Trump releases statement on terrorist attack

[Morphine Prince 109,983]

2 hours ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

 

Why is that naming of terrorism so important to (some of) you? Are the labels more important than fighting against extremism? 

 

Did no one notice that Trump didn't acknowledge that it was attack on a gay club? Not one word about LGBT community? How is that not bothering any of you? 

 

Because liberals are literally gonna hand him the presidency doing this. Plus idk what is wrong with saying Radical Islamic Terrorism? That's what it is! 

And I'm not saying Trump is honest with this at all... I think he's a manipulator, etc. but liberals are so into this "PC" BS that they can't see the reality of the situation. 

[Goosey 3,017]

3 hours ago, Redstreak said:

**** him. Don't use our deaths as props to push your bloodstained imperialistic bullshit.

"Our deaths"? You're not even from Florida.

 

And Hillary Clinton is using "our deaths" to promote gun control.

Think about it: she's using a terrorist attack as justification to restrict American freedoms, constitutional rights. So effectively: the terrorists win. With Hillary, their attack had the desired effect.

 

 

 

She says "keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals"... but her policies on hillaryclinton.com say she wants to keep those guns out of the hands of all law-abiding Americans as well!

 

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, YourSweet666 said:

Why is that naming of terrorism so important to (some of) you? Are the labels more important than fighting against extremism? 

If you don't know what it is, you can't fight it.

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, Adakam said:

How about you better educate yourself and stop being so naive and stupid  to believe that a silly ban would even do anything, if terrorists want in, theyll get in regardless

You say this, but the average GagaDaily member says: "ban guns!" I think they should educate themselves and stop being so naive to believe that a silly ban would even do anything.

[Adakam 2]

4 minutes ago, Goosey said:

You say this, but the average GagaDaily member says: "ban guns!" I think they should educate themselves and stop being so naive to believe that a silly ban would even do anything.

Respond to me on the "trump doesnt pay his bills thread" which you conveniently avoided like you do all day and ill respond to you here

[Bebe 17,289]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

It matters because there is obviously a fundamental ideology of Islam that promotes violence through draconian Sharia practices. That's why it matters.

How is that obvious and how is it relevant?

I've explained how divisive language like that is harmful and actually hurts us in the battle against our enemies, how exactly does it ****ing help to say "Islamic terrorism"? What is the benefit of describing this attack as "Islamic terrorism" rather than just "terrorism"? Does it make an impact on policy? Does it make a positive social impact?

No... It just causes more division. You can continue to say divisive things about Islam, but once again that's only helping the terrorist organisations that you are clearly against.

Obama and Hillary are just being smart about the language they use. Slapping the world "Islamic" infront of terrorism does nothing to protect us or unite us, it does nothing to help government policy, it does nothing to move the conversation forward, it does nothing to harm our enemies. Instead it makes the discussion more divisive, it fear mongers, it creates more instability, it creates greater hate crimes against muslims and it helps the goals of the very terrorist organisations you claim to want to fight against.

[Bebe 17,289]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

Because liberals are literally gonna hand him the presidency doing this. Plus idk what is wrong with saying Radical Islamic Terrorism? That's what it is! 

And I'm not saying Trump is honest with this at all... I think he's a manipulator, etc. but liberals are so into this "PC" BS that they can't see the reality of the situation. 

The problem is with the power of language. This attacker was likely not associated with ISIS, he was likely not associated with any radical Islamic group, he was likely not associated with a radical terrorist organisation. He was likely a lone-wolf.

Now his personal religious beliefs probably did likely have an impact on his actions, he likely held radical beliefs and he ended up killing 50 people because of that. He was likely influenced by the actions of radical religious and political terrorist groups such ISIS who are always all over the news committing atrocious acts of violence.

The problem is that he is most likely a lone-wolf. When you use the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism", even if it is technically factual, it implies more than just a lone wolf. It implies a coordinated, group of Islamic people with shared beliefs. It increases divisive and discriminatory attitudes toward average, normal and peaceful muslim families. It increases fear over the possibility of a large scale Islamic terrorist plot being able to occur within the United States.

I'm not trying to say it's necessarily inaccurate to call this Islamic terrorism, I'm just saying that using such a term creates more of a negative impact than a positive one. I just don't see the point in using the term "islamic terrorism" when "terrorism" or an 'act of terror' describes the event in a perfectly adequate way. 

