Thoughts on the Inane Political Reaction to San Bernardino

[KeepTalking]

Well, I am glad you agree that politicians who do this and nothing else are just as bad as the politicians you decried in your OP. And those who offer only their thoughts and prayers show their character, which is immediately pandering to their base in the face of tragedy, and then doing nothing else about it.

If they are going to do nothing but offer their thoughts and prayers, then no, they are not doing the right thing.

Your inability or unwillingness to read my comments for comprehension might be mistaken for mindless partisanship.

I comprehend your vomit inducing over-the-top partisan rhetoric just fine, thank you.

I am confident that, if given another opportunity, you will not make the same mistake again.

I am confident that if I have to read it again, there will just be more bile forthcoming.

I did not agree that politicians who offer thoughts and prayers (sincere or otherwise) are just as bad - I stated just the opposite. I stated that no one denies that politicians and others are aware of potential political consequences (positive or negative) to their comments, and that no one is saying every comment is sincere. But EVEN IF some are insincere (although there is no evidence they are) at least they respect mourning and show grace.

The sincerity of their comments is proven by their action(s), or lack thereof, taken after.

How that spurs you to charge that "(all) those who only offer their thoughts and prayers" are "pandering to their base" is a puzzle - well, unless you source it in mind-reading or divine revelation. You don't know that any are insincere, and therefore only doing it for political purposes.

First, one would need to observe the word placed in boldface above, and comprehend how it relates to my position on the subject throughout this thread. Then one might realize that it is the lack of action after offering thoughts and prayers that I feel shows that they are insincere, and simply pandering.

You've inadvertently supported my point by illustration. Swamp fevered partisans always assume, in every life circumstance, bad faith upon those they consider political enemies and that is only a symptom of the problem I have been speaking of - the poisoning by a relentless politicization and partisanship in all social experience by our political class.

Yes, your posts nearly always serve to illustrate the most extreme political partisanship one can experience.

NOTHING of good will can be granted to the enemy in ANY circumstance - right?

Aww, maxxie, come now. You are not my enemy. Just change the channel from Fox News, then put down the remote, and I am sure we can debate the issues like civilized people.

So yes, I embrace mourning and grief as the most important first reaction of a national leadership class.

Mourning and grief as a first step, sure, that is all well and good. Doing that while fully intending to take no additional steps, however, is where the problem lies.

Why? What is it about those on the left that compels them to demand everyone else "prove" their sincerity and/or grief by going political and demanding actions the left agrees with?

Because these are politicians we are talking about. It is their job to take action in the face of tragedy. If I want feel good platitudes, I can get that at Church. I bet you can guess how often I attend Church. They do not have to take an action with which I agree, just as long as it is a rational action that might help to keep such a tragedy from happening again. Prayers aint gonna do that. Thoughts wont do that either, unless they cause the thinker to take action.

Why must the first reaction be "Some folks in California died, I refuse to accept that, vote for me!"?

That would be a rather stupid reaction, and if you think that is what I would prefer to hear, you should probably start praying and thinking a little harder.

As I said, the animus that propelled the Paul Wellstone funeral OR being a decent human being is not a false choice...it's the only choice.

I don't know who Paul Wellston was, I don't know anything about his funeral, nor do I care. On the other hand, I can think of at least six choices a politician can make in this kind of situation:

1) Offer thoughts and prayers, then take no action (your preference).
2) Offer thoughts and prayers, then take some rational action (Obama's preference).
3) Offer thoughts and prayers, then take some irrational action (the preference of those GOPers who will use this opportunity to deny Syrian refugees entrance to our country)
4) Shut the fuck up, and take no action.
5) Shut the fuck up, and take some rational action (my preference).
6) Shut the fuck up, and take some irrational action.

So, what you said with regard to choices stands as a false dichotomy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There certainly are KKK terrorists.

Think of the pro-life movement. The rank and file harass, nothing more. Not terrorism. Some radicals go much farther.

I see the KKK the same way--there are terrorists within it's ranks but it's not a terrorist organization itself.

What?! How many noted black civil rights need to be murdered before you consider them terrorists? Might as well call ISIS "non-terrorist" because only a few in the groups have carried out terror attacks.

You're missing the point. I'm not denying that there are KKK terrorists. I'm saying the average KKKer isn't a terrorist, the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK. Most KKKers are simply scum but not dangerous.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

@notallkkk

 

[untermensche]

Illegitimate violence that incites terror is terrorism.

That hardly seems adequate. Suppose I concede illegitimate violence; that terror was incited is insufficient. Am I bombing to bring a reign of fear upon others, or am I bombing targets whereby subsequent fear is incidental? There is a difference between the bombs we use and the fear it brings. Trying to incite terror with the use of bombs is much closer to terrorism than using bombs that incite terror. Notice the "that." I didn't say, "to." There's not much difference between trying to incite terror with bombs and using bombs to incite terror, but there is a big difference between trying to incite terror with bombs than using bombs that incite terror. If bringing terror (to innocents) is apart of the plan, then bad (shame shame). However, if all you got is illegitimate violence that incites terror, then you just might have wrongful actions that although incited terror does not satisfy what might be properly regarded as satisfying the necessary conditions of terrorism.

