Jump to content

What is wrong with America

Red Alert

By Red Alert,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hockey_saint

Hockey_saint

Posted
Posted
LOL, I think it is pretty clear when we say America we mean USA, not Canada or Mexico. If we meant Mexico we would probably say "Mexico", likewise if we meant Canada we would probably say "Canada".

 

I see why they need to dumb films down your you guys now.

 

Yep and it irritates Canadians and Mexicans immensely. Although, to be fair, it's a piece of cake to get your hands on a gun in Mexico also....Not so much in Canada. Nit-picking yes, I know. But people are people as an American friend said to me the other day: "If they ban guns, we'll probably just find another way to kill each other".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
Three Muslims shot dead in NC. The perpetrator allegedly posted loads of anti-Islamic stuff online before doing the deed.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-three-young-muslims-gunned-down-in-north-carolina-at-their-family-home-10037734.html

 

Fair play to the Indy for covering it.

 

Really horrible, such a young and happy looking family.

 

See the alleged killer is an atheist. Therefore, as an atheist I am apologising and renouncing this mans actions. This is not what I represent, these actions were not taken in my name. I assume Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry and all other atheists will shortly do likewise yes? As this is what we demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Really horrible, such a young and happy looking family.

 

See the alleged killer is an atheist. Therefore, as an atheist I am apologising and renouncing this mans actions. This is not what I represent, these actions were not taken in my name. I assume Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry and all other atheists will shortly do likewise yes? As this is what we demand.

 

Horrible indeed. Not that atheists are any less capable of killing than anyone else, but I'd be curious to know what the evidence is that he is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trader

Trader

Posted
Posted
Just get the facts right before you all get your knickers in a twist............it was a dispute about parking OK!!!.........and was not because they are muslims.

 

A dispute about parking and three people get shot in the head - and you seriously wonder why we ask 'what is wrong with America?'

 

You got your answer right there mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Really horrible, such a young and happy looking family.

 

See the alleged killer is an atheist. Therefore, as an atheist I am apologising and renouncing this mans actions. This is not what I represent, these actions were not taken in my name. I assume Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry and all other atheists will shortly do likewise yes? As this is what we demand.

 

No it isn't, only a very small number of idiots would ask Muslims to apologise for the actions of ISIS. It's just another giant straw man which people love to attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Three Muslims shot dead in NC. The perpetrator allegedly posted loads of anti-Islamic stuff online before doing the deed.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-three-young-muslims-gunned-down-in-north-carolina-at-their-family-home-10037734.html

 

Fair play to the Indy for covering it.

 

Why fair play? I read about it from Reuters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted (edited)
No it isn't, only a very small number of idiots would ask Muslims to apologise for the actions of ISIS. It's just another giant straw man which people love to attack.

 

:lol:

 

You mean, like the very small number of people that carry out attacks - yet paint all people of the same religion evil terrorists?

 

Look at the Charlie Hebdo thread, this isn't a strawman.

Edited by KelvinsRightGlove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
No, I mean what's the evidence? 'According to the articles' doesn't do it. What's the source of this claim?

 

Oh ok then. Yeah, I haven't got the slightest bit of inclination to play this game with you.

 

Read the articles, it tells you. He posted about it plenty on social media - feeds which have been taken down as a result of events. I'm not going to go digging around the net to find archives of an alleged murderers Facebook feed.

 

I look forward to your similar demands of proof that the next terrorist act was indeed carried out by Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
:lol:

 

You mean, like the very small number of people that carry out attacks - yet paint all people of the same religion evil terrorists?

 

Look at the Charlie Hebdo thread, this isn't a strawman.

 

Who does that? I haven't seen anyone with a functioning brain claiming all Muslims are terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Oh ok then. Yeah, I haven't got the slightest bit of inclination to play this game with you.

 

Read the articles, it tells you. He posted about it plenty on social media - feeds which have been taken down as a result of events. I'm not going to go digging around the net to find archives of an alleged murderers Facebook feed.

 

I look forward to your similar demands of proof that the next terrorist act was indeed carried out by Muslims.

 

It's not a game. I can't find a shred of evidence that it's true - although if you can find some evidence I'd happily change my view about this. But it's odd that such clear claims were made about his 'atheist', 'hard Left' beliefs and yet the actual sources of these have proved elusive.

 

As for proof that the 'next terrorist act' will be carried out by Muslims, that seems a very strange request. How can I prove the motives and beliefs of people who haven't as yet done anything?