ISIS have already stated numerous times that the hope western countries become more divisive, that they push out muslims and that they vilify them. ISIS wants to create an uncomfortable, uncertain, unwelcome and potentially dangerous environment for muslims living in the western world. They want us to push muslims away. Terms such as "acts of terror" are more neutral than 'islamic terrorism', it helps to mitigate any of the renewed distrust or discriminatory feelings towards muslims that have likely risen after this incident. 

The president and Hillary Clinton can either choose to be more inclusive in their response and refuse to use the term "Islamic Terrorism", referring to it instead as an "act of terror", or they can go the route of Donald Trump and use the term "Islamic Terrorism" which helps to create a far different environment than what is socially desirable. 

[Morphine Prince 109,983]

42 minutes ago, Bebe said:

The problem is with the power of language. This attacker was likely not associated with ISIS, he was likely not associated with any radical Islamic group, he was likely not associated with a radical terrorist organisation. He was likely a lone-wolf.

Now his personal religious beliefs probably did likely have an impact on his actions, he likely held radical beliefs and he ended up killing 50 people because of that. He was likely influenced by the actions of radical religious and political terrorist groups such ISIS who are always all over the news committing atrocious acts of violence.

The problem is that he is most likely a lone-wolf. When you use the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism", even if it is technically factual, it implies more than just a lone wolf. It implies a coordinated, group of Islamic people with shared beliefs. It increases divisive and discriminatory attitudes toward average, normal and peaceful muslim families. It increases fear over the possibility of a large scale Islamic terrorist plot being able to occur within the United States.

I'm not trying to say it's necessarily inaccurate to call this Islamic terrorism, I'm just saying that using such a term creates more of a negative impact than a positive one. I just don't see the point in using the term "islamic terrorism" when "terrorism" or an 'act of terror' describes the event in a perfectly adequate way. 

ISIS have already stated numerous times that the hope western countries become more divisive, that they push out muslims and that they vilify them. ISIS wants to create an uncomfortable, uncertain, unwelcome and potentially dangerous environment for muslims living in the western world. They want us to push muslims away. Terms such as "acts of terror" are more neutral than 'islamic terrorism', it helps to mitigate any of the renewed distrust or discriminatory feelings towards muslims that have likely risen after this incident. 

The president and Hillary Clinton can either choose to be more inclusive in their response and refuse to use the term "Islamic Terrorism", referring to it instead as an "act of terror", or they can go the route of Donald Trump and use the term "Islamic Terrorism" which helps to create a far different environment than what is socially desirable. 

I understand this logic. The issue is that this creates the image that our leaders are incompetent. This is what Trump wants. People fear we have a weak leader. Trump only grows stronger in the eyes of those who support him. 

I have been saying for months that if we had terrorist attacks Trump would only gain more support. 

Also, lone wolves like this guy are inspired and sympathize with radical Islamic terrorists. An idea is such a powerful and destructive thing. That is the root of many of these attacks. If we don't identify it I don't think we can effectively target it. 

Terror attacks in the West every few months are the new normal. I don't want to live in a world like that. 

[Bebe 17,289]

55 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I understand this logic. The issue is that this creates the image that our leaders are incompetent. This is what Trump wants. People fear we have a weak leader. Trump only grows stronger in the eyes of those who support him. 

I have been saying for months that if we had terrorist attacks Trump would onyl gain more support. 

Also, lone wolves like this guy are inspired and sympathize with radical Islamic terrorists. An idea is such a powerful and destructive thing. That is the root of many of these attacks. If we don't identify it I don't think we can effectively target it. 

But is it better for Obama/Hillary to act as smart/strong leaders and be perceived by some as 'weak'? Or is it better that they act like weak leaders for an illusion of strength?

Trump is no doubt a problem, but I don't think we can solve the problem by stooping to his level and using the same sort of divisive language. That just means all the candidates are using problematic, divisive language. There needs to be an example of a better alternative and I think that a less divisive response is the better way to go, even if it makes Trump look like a stronger leader in the eyes of some.

The best response to this situation is a response that is as inclusive as possible. It's a response that doesn't draw attention to a particular minority and place the blame on them. It's a response that seeks to mitigate any fear or discriminatory feelings some people will undoubtedly have after a situation like this. The best response is to reduce any levels of distrust people might have for a certain section of our society, it's a response that is careful not to inflame or feed any of the fears of 'the other' that swells after these sort of incidents.

Yes, some people might not understand why it's not being called "Islamic terrorism", yes some people might cry that it's just being politically correct, but I think that's a price worth paying when the alternative is feeding into the divisiveness and mistrust that our