*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[BananaStand]

That's the line. Saying you hate Islam is fine. Saying that it's therefore appropriate to treat Muslims with a different level of human dignity is a totally different issue.

I'm not sure if we agree here.

Do you consider treating someone like a dangerous enemy as being "a different level of human dignity".

[Poopadoop]

Another example of the low IQ person ignoring the crux of the argument.

dumbana, his point is that you can't hold the group responsible for the behaviour of members of the group.

It's like when Trump goes to jail, should all of his Kool-Aid followers go to jail too?

It's really that simple.

[BananaStand]

dumbana, his point is that you can't hold the group responsible for the behaviour of members of the group.

His point is WRONG. You absolutely can hold the group responsible.

There are three kinds of muslims
A) the kind that bomb civilians
B) The kind that don't bomb civilians but think it's fine if someone else does
C) The kind that don't bomb civilians because they think it's wrong every single time.

Group B is by far the largest. Groups A and B combined represent a STAGGERING majority of muslims worldwide. Group C, outside of the US and Britain, are squarely in the minority.

I hold group B responsible for group A's actions. By tolerating bad actors, they enable their behavior. And that's how I feel it's appropriate to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of group A

[Jack Sawyer]

Why do they have to DO something?

Isn't enough to say "that ideology explicitly states its intention to purge my culture from the face of the earth based on nothing more than my disinterest in converting to their religion"

Very interesting how you put it.

Here:

“The missiles that kill us, American-made. The planes that kill us, American-made. The tanks … American-made. You are saying to me, where is America? America is the whole thing.”

US-made bomb kills 40 school children

Does this mean every American is a bad person? Should the whole group be purged from the face of the earth based on nothing more than what a portion of said group are responsible for?

His point is WRONG. You absolutely can hold the group responsible.

Very interesting right there. Remember that point. Let's continue

There are three kinds of muslims
A) the kind that bomb civilians
B) The kind that don't bomb civilians but think it's fine if someone else does
C) The kind that don't bomb civilians because they think it's wrong every single time.

No, the main kinds are: Sunni, Sh'ia and Kharjite.

The problem is Wahhabism. An ultraconservative, austere, fundamentalist, puritanical Islamic reform movement.

The further problem is the alliance of the Wahabbis (who do not like to be called that) to USA's Middle Eestern BFFs, the house of Saud.

And another problem was US/UK intervention intervention on behalf of their companies (capitalism, so get the govt to do your dirty work, hell yeah) in Iran in '53, overthrowing Mossadegh (who wanted to make the countries' natural resources a public good, much like in Norway today) and installing a puppet. A puppet who turned that country from an open and relatively progressive state to a "DEATH TO AMERICA" chanting state.

This in turn fueled a surge of nationalism which culminated in '79. The US-iran relations are fucked to this day.

But, the events in '79 in Iran also challenged Saudi Wahhabism in a number of ways on a number of fronts. It was a revolution of Shia, not Sunni, Islam and Wahhabism held that Shia were not truly Muslims. Nonetheless, its massive popularity in Iran and its overthrow of a pro-American secular monarchy generated enormous enthusiasm among pious Sunni, not just Shia Muslims around the world.

Khomeiny then preached that monarchy was against Islam and America was Islam's enemy, and called for the overthrow of Al-Saud family. This lead to Saudi Arabia – a kingdom allied with America – to "redouble their efforts to counter Iran and spread Wahhabism around the world", and reversed any moves by Saudi leaders to distance itself from Wahhabism or "soften" its ideology.

Remember 9/11? 15/19 hijackers were Saudis.

And yet the retaliation was to attack Afghanistan, and Iraq. Then Libya, then Syria, then Yemen.

I hold group B responsible for group A's actions. By tolerating bad actors, they enable their behavior. And that's how I feel it's appropriate to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of group A

Let's follow this logic. So, by enabling the Military Industrial Complex in destroying the whole Yemeni civilization by not giving a fuck that it's actually happening, should you Banana be held responsible as well?

[Jack Sawyer]

Jack, you're equating the overt murderous-ness of an Islamic ideology to the sales of armaments to the military forces of a sovereign nation.