 

If you want to talk about past terrorist attacks, I suppose you could argue that the 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid bombers, plus the 1993 World Trade Centre, the mass shootings in Luxor, the Charlie Hebdo and Jewish deli attacks in Paris, the Sydney cafe siege, the mass murder of children by the TTP in Peshawar, the shooting of Malala Yusufsai in Swat, Pakistan, the execution by beheading, burning alive and stoning by ISIS - to name but a very few - were NOT carried out by Muslims. Many conspiracy loons have tried to do just this - is this where you're headed?

 

To be clear, I'm against Islamophobia, not least out of self-interest - I'm married to a Muslim. But just as my wife is implacably hostile to violent Muslim extremists, so am I. If you've encountered extremists, as I have in Pakistan for example, and then had a work colleague kidnapped and tortured by them, you tend to have a slightly more jaundiced eye about the viciousness of Gulf-exported Salafist lunatics. If you've witnessed the murderous destruction of liberal Islamic sects, icons and places of worship by these fanatics, as I have, then you won't be quite so accepting of the argument that identifying these killers as Muslim fanatics is somehow 'Islamophobic'. It's actually the opposite: the diversity and richness of many Islamic cultures is under sustained attack by these Salafists - they've already wiped out Sufism in Afghanistan, for example, and are bombing their way to doing so in Pakistan.

 

I do wonder, also, why you want to ‘apologise’ on behalf of atheists for the killings. Firstly atheists are united by nothing but a lack of belief. Secondly, Muslim responses to terrorist outrages conducted in the name of Islam have decidedly not been in the form of apologies, since this would imply complicity in the attacks. Many have, however, condemned such attacks – but condemning is a very different thing to apologising.

 

As to the individual who shot the three young people in Chapel Hill, he may have been acting out of Islamophobic rage borne out of is 'atheism' - it's just that I've never heard of such a rationalisation, and there's no evidence yet that he's given it. Parking and a possible mental health issue - plus the ready availability of loaded, safety-off weaponry - seem to have been the causes:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31431832

 

So sorry for giving you the impression that this is a 'game'. It isn't. I'm not partial to the prissy objection that we have to be 'even stevens' about parcelling out blame between 'atheists' (or whomever) and Muslim extremists, for fear of believing that not to do so is somehow to be prejudiced against an entire religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted (edited)
Verbal just one question ...why are Islamic groups in North America calling this a "terrorist attack" and other such stupid statements.........HUH????

I'm not sure there's a more dangerous or subjective word in use than our current application of "terrorist".

 

It's dangerous because there is separate legislation for terrorist offences, and as I said before, it's subjective. There's the old saying. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, something we saw a lot of during the IRA's campaign within the UK. The IRA a lot of their finance from sympathetic Irish Americans, who knew full well what'd happen to the money, yet were vilified by many Brits here for the atrocities they committed. A lot really depends on what bubble you're living in and whether you can see through it or not.

 

The other problem I have with the term is that it's a crude simplifier, and explanation in and of itself. That's certainly the way I understood it as a child in the 1980s. Terrorist = bad person, especially the IRA. It wasn't until later on that I saw both sides of that story. I don't condone any of the atrocities carried out by either side, but I have a better understanding of why things got as bad as they did.

 

As for it's application in this case by Islamic groups in America, I personally wouldn't agree with their sentiments (subjective!) but I understand the reason it has been used. It's a weaponised term, which has been bunged in one direction, sometimes in a far too general way. I'm entirely unsurprised it has been tossed back the other way.

Edited by pap
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SarniaSaint

SarniaSaint

Posted
Posted
I'm not sure there's a more dangerous or subjective word in use than our current application of "terrorist".

 

It's dangerous because there is separate legislation for terrorist offences, and as I said before, it's subjective. There's the old saying. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, something we saw a lot of during the IRA's campaign within the UK. The IRA a lot of their finance from sympathetic Irish Americans, who knew full well what'd happen to the money, yet were vilified by many Brits here for the atrocities they committed. A lot really depends on what bubble you're living in and whether you can see through it or not.

 

The other problem I have with the term is that it's a crude simplifier, and explanation in and of itself. That's certainly the way I understood it as a child in the 1980s. Terrorist = bad person, especially the IRA. It wasn't until later on that I saw both sides of that story. I don't condone any of the atrocities carried out by either side, but I have a better understanding of why things got as bad as they did.

 

As for it's application in this case by Islamic groups in America, I personally wouldn't agree with their sentiments (subjective!) but I understand the reason it has been used. It's a weaponised term, which has been bunged in one direction, sometimes in a far too general way. I'm entirely unsurprised it has been tossed back the other way.

