Trump's Obama Conspiracy Theory

[Quetzal]

Ok, https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/imam-mohamed-magid/ :



http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...unter-extremists-who-are-actually-extremists/



I guess we shouldn't be worried that this guy has fireside chats with Obama?

I am so tired of repeating the difference between credible sources and uncredible sources. I refuse to do it again. At this point, if someone doesn't know the difference, the conversation isn't worth the headache.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Bahahha, Bridgitte is the last person anyone should listen to. She's a puppet for the Koch Heritage Foundation.

Not to mention she's speaking at a far-right Christian fundie theocrat event: http://www.watchmenpastors.org/

The woman is a deranged crackpot boiling over with hatred who sounds just like a Nazi when she speaks, spouting abhorrent genocidal rhetoric. Using her as a resource about Muslims is like using Hitler as a resource on Jews, and I'm not even exaggerating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#Controversy_at_speaking_engagements

 

[tytlyf]

She's never been a Muslim, despite the Arab name, etc. She was a Christian since birth as far as I can tell in a country that hates Christians. I have no doubt her opinion is largely formed on being from a region that wouldn't have been nice to her at all. She has been in some terrible situations, and regardless of her affiliations, I am sure she speaks from experience mostly. Anyway, Islamophobia is valid if you are LGBT, have no or a different religion, or are American. (P.S. They want to kill you, well at least 1 in 4 do.) She's not politically correct, and I'm not either. However, most of the information she has lines with what I have. I haven't heard her say anything too controversial that I've not found elsewhere. Sometimes, it's just easier to link a video.

Anyway, there is just funny logic afoot. Her opinions are invalid because the foundation that pays her is paid by Koch brothers? Ok, so using that logic Obama's comments are invalid because I know he speaks with and consults with ISNA imams, which makes him a terrorist too. And, I must be an Islamophobe because I agreed with one or two videos she is in, and yadda... This is just crazy... There is a clear trail of Obama being weak on the radical Islam issue, and he's been caving to pressure from jihadists to do what they want. He is not working for us, and I think we need to know why.

Most of the Republicans don't trust Fox News these days, either. That ship has sailed. I have to do "Voltron news", you know where you take about 10% of what MSM says and combine it into the actual news story. I find it completely annoying, if one outlet would just stop printing lies my life would be so much easier.

Nour Semaan Tudor is her name. She may not have been born muslim, but that's normal in the ME as christians are a minority religion (some here think Obama is a muslim simply from his middle name). She speaks on behalf of people with an agenda. If she didn't use hyperbole and dangerous language all the time, she wouldn't be invited. The people who speak on behalf of such organizations like the Heritage Foundation are carefully selected. Not necessarily for credentials, but because of the language. For instance, I doubt anyone at the Heritage Foundation thinks fossil fuel corporations contribute to global warming. That's a blatant agenda and dangerous.
I like to watch CNN, but like CSPAN the most in the mornings with their show Washington Journal. Most media is moderate, very few if any are far left wing. When you say MSM, that's an indicator that you don't trust them. And since you don't trust them, you won't watch them. I know who has taught conservatives to fear the MSM on a daily basis.

It's a trick.

 

[metis]

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Basically, the short of that is:



Don't hate the messenger, and also a small percentage of people who support the radical message actually act on it. But, when they do... They do not kill just one person, usually...

Did you actually read this part from your link, which is what's most pertinent to what we're talking about: "Just 1% of U.S. Muslims and a median of 3% of Muslims worldwide say suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets are often justified,...". Now, compare that to what you wrote in your post #22: "It's not bigotry when 25% of them want to kill you.".

 

[tytlyf]

Did you actually read this part from your link, which is what's most pertinent to what we're talking about: "Just 1% of U.S. Muslims and a median of 3% of Muslims worldwide say suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets are often justified,...". Now, compare that to what you wrote in your post #22: "It's not bigotry when 25% of them want to kill you.".