An islamic ideology. Oh, we have progress there.

I brought forth WHY wahhabi islam is such a problem nowadays, and not all of Islam and all muslims as some of you have been claiming. With facts and links to said facts.

I also clearly outlined why we got to where we got. You can clearly see the role of Team America world Police in there.

Details matter. Also nuance. Using broad strokes just because you do not understand something is just stupid.


Besides, where do you think all this beef comes from?

An angry violent mob 300 million strong is out there with it's mind set on thoroughly exterminating the west.

Why are they set up on angrily exterminating the west? Did the west have any play in that? Should we just ignore (recent) history?

Are you trying to tell me that's perfectly fine?

Is it fine selling weapons to sovereign nations knowing full well what they are going to do with them? Is it fine invading countries for natural resources then claiming to be holier than thou?

And that it should be allowed to continue to exist unchallenged?

The same applies to the other side.

And that if any of those individuals manage to get their hands on a weapon,

Oh well, god damn

then whatever violence that ensues is the responsibility of the weapon manufacturer???????

Golly gee wiz.

Also LOL with the subtle strawman. Remember how I said:

Let's follow this logic. So, by enabling the Military Industrial Complex in destroying the whole Yemeni civilization by not giving a fuck that it's actually happening, should you Banana be held responsible as well?

This is a pathetic false equivalency.

This was your point. I followed you own logic. It's frankly beautiful how you think your own logic is false equivalency when I use it, yet perfectly fine when you do


As a reminder, this is what you said:

I hold group B responsible for group A's actions. By tolerating bad actors, they enable their behavior. And that's how I feel it's appropriate to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of group A

Frankly Im disappointed in you Jack

Join the club. I have been dissapointed in you for a while now, since I realized you are not a rational actor. At first I didn't even give you play, as I thought you were spoon's troll.

However, you don't care about debating, about understanding another person's point; you only care about being right, and when given overwhelming evidence you are not, you just do the finger to the ears thing.

I'm not doing this with you.

What? Banana shutting the fuck up? Must be a new day

[BananaStand]

I brought forth WHY wahhabi islam is such a problem nowadays, and not all of Islam and all muslims as some of you have been claiming. With facts and links to said facts.

it's a distinction without a difference. Also, I never said "all of Islam". That's you putting words in my mouth because you can't debate fairly. Pick a country, look at the polls. A massive massive massive percentage of muslims, regardless of brand, believe quite literally in some extraordinarily dangerous ideas.

I also clearly outlined why we got to where we got. You can clearly see the role of Team America world Police in there.

Oh, so America tinkered with Iran, so that means it's ok to enslave women, murder homosexuals, and take a backpack bomb onto Israeli public transit. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing that up. Islamists don't believe these things out of spite for America Jack. If America picks winners in regional conflicts, then America has to live with the geopolitical results of those decisions. I don't see why that's even part of this debate.

Can you please explain how America's bad behavior makes Sharia law more popular?

Why are they set up on angrily exterminating the west?

It's in the manual. You see these guys with 8 wives and 40 kids. Do you think they just like big families? No. The idea is to overwhelm the world population with Islam, and over time, drive non-muslims to extinction. I realize that's not the most violent measure Islamists have taken. But it's still an attack against the west. However small, however slow, it's a step toward the Caliphate.

Did the west have any play in that? Should we just ignore (recent) history?

The idea of an all-Muslim planet was in play long before '79 sir.

Is it fine selling weapons to sovereign nations knowing full well what they are going to do with them? Is it fine invading countries for natural resources then claiming to be holier than thou?

Like I said, America picked sides, and has to live with the geopolitical consequences. If you wanna discuss that, start a thread. But if you wanna discuss it here, then please explain to me what America did to make muslims want to keep girls out of school and throw gay men off of buildings?

The same applies to the other side.

Ok fine. Challenge America. use freedom of speech and freedom of the press to disseminate information on America's geopolitical actions and hold it's leaders accountable in democratic elections. I'm still not seeing how anything America ever did justifies the enforced execution of apostates.

