kids and innocents but when someone employs a poor man drone strike it is "terrorism."

If you are going to defend that based on the stale "we dont target innocents" then you might not want to read about how we knowingly killed kids, as already admitted, explain how SigIntel strikes adhere, and a source for showing why each drone strike was justified and going only after "Terrorists."

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

As noted with the boston bombing, it was not due to simply Islam. The motive they gave was retaliation for killing muslims and others in the ME. Why is it okay for us to kill unknown numbers of kids and innocents but when someone employs a poor man drone strike it is "terrorism."

If you are going to defend that based on the stale "we dont target innocents" then you might not want to read about how we knowingly killed kids, as already admitted, explain how SigIntel strikes adhere, and a source for showing why each drone strike was justified and going only after "Terrorists."

Hey, that is not the question here, one of equivalence. One can legitimately debate that topic to my mind, and I am sure, especially where drone strikes are being carried out, that might be a matter up for debate, its just not the topic of this thread and so...

I defend that our government has an obligation, moreover a sworn duty to protect OUR citizens as best they can. I would also suggest that most of those drone strikes would never occur in the first place if we were not carrying these strikes out just for that very reason, that we have been hit, innocent Americans killed/maimed and we continue to be threatened by those specific bad players in the world.

 

[chromium]

As noted with the boston bombing, it was not due to simply Islam. The motive they gave was retaliation for killing muslims and others in the ME. Why is it okay for us to kill unknown numbers of kids and innocents but when someone employs a poor man drone strike it is "terrorism."

If you are going to defend that based on the stale "we dont target innocents" then you might not want to read about how we knowingly killed kids, as already admitted, explain how SigIntel strikes adhere, and a source for showing why each drone strike was justified and going only after "Terrorists."

Plenty of us have always seen the invasion of Iraq as terrorism, and the boston bombing as well. They are both indefensible and violence only leads to more violence, in an endless conflict

Boston was about revenge, not bringing awareness to something that was already transparent as hell. Dzhokhar also admitted they were motivated by extreme Islam. If 100,000 Peruvians were killed in an invasion, they would not have done a goddamn thing about it, so you can't convince me Islam had nothing to do with it