They're mixing statistics. A higher number 'sympathize' with some of these groups efforts, but that doesn't mean they'll kill people. I think the sympathy part is due to people understanding what these terrorists are doing. They view it as people fighting for their lands due to the invaders.

Think of it like they understand the reasoning behind what these jihadists are doing. But even then, a large majority don't even sympathize.

 

[metis]

They're mixing statistics. A higher number 'sympathize' with some of these groups efforts, but that doesn't mean they'll kill people. I think the sympathy part is due to people understanding what these terrorists are doing. They view it as people fighting for their lands due to the invaders.

Think of it like they understand the reasoning behind what these jihadists are doing. But even then, a large majority don't even sympathize.

Listening to experts who know a helluva lot more than I do on this, they've used the 1% figure in regards to Muslims here, which is why I knew the 25% had to be bogus. However, even 1% obviously still is a concern, which I'm sure you'll agree with.

The last thing we want to do in this country is to radicalize the Muslim community, especially if we want their cooperation in helping us identify radicals in the making. We simply do not have enough agents to do this without their assistance, and this is in part why Trump's rhetoric is so terribly misplaced and utterly self-defeating to our country. If anyone were to have doubts about that, they can easily look to the problems facing GB and France whereas Muslims there have been less assimilated into society that here.

 

[tytlyf]

Listening to experts who know a helluva lot more than I do on this, they've used the 1% figure in regards to Muslims here, which is why I knew the 25% had to be bogus. However, even 1% obviously still is a concern, which I'm sure you'll agree with.

The last thing we want to do in this country is to radicalize the Muslim community, especially if we want their cooperation in helping us identify radicals in the making. We simply do not have enough agents to do this without their assistance, and this is in part why Trump's rhetoric is so terribly misplaced and utterly self-defeating to our country. If anyone were to have doubts about that, they can easily look to the problems facing GB and France whereas Muslims there have been less assimilated into society that here.

True, which is why the RW media is dangerous. They're intentionally creating Islamophobia with their hyperbole and panic mongering. This will lead to people getting angry and paranoid and going out to commit violent attacks on muslim Americans.

I remember when a guy shot up a Sikh temple in Oregon or something because he thought they were muslims. Fact checking would have prevented this. But then again, some people are rabid and it may not have mattered. Just the fact that they wore turbans and had brown skin was enough.

Racism is alive and well in the US. Mostly the older generations who grew up around the segregation periods.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

True, which is why the RW media is dangerous. They're intentionally creating Islamophobia with their hyperbole and panic mongering. This will lead to people getting angry and paranoid and going out to commit violent attacks on muslim Americans.

I remember when a guy shot up a Sikh temple in Oregon or something because he thought they were muslims. Fact checking would have prevented this. But then again, some people are rabid and it may not have mattered. Just the fact that they wore turbans and had brown skin was enough.

Racism is alive and well in the US. Mostly the older generations who grew up around the segregation periods.

Speaking of which: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...tened-attack-seattle-mosque-article-1.2674201

It's all going as planned, thanks to people like Fuhrer Trump.

 

[Underhill]

Yes we do, especially because most of us have the notion that you cannot lead from the back row.

Think what you want, there are more radical Islamists than there are people in the entirety of the United States. You don't think that is a problem?

I think I'll let a Lebanese woman, who immigrated here legally, tune you up on history a bit.

There really isn't. But yes, fanatics of any kind are a problem.

The part those ignorant of terrorism do not understand is that terrorism feeds off recognition. When Trump stirs up fear of fundamentalist, ISIS and whatever the Islamic fear of the day is, he is feeding the terrorist machine, giving them credit for the fear and angst terrorism most desires. Obama doesn't focus on Islamic Fundamentalist because he doesn't want to cater to that fear. It isn't a sign of weakness, but of strength.

Trump is catering to the worst of America. His rhetoric about making America great again is in itself a fear tactic. He caters to fear of muslims, mexicans, government, job losses and economic ruin. He inspires more hatred and angst. This is why I have no respect for the man as a leader. A great leader inspires his people to be better. A charlatan caters to their fear.