This was your point. I followed you own logic. It's frankly beautiful how you think your own logic is false equivalency when I use it, yet perfectly fine when you do

I think you misunderstand logic sir. When I said "whatever violence that ensues is the responsibility of the weapon manufacturer???????" that was not me expressing a point of view that I actually have. That was a mocking representation of what I believe to be your point of view. You can tell because I used like 7 question marks. Why would I do that if it was my own idea?

It's my belief that Islam should be held responsible for the bad behavior carried out in it's name. And I don't hold any other religion to the same standard because the bad behavior carried out in the names of those other religions is comparatively minuscule and usually doesn't involve killing.

I don't see the double standard. Because I also believe that every American has a responsibility hold the government accountable for any bad behavior carried out in America's name. If the government is doing bad things in Yemen, then elections are only 3 months away folks.

Join the club. I have been disappointing in you for a while now, since I realized you are not a rational actor.

I'm more rational than you're capable of realizing. That's not the same thing.

However, you don't care about debating,

Completely false. I'm eager to debate. Love it actually. Pick a topic, start a thread, and it can be just you and me debating anything you want. Ong can moderate. Everyone else here can observe, or we can ask the audience periodically to weigh in who's addressing facts, and who's demagoguing.

about understanding another person's point;

I understand your point completely. You're saying that the rage exhibited by jihadists in recent decades is the result of American pot-stirring. Fine. I'm not even going to dispute that. I am wondering why the hell it's relevant. The problem with Islam is that it's hateful, murderous, oppressive, intolerant, and frankly completely incompatible with western society, which isn't going anywhere. And that's been the case since well before the 1950's.

So I understand your point. However, I just think you'd be better off telling this stuff to a doorknob. There's a better chance the doorknob cares.

you only care about being right,

What the fuck man? I agree with you! America botched the Iran job. Fine. We're both right! I can't even agree with you without you having a hissy fit.

and when given overwhelming evidence you are not, you just do the finger to the ears thing.

What evidence? What am I not right about? I agree with you! Are we both right, or both wrong?

Now I'll pull my fingers out of my ears if you can tell me why it's ok to keep girls out of school, cuz the Crusades.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're being intentionally glib because you're too stubborn to realize that your argument is pathetic and doesn't hold water.

Incorrect again.

Blaming one person for what someone else did is just stupid. If you can't accept that, I wonder how you'd feel if you were falsely accused of being a racist because you associate with racists. Oh wait, no... I don't wonder that, because you've repeatedly flipped out against being called a racist.

So there's one hypocrisy.

Also, I never said "all of Islam". That's you putting words in my mouth because you can't debate fairly.

wow.
I don't even have to search back beyond 1 page to find you making multiple blanket statements about Muslims without any distinction that you're talking about "some" Muslims. Same for your condemning Islam as an ideology without making any distinctions about which sect of Islam.

So is this entire conversation a misunderstanding?

'Cause if you're walking back your blanket statements about all Muslims and all of Islam, then I'll retract my prior disagreements.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you consider treating someone like a dangerous enemy as being "a different level of human dignity".

Depends on what you mean by that, and what they did.

Treating criminals like criminals is the whole purpose of the judicial system. I'm OK with that except in the cases where it screws up, which happens in any human system.
Treating people whom aren't accused of any crime by any legal agency as though they are criminals is a problem.

[BananaStand]

Depends on what you mean by that, and what they did

Why do they have to DO something?

Isn't enough to say "that ideology explicitly states its intention to purge my culture from the face of the earth based on nothing more than my disinterest in converting to their religion"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why do they have to DO something?

Isn't enough to say "that ideology explicitly states its intention to purge my culture from the face of the earth based on nothing more than my disinterest in converting to their religion"

LOL. What?

Becuase if they didn't do anything, then they are not criminals.
If your goal is to create the most ridiculous persona on the internet, then that's a lofty goal, and I kinda appreciate the challenge, but seriously... why?

[BananaStand]

Becuase if they didn't do anything, then they are not criminals.

Movicus goalpostium ad poopy

Since when are we talking about criminal prosecution?

I'm talking about treating people like an enemy based on their adherence to a toxic ideology whose stated goal is the destruction of me and my culture.

Why the fuck are you bringing the law into this?