The Buddhists there are fighting in their own land. You are fighting wars in other peoples countries and killing more civilians than the initial attacks did. That's not fighting back to protect your way of life. In fact, your way of life is pretty much down the shitter because you gave in to the fear. You got political parties that claim to be small government wanting to grant greater government powers to catch the few people that cause tens of deaths, but think nothing of the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in your "fighting back" because they are happening to brown people far away.
Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals:
Most Muslims are not violent or psychopathic DESPITE their religion. Most religious people ignore the parts of their religion that aren't compatible with morals they picked up elsewhere (or some argu,e born with). The only Muslims that are violent are those who have ONLY Islam to guide their actions.
the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
The bin Laden family is rich. Osama did not turn to terrorism because of any of the above. Many terrorists are well educated engineers. They tend to join these groups because it gives them a sense of meaning to their lives, which is something that religions claim to be the sole providers of. Islam goes even further to make violent martyrdom a highly meaningful act.
when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
But it is the sole cause. When Tibetan Buddhists protest, or that well known image from the Vietnam War, they only set themselves on fire and no one else comes to harm. And I consider myself a very liberal minded person who thinks Western nations have a responsibility to take in all the refugees caused by the post 9/11 Middle East adventure.
In the case of ISIS, we KNOW how that began so it's not a even hypothetical question.
Furthermore, maybe if people were willing to trace the origins of these kinds of things, then we wouldn't be in these messes and making the same mistakes.
That's great to hear. I have a friend who remembered being bad at mathematics, but he recently went over his old school reports and found out he actually did okay in maths. He's now on his way to a PhD decades after. Working at it and becoming good at maths eventually is very rewarding.
Personally, I don't recall ever being told maths was hard. It was expected of me that I would work at it until I got it and that it was never out of my reach. So I never really thought of maths as hard. It's just something that needed to be worked on and for me was no different from learning a musical instrument or learning how to play a sport
And so what? The grown person makes their own decisions. But the parents ALSO made their own decision to have a kid and raise it to choose the wrong choices. There is no magical decree that responsibility can only lie with one party. That would be silly.
In case you didn't know, both the UK and Australian governments at the time also sold the war on lies with no clear plans. I ALSO said only the people who were either in support or started the the war were responsible. Many AMERICANS were against the war and so they're not responsible for it.
But I bet it feels so good for you to feel victimized.
ISIS did start in Iraq as Al Qaeda. They were already active and carried out many attacks during the war before Obama was even elected. So what if they didn't hold any ground? They were still an active group already doing damage.
If we can show that the parents did influence, whether by action or knowing neglect, the kid's development into a bank robber, then YES I would also apportion blame to the parents as well. This is not a difficult question. Just because their may not be legal responsibility doesn't mean there isn't a moral one.
Why should I have to argue against your point which doesn't argue against my point? You're the one trying to argue with me first, so it is up to you to argue my points, not the other way around. If you had a valid point, you would have been able to, but you don't, which is why you're trying to argue something else.
Having delusional fantasies about defending yourself and your neighbours is not virtuous. The statistics regarding firearms used in defense has been overstated.
Real people are more concerned about protecting their ego than their person. But yeah, keep pretending you're just defending yourself and your neighbours.
Actually, irresponsibly starting a war with absolutely no plan on what to do DOES make those who chose the war path responsible. If you were against the Iraq War, then no I wouldn't consider you responsible. But there is no question that the people who did support or start the war without any clear plan ARE responsible. And it wasn't like there were no warnings that starting a war there would destabilize the region.
So, yes, starting wars irresponsibly makes those in charge and in support of it makes them responsible as well. This does not mean I'm arguing ISIS is not at fault. They are also at fault, moreso than the warmongers. It is possible for more than one party to be at fault.
The fact that the Mosul Dam is not getting the repairs it needs because ISIS is in control of the area is part of that collateral damage. ISIS is the West's creation from toppling Saddam and allowing Al Qaeda to actually get in where they weren't before. So actually, yes, you are barbarians who will kill a million innocent civilians for a PR win.
Slashdot Mirror
The Buddhists there are fighting in their own land. You are fighting wars in other peoples countries and killing more civilians than the initial attacks did. That's not fighting back to protect your way of life. In fact, your way of life is pretty much down the shitter because you gave in to the fear. You got political parties that claim to be small government wanting to grant greater government powers to catch the few people that cause tens of deaths, but think nothing of the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in your "fighting back" because they are happening to brown people far away.
Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals:
Most Muslims are not violent or psychopathic DESPITE their religion. Most religious people ignore the parts of their religion that aren't compatible with morals they picked up elsewhere (or some argu,e born with). The only Muslims that are violent are those who have ONLY Islam to guide their actions.
the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
The bin Laden family is rich. Osama did not turn to terrorism because of any of the above. Many terrorists are well educated engineers. They tend to join these groups because it gives them a sense of meaning to their lives, which is something that religions claim to be the sole providers of. Islam goes even further to make violent martyrdom a highly meaningful act.
when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
But it is the sole cause. When Tibetan Buddhists protest, or that well known image from the Vietnam War, they only set themselves on fire and no one else comes to harm. And I consider myself a very liberal minded person who thinks Western nations have a responsibility to take in all the refugees caused by the post 9/11 Middle East adventure.
Not everyone is American. Maths in the UK and Australia is a singular noun, not a plural. You similarly don't say "mathematics are hard".
I already answered that question before.
In the case of ISIS, we KNOW how that began so it's not a even hypothetical question.
Furthermore, maybe if people were willing to trace the origins of these kinds of things, then we wouldn't be in these messes and making the same mistakes.
That's great to hear. I have a friend who remembered being bad at mathematics, but he recently went over his old school reports and found out he actually did okay in maths. He's now on his way to a PhD decades after. Working at it and becoming good at maths eventually is very rewarding.
Personally, I don't recall ever being told maths was hard. It was expected of me that I would work at it until I got it and that it was never out of my reach. So I never really thought of maths as hard. It's just something that needed to be worked on and for me was no different from learning a musical instrument or learning how to play a sport
Yes, that's a given, but a lot of kids are primed to think maths is hard before they even start.
They are competitors NOW. https://web.stanford.edu/group... https://www.wilsoncenter.org/a... You simply haven't been search very hard, or honestly it seems.
I'll answer the first part in the other reply.
And so what? The grown person makes their own decisions. But the parents ALSO made their own decision to have a kid and raise it to choose the wrong choices. There is no magical decree that responsibility can only lie with one party. That would be silly.
If that's the case, victim-player, why should I argue against someone who didn't even try to argue against what I said? The same still applies.
In case you didn't know, both the UK and Australian governments at the time also sold the war on lies with no clear plans. I ALSO said only the people who were either in support or started the the war were responsible. Many AMERICANS were against the war and so they're not responsible for it.
But I bet it feels so good for you to feel victimized.
ISIS did start in Iraq as Al Qaeda. They were already active and carried out many attacks during the war before Obama was even elected. So what if they didn't hold any ground? They were still an active group already doing damage.
If we can show that the parents did influence, whether by action or knowing neglect, the kid's development into a bank robber, then YES I would also apportion blame to the parents as well. This is not a difficult question. Just because their may not be legal responsibility doesn't mean there isn't a moral one.
The only reason why maths is hard is adults keep telling children that it's hard.
Why should I have to argue against your point which doesn't argue against my point? You're the one trying to argue with me first, so it is up to you to argue my points, not the other way around. If you had a valid point, you would have been able to, but you don't, which is why you're trying to argue something else.
ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda which wasn't in Iraq until the war. ISIS didn't just magically appear in Syria.
Having delusional fantasies about defending yourself and your neighbours is not virtuous. The statistics regarding firearms used in defense has been overstated.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hi...
Real people are more concerned about protecting their ego than their person. But yeah, keep pretending you're just defending yourself and your neighbours.
Note how you didn't even try to argue against anything I said.
Actually, irresponsibly starting a war with absolutely no plan on what to do DOES make those who chose the war path responsible. If you were against the Iraq War, then no I wouldn't consider you responsible. But there is no question that the people who did support or start the war without any clear plan ARE responsible. And it wasn't like there were no warnings that starting a war there would destabilize the region.
So, yes, starting wars irresponsibly makes those in charge and in support of it makes them responsible as well. This does not mean I'm arguing ISIS is not at fault. They are also at fault, moreso than the warmongers. It is possible for more than one party to be at fault.
The fact that the Mosul Dam is not getting the repairs it needs because ISIS is in control of the area is part of that collateral damage. ISIS is the West's creation from toppling Saddam and allowing Al Qaeda to actually get in where they weren't before. So actually, yes, you are barbarians who will kill a million innocent civilians for a PR win.
Doesn't make it less OPPRESSIVE. Nothing to do with being offended. What did you run out of good arguments that fast?
I'm pretty sure there are quite a few more universities that won't even let you have a slightly different religion.
Cruz is not controlled by Wall Street
You mean besides the huge loan from Goldman Sachs obtained through his wife.
and Trump is openly running a pro-common man
He may be saying what common idiots are thinking and saying to their common idiot friends, but that is hardly pro-common man.
Wow you MRA types sure know how to find SJWs everywhere you look.
I'm going to donate money to a rape clinic and I won't take no for an answer.
But that''s because they'll have to admit the Earth is a globe. Maybe if we called it Anthropogenic Discal Warming.
Here are some things science is settled on:
The earth being round.
The earth orbiting the sun.
Space time can be curved.
Science IS settled on a lot of issues. AGW is a new one, but something we can do something about (well, 10 years ago).