You can't make America better by making her people worse.

 

[metis]

There really isn't. But yes, fanatics of any kind are a problem.

The part those ignorant of terrorism do not understand is that terrorism feeds off recognition. When Trump stirs up fear of fundamentalist, ISIS and whatever the Islamic fear of the day is, he is feeding the terrorist machine, giving them credit for the fear and angst terrorism most desires. Obama doesn't focus on Islamic Fundamentalist because he doesn't want to cater to that fear. It isn't a sign of weakness, but of strength.

Trump is catering to the worst of America. His rhetoric about making America great again is in itself a fear tactic. He caters to fear of muslims, mexicans, government, job losses and economic ruin. He inspires more hatred and angst. This is why I have no respect for the man as a leader. A great leader inspires his people to be better. A charlatan caters to their fear.

You can't make America better by making her people worse.

VERY well said, and spot-on.

 

[Mindmaster]

There really isn't. But yes, fanatics of any kind are a problem.

The part those ignorant of terrorism do not understand is that terrorism feeds off recognition. When Trump stirs up fear of fundamentalist, ISIS and whatever the Islamic fear of the day is, he is feeding the terrorist machine, giving them credit for the fear and angst terrorism most desires. Obama doesn't focus on Islamic Fundamentalist because he doesn't want to cater to that fear. It isn't a sign of weakness, but of strength.

Trump is catering to the worst of America. His rhetoric about making America great again is in itself a fear tactic. He caters to fear of muslims, mexicans, government, job losses and economic ruin. He inspires more hatred and angst. This is why I have no respect for the man as a leader. A great leader inspires his people to be better. A charlatan caters to their fear.

You can't make America better by making her people worse.

Your fears and "strengths" are irrelevant when there is a body count, people are dead. If we ignore that we let it happen, and those people deserved to be defended by us because they are American's as well. America is a sleeping giant, but she's waking up and there is a point where enough is enough. Moreover, your logic is flawed via game theory expectations (science) and how to encourage peace. If you treat someone who is trying to take advantage of you nicely they win every outcome, and eventually you are out of the game. You have to deal with the problem promptly and directly, but also forgive and forget for a positive net long-term expectation. You lose if you are kind to those who harm you every single time -- every time. That basically means Obama should be working towards decisively beating the radical Islamists to the point where they beg for mercy. At that point, the mercy should be given... But, never before that. Until he is doing that, he is being illogical, and I don't think he should be taken seriously. He has no understanding of how to promote peace at all. Acting in this way makes him appear weak and encourages more violence.

Clinton's State Department also rubber-stamped this guys background check for being a security officer even they knew he had some loose ties to various radical groups. Her office did nothing to investigate this person further because they were worried that this would be discriminatory. Why don't we talk about that? This is just negligence really, she has no excuse. Discrimination is not even a consideration if people can potentially be harmed by this person. He has a Florida firearm card, a security officer license, and both of these things would trigger checks. Every single person that knew this guy knew he was a radical and nothing was done -- all of those people need to be arrested. This crime could have been entirely prevented, and any notion that more checks are enough via the Democrats is silly. The checks always fail, so the only thing that works is allowing citizens to protect themselves in all areas. Orlando was a shooting gallery, and the perpetrator knew it.

 

[metis]

This crime could have been entirely prevented, and any notion that more checks are enough via the Democrats is silly. The checks always fail, so the only thing that works is allowing citizens to protect themselves in all areas. Orlando was a shooting gallery, and the perpetrator knew it.

Complete balderdash. Background checks have caught many crooks at large after they applied.

 

[Mindmaster]

Complete balderdash. Background checks have caught many crooks at large after they applied.

Most of the radicals who are causing these crimes do not have records. For example, you cannot become a security officer in any state if you have a previous conviction of any sort. Some even extend this to even having charges at all. There is no way background screening is going to pick these people up. If you think there is, I'd like some of what you are smoking.

They're all going to get away with it via the discriminatory rubber stamp, and still get their guns and still kill people in gun ban zones.

 

[Acim]

I am so tired of repeating the difference between credible sources and uncredible sources. I refuse to do it again. At this point, if someone doesn't know the difference, the conversation isn't worth the headache.

A search on the word "credible" by user Quetzal shows no explanations in at least the past 9 months. I'm currently thinking you possibly never have shown the difference.

 

[metis]

Most of the radicals who are causing these crimes do not have records. For example, you cannot become a security officer in any state if you have a previous conviction of any sort. Some even extend this to even having charges at all. There is no way background screening is going to pick these people up. If you think there is, I'd like some of what you are smoking.

They're all going to get away with it via the discriminatory rubber stamp, and still get their guns and still kill people in gun ban zones.

Insult after insult-- apparently that's your specialization. ^^ignore list^^

 

[Quetzal]

A search on the word "credible" by user Quetzal shows no explanations in at least the past 9 months. I'm currently thinking you possibly never have shown the difference.

This guy and his technicalities! A source that has limited bias and uses factual, empirical evidence to support it is a credible source. There ya go!

 

[Acim]

There really isn't. But yes, fanatics of any kind are a problem.

The part those ignorant of terrorism do not understand is that terrorism feeds off recognition. When Trump stirs up fear of fundamentalist, ISIS and whatever the Islamic fear of the day is, he is feeding the terrorist machine, giving them credit for the fear and angst terrorism most desires. Obama doesn't focus on Islamic Fundamentalist because he doesn't want to cater to that fear. It isn't a sign of weakness, but of strength.

So, by not stating the words "radical Islamic terrorism" the terrorists on the planet are unfed?

Why does Obama use the word "Republican" when he gives speeches? Does he not realize he's feeding the Republican machine that clearly opposes him?

Trump is catering to the worst of America. His rhetoric about making America great again is in itself a fear tactic.

???????

A great leader inspires his people to be better.

"You didn't build that."

 

[Acim]

This guy and his technicalities! A source that has limited bias and uses factual, empirical evidence to support it is a credible source. There ya go!

Technicalities or non-credible assertion? Your choice, cause I attempted to use empirical evidence to find your previous explanation. As I couldn't find it, I asked for it to be shown. Now that you have shown it, I a) understand what you mean, b) mostly agree and c) do not see much in way of media that reports political news that would fit this. Though of course opinions on "limited bias" and "factual" evidence would skew what makes for "credible."

 

[Quetzal]

Technicalities or non-credible assertion? Your choice, cause I attempted to use empirical evidence to find your previous explanation. As I couldn't find it, I asked for it to be shown.

Sorry, was trying to make a joke. Maybe I am just not funny.

Now that you have shown it, I a) understand what you mean, b) mostly agree and c) do not see much in way of media that reports political news that would fit this.

It is very very tough. But let's say there are some sources that are more credible than others. BBC News is pretty good. CNN? Heck no, mostly junk. Same with Breitbart or whatever else kids use these days. I tend to be attracted to case studies, surveys, and published works by credible agencies that mine and compile data.

 

[Mindmaster]

Not to mention she's speaking at a far-right Christian fundie theocrat event: http://www.watchmenpastors.org/

The woman is a deranged crackpot boiling over with hatred who sounds just like a Nazi when she speaks, spouting abhorrent genocidal rhetoric. Using her as a resource about Muslims is like using Hitler as a resource on Jews, and I'm not even exaggerating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#Controversy_at_speaking_engagements

Ok, so because she is a Christian fundie she is automatically wrong on everything she says? Genetic fallacy, and you owe me a dollar.

Not exaggerating? She's just an Islamophobe and it's almost a merit badge at this point. And, while that's normally a bad thing several times in her life that life was at risk -- it's a logical progression. You know, to have a fear of the people who would kill you.

So, better question, why are you a Muslim apologist when they would kill you too?