 

This what I don't understand...........they are setting themselves up as a target........especially after the silence about IS barbarity......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
I'm not sure there's a more dangerous or subjective word in use than our current application of "terrorist".

 

It's dangerous because there is separate legislation for terrorist offences, and as I said before, it's subjective. There's the old saying. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, something we saw a lot of during the IRA's campaign within the UK. The IRA a lot of their finance from sympathetic Irish Americans, who knew full well what'd happen to the money, yet were vilified by many Brits here for the atrocities they committed. A lot really depends on what bubble you're living in and whether you can see through it or not.

 

The other problem I have with the term is that it's a crude simplifier, and explanation in and of itself. That's certainly the way I understood it as a child in the 1980s. Terrorist = bad person, especially the IRA. It wasn't until later on that I saw both sides of that story. I don't condone any of the atrocities carried out by either side, but I have a better understanding of why things got as bad as they did.

 

As for it's application in this case by Islamic groups in America, I personally wouldn't agree with their sentiments (subjective!) but I understand the reason it has been used. It's a weaponised term, which has been bunged in one direction, sometimes in a far too general way. I'm entirely unsurprised it has been tossed back the other way.

 

On the US funding of IRA mention it amused me hearing a story from a movie director (or similar) about Mickey Rourke when travelling in N. Ireland. Rourke had a republican tattoo and when they approached a Protestant area he was advised best to cover it up. The director guy said Rourke was completely nonplussed and had no idea there was anyone opposed to the Irish 'freedom fighters'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamilton Saint

Hamilton Saint

Posted
Posted

 

...

 

But if you want a really honest opnion? The ignorance starts with the title of this thread "What is wrong with America?" which one, north or south and if it's in the north do you mean the United States, Canada or Mexico and I also don't think you can lump an entire country, it's ignorance.

 

...

 

 

In the U.S.A and Canada the terms "America" and "Americans" refer to the United States. North America and North Americans refer to the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico. Citizens of Mexico are Mexicans, and citizens of Canada are Canadians.

 

In the rest of this region (Mexico, Central America and South America) the term "Americans" refers to the entire region. Spanish-speaking "Americans" refer to residents of the U.S.A. as norteamericano (male) or norteamericana (female).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SarniaSaint

SarniaSaint

Posted
Posted
Fair play to you for emerging from cover long enough to post this whatabouttery. I trust you wore a Kevlar vest as you were typing.

 

Why the f..k would I wear a Kevlar vest..........you really need to accept that the chance of encountering violence is way less here than the UK.........I know that you all live closer together ...........just a small place :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SarniaSaint

SarniaSaint

Posted
Posted
Read yesterday that a guy walked free after shooting dead a pregnant woman after twisting a handgun on his finger gunslinger style and the gun went off. The court determined that he had not displayed negligence. WTF?

 

Sorry I have to post this tragic story..

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11806482.IN_HIDING__Mother_and_step_father_of_boy_who_suffered_years_of_abuse_and_neglect_flee_home/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SarniaSaint

SarniaSaint

Posted
Posted
Conclusive. I would ask what is your point but you seem a pretty unintelligent sort so just assume you don't really know ( not 'no') what you are doing

 

My point was that you guys need to get your own house in order before you start on at others that you know FA about.......

Yeah must be unintelligent cause I don't live in the little sh* hole you do.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hockey_saint

Hockey_saint

Posted
Posted
In the U.S.A and Canada the terms "America" and "Americans" refer to the United States. North America and North Americans refer to the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico. Citizens of Mexico are Mexicans, and citizens of Canada are Canadians.

 

In the rest of this region (Mexico, Central America and South America) the term "Americans" refers to the entire region. Spanish-speaking "Americans" refer to residents of the U.S.A. as norteamericano (male) or norteamericana (female).

 

Yeah, it was a pedantic point of mine. But none of the 30-odd relatives of mine have ever referred to themselves as "North American"; they usually say "I am Canadian and I am American".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted

 

Conclusive. I would ask what is your point but you seem a pretty unintelligent sort so just assume you don't really know ( not 'no') what you are doing

 

My point was that you guys need to get your own house in order before you start on at others that you know FA about.......

Yeah must be unintelligent cause I don't live in the little sh* hole you do.............

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/27/federal-government-failing-to-protect-children-report-says.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
My point was that you guys need to get your own house in order before you start on at others that you know FA about.......

Yeah must be unintelligent cause I don't live in the little sh* hole you do.............

 

Gotta love the Yanks. No arrogance whatsoever. Perhaps it would be better if they all owned guns, then there would be fewer of them ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...