We don't need an agreed upon definition. What we need is a well thought out analysis driven set of conditions. I think your proposed definition is way too broad and encompasses much more than it should.

It matter not, when the violence is illegitimate.

You should read the rulings at Nuremberg.

We hung Germans because we concluded the major crimes were the unprovoked invasions. And we said that those who ordered the invasions were guilty of all subsequent crimes because they never would have taken place without the invasion.

Launching an unprovoked invasion made any killing, whether deliberate or not a crime.

You basically want to wipe the word of any coherent meaning.

There is nothing biased about saying illegitimate violence that induces, or could reasonably induce terror, is terrorism.

No matter how much some want to squirm to absolve nations of the biggest acts of terrorism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What?! How many noted black civil rights need to be murdered before you consider them terrorists? Might as well call ISIS "non-terrorist" because only a few in the groups have carried out terror attacks.

You're missing the point. I'm not denying that there are KKK terrorists. I'm saying the average KKKer isn't a terrorist, the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK. Most KKKers are simply scum but not dangerous.

So just like ISIS.

 

[bilby]

You're missing the point. I'm not denying that there are KKK terrorists. I'm saying the average KKKer isn't a terrorist, the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK. Most KKKers are simply scum but not dangerous.

So just like ISIS.

Or Hamas.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So just like ISIS.

Or Hamas.

Or the GOP.

 

[untermensche]

So just like ISIS.

Or Hamas.

Hamas has the distinction of winning a democratic election.

 

[PyramidHead]

[deleted]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting that the right-wing is having all sorts of flatulent issues with the Democrats not calling the attack based on Islamic Extremism. They seem to think that calling it that changes the game and all of a sudden we know the root cause, the Qu'ran and therefore the solution is obviously... well... they haven't gotten past there other than "We need to do more" and Obama's policies have failed America. This from the same party who was in the White House when 3000 people were murdered while the Admin worried of "rogue nations" and missile defense shield.

Regardless, the Republican Solution to terrorism is clearly:

1) Call it Islamic Extremism
2) ...
3) Victory over terrorism

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

1) Call it Islamic Extremism
2) Bomb their countries to the Stone Age
3) Terrorism Again
4) Infinite Progress: go back to step 1.

FIFY.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're missing the point. I'm not denying that there are KKK terrorists. I'm saying the average KKKer isn't a terrorist, the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK. Most KKKers are simply scum but not dangerous.

So just like ISIS.

No, it's more like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of ISIS.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So just like ISIS.

No, it's more like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of ISIS.

No, that analogy would be of saying that all white people are terrorists because of the KKK. Those who join the organizations are distinct from the group which makes up the organization in this matter.

 

[untermensche]

1) Call it Islamic Extremism
2) Bomb their countries to the Stone Age
3) Terrorism Again
4) Infinite Progress: go back to step 1.

FIFY.

Actual history:

1) Claim we must attack because there is some obscure connection to terrorists.
2) Attack (a massive act of terrorism)
3) Turn the place over to terrorists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So just like ISIS.

No, it's more like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of ISIS.

No, that equivalent statement would be all Christians are terrorists because of the KKK.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it's more like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of ISIS.

No, that analogy would be of saying that all white people are terrorists because of the KKK. Those who join the organizations are distinct from the group which makes up the organization in this matter.

The thing is the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK.

 

[fromderinside]

No, that analogy would be of saying that all white people are terrorists because of the KKK. Those who join the organizations are distinct from the group which makes up the organization in this matter.

The thing is the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK.

So those guys who go out and put on bed sheets with eye slits are doing so out of pride and patriotism? They are not hiding from the fact that they support what atrocities you call a small percentage of them do in their name?

Wear a mask. Be a coward. If Daesh person's can't stand full bearded in front of a camera are they patriots, heros, or scared that if they were actually known they'd be brought to justice by their neighbors toot sweet?

As an aside, What I'm getting is confused by the fact that Muslim women have bought into the idea that they are so alluring that they must be hidden entirely form view.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, that analogy would be of saying that all white people are terrorists because of the KKK. Those who join the organizations are distinct from the group which makes up the organization in this matter.

The thing is the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK.

Just like terrorists are a small subset of both Hamas AND Hezbollah.

Your double standards are showing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The thing is the terrorists are a small subset of the KKK.

So those guys who go out and put on bed sheets with eye slits are doing so out of pride and patriotism? They are not hiding from the fact that they support what atrocities you call a small percentage of them do in their name?

Wear a mask. Be a coward. If Daesh person's can't stand full bearded in front of a camera are they patriots, heros, or scared that if they were actually known they'd be brought to justice by their neighbors toot sweet?

This. The KKK is an organization where the people actively dress up and go to rallies and all that crap wearing their sheets and masks. Being involved in it means being involved in the activities designed to invoke fear.

Saying that there's some huge distinction between the average KKK member and a terrorist is like an ISIS guy saying that he isn't a terrorist because he's never cut anyone's head off on camera, he's just a regular guy who stood in the background cheering and firing his machine gun into the air while the terrorists did that.