19 hours ago, l3ubba said:

But what I'm saying is that we already know what the cause is and our military is (or was) fighting to do exactly what you are talking about. If Obama and Clinton decide they are too scared to use the words "radical Muslims" then let them be, the people who are actually doing the fighting and intel work know the truth and know what the cause is (for the most part). I really don't care that a couple of politicians want to dance around what words they are using, they do that all the time anyway.

 

Politicians are those who influence things. If they decide that in order to get more cheap supporters they need to cut the army budget or stop fighting ISIL or to disband counterintelligence (a stupidly impossible idea, but who knows), they'll do that and the men and women who fight won't have the means to fight. It happened so many times in the history, including American history as well. 

18 hours ago, Hastings said:

Politicians are those who influence things. If they decide that in order to get more cheap supporters they need to cut the army budget or stop fighting ISIL or to disband counterintelligence (a stupidly impossible idea, but who knows), they'll do that and the men and women who fight won't have the means to fight. It happened so many times in the history, including American history as well. 

Yes, but that isn't the case for this scenario. Whether Obama wants to say it publicly or not he knows who and where the problems are.

13 hours ago, l3ubba said:

Yes, but that isn't the case for this scenario. Whether Obama wants to say it publicly or not he knows who and where the problems are.

But the people don't. Director Francis Ford Coppola was on TV today and said something to the effect of 'Islam used to be a beautiful religion of peace and love.' People will tend to believe a guy like him. He was the director of the famous Godfather movies. He's a man of high stature. He's also wrong.

Islam follows the teachings of Mohammed. He was not a peaceful person. He was a conquering warlord who spread the faith by the sword, quite successfully, I might add. He encouraged people to attack unarmed merchant caravans to pillage and loot, he cut off heads of dissidents and apostates, and he made a six year old his first wife. People who comment on religions on TV are often people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, or are devout followers of it. Very rarely do you get insight from somebody who has studied religions as a scholar while maintaining a scientific atheist point of view.

Edited December 9, 201510 yr by unr3al

I just want to say, am I wrong when I first heard about this attack, I said to myself it looks to be another case of people taking their  religion (Islam) literally. 

2 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

I just want to say, am I wrong when I first heard about this attack, I said to myself it looks to be another case of people taking their  religion (Islam) literally. 

No, you weren't wrong, because that's the fact of it. Now its debatable that you were being presumptuous, but the particular group of people responsible for the majority of terror attacks over the last 30 years happen to be younger Muslim men who follow the religion of Islam in a way their parents did not. That's no fault of yours, just don't confuse that fact with the rednecks who think all Muslims are terrorists. They aren't. Oddly enough, this group of people seem to be of the younger generation, something people such as Richard Dawkins (ethologist, evolutionary scientist) and Maajid Nawaz (ex-terrorist, current Islamic reformist) have pointed out in various TV interviews about religion. The kids are more susceptible to radicalization based on observational findings.

Edited December 9, 201510 yr by unr3al