The ISIS offensive in Iraq

gourimoko said:

I agree.. But I don't think using the prison system is the way to go about doing it. Just have tougher sentencing guidelines

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

That shouldn't be remotely controversial, so I can only surmise that you're disagreeing just to be disagreeable.

Click to expand...

gourimoko said:

I never said it should be.

Click to expand...

gourimoko said:

What we sentence individuals to should be the totality of their punishment.

Click to expand...

The president is requesting Congress to pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) resolution against ISIS. Congress has not issued a similar resolution since 2002, when President Bush was given the authority to wage war against Iraq. The purpose of this resolution is to give official authority to the president to do the things that he has already been doing for the past six years. Seems strange but this is typical for Washington. President Obama’s claim is that he does not need this authority. He claims, as have all other recent presidents, that the authority to wage war in the Middle East has been granted by the resolutions passed in 2001, 2002, and by article II of the Constitution. To ask for this authority at this time is a response to public and political pressure.

It has been reported that the president is going to request that the authority limit the use of ground troops. However it would not affect the troops already engaged in Syria and Iraq to the tune of many thousands. This new authority will acknowledge that more advisors will be sent. Most importantly it will appear to have given moral sanction to the wars that have already been going for years.

Interestingly it actually expands the ability of the president to wage war although the president publicly indicates he would like to restrain it. The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.

The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.

We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.

Click to expand...

gourimoko said:

If you agree with the bolded sentence from ABC then I'm not disagreeing with you.

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

I know that. What you said was:

Now, there are some people who argue that prison means that criminals have "paid their debt to society", and that they shouldn't be discriminated against by other people after being released because that makes it tougher for them to rebuild their lives. I couldn't tell from your statement if you supported that idea or not, so I added the comment about society's reaction to felons being part of the "punishment".

If you agree with that, then we don't disagree.

Fancy that!

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

Sure. Still don't agree that the "added" bias of a hate crime is deserving of a more severe punishment than any other shitty motive should. "Well, if you'd killed this old black man because you wanted to steal his money and not leave him as a witness, you'd only get 20 years. But since you killed him because he's black, you get 30."

Fuck it. Give him 30, life, or the chair in either situation.

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

Well, after prodding from noted religious libertarian (and President of Turkey) Tayyip Erdogan and others, the President has released a statement about the murders in Chapel Hill:

Yesterday, the FBI opened an inquiry into the brutal and outrageous murders of Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, Deah Shaddy Barakat, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In addition to the ongoing investigation by local authorities, the FBI is taking steps to determine whether federal laws were violated. No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship. Michelle and I offer our condolences to the victims’ loved ones. As we saw with the overwhelming presence at the funeral of these young Americans, we are all one American family. Whenever anyone is taken from us before their time, we remember how they lived their lives – and the words of one of the victims should inspire the way we live ours.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232788-obama-chapel-hill-killings-brutal-and-outrageous

Of course, nobody is advocating that people in the U.S. should be murdered because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship. And whether or not that was actually the motive in those shootings is far from clear. But Obama apparently believes -- and just signaled to the rest of the world that he believes -- that was the motive in Chapel Hill.

Now, contrast that shooting -- which at least offers a specific alternative motive -- with what happened at Fort Hood in 2009. There, with clear premeditation, Major Hassan stood up from a table, shouted "Allahu Akbar", and proceeding to kill 13 Americans and wound more than 30 others. If that was not enough to conclude that there was a religious motive to his attacks, , it was quickly determined that he had been in direct communication with a radical jihadi who was urging "lone gunman" attacks by radical Muslims in the U.S..

And yet, despite having made a number of public statements about that attack, the President has never once, either directly or impliedly, addressed the motives of Major Hasan, or linked the attack to religious extremism.

Why the double standard?

Click to expand...

gourimoko said:

Major Hasan didn't target people because of their race or religion, AFAIK, or are you saying he did?

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

Well, after prodding from noted religious libertarian (and President of Turkey) Tayyip Erdogan and others, the President has released a statement about the murders in Chapel Hill:

Yesterday, the FBI opened an inquiry into the brutal and outrageous murders of Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, Deah Shaddy Barakat, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In addition to the ongoing investigation by local authorities, the FBI is taking steps to determine whether federal laws were violated. No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship. Michelle and I offer our condolences to the victims’ loved ones. As we saw with the overwhelming presence at the funeral of these young Americans, we are all one American family. Whenever anyone is taken from us before their time, we remember how they lived their lives – and the words of one of the victims should inspire the way we live ours.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232788-obama-chapel-hill-killings-brutal-and-outrageous

Of course, nobody is advocating that people in the U.S. should be murdered because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship. And whether or not that was actually the motive in those shootings is far from clear. But Obama apparently believes -- and just signaled to the rest of the world that he believes -- that was the motive in Chapel Hill.

Now, contrast that shooting -- which at least offers a specific alternative motive -- with what happened at Fort Hood in 2009. There, with clear premeditation, Major Hassan stood up from a table, shouted "Allahu Akbar", and proceeding to kill 13 Americans and wound more than 30 others. If that was not enough to conclude that there was a religious motive to his attacks, , it was quickly determined that he had been in direct communication with a radical jihadi who was urging "lone gunman" attacks by radical Muslims in the U.S..

And yet, despite having made a number of public statements about that attack, the President has never once, either directly or impliedly, addressed the motives of Major Hasan, or linked the attack to religious extremism.

Why the double standard?

Click to expand...

JSS2306 said:

He did.

In the latter part of last year The Washington Times produced a letter written by Hasan to the pope which was titled “A Warning To Pope Francis, Members Of The Vatican, And Other Religious Leaders Around the World,” in which he embraced Jihad throughout.

He has claimed numerous times to be a "soldier of Allah" which coincides with hate against any religion, race, or creed opposite of Islam.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure why it matters but I find it interesting that you compare an insane lone gunman whom happens to be Muslim, to another insane person and point to it as if it means something.

If you're going to say that the white guy who killed people because of their enthicity is apart of a bigger problem, then you should be completely blown away by the acts of mass murder by people of Muslim faith in the United States (whom also happen to be of Arabic decent), even though they are 8.1% of the population.

There have been more hate crimes that deal with religion by the Muslim population than by any other religion in the last 20 years.

Again, I think Hasan is just a nutbag and I also think the white guy in this case is just a nutbag but that's without delving into the problems in the Middle East.

Why are Muslims, that happen to of Arab decent, committing more acts of violence based on religion in this country? It's a fair question that has an equally fair answer.

Click to expand...

King Stannis said:

Oh, boy.

Always wanted to see fireworks in February.

Click to expand...

gourimoko said:

This is how JSS says Happy Valentine's Day to all the Arab and Black guys he knows...

Click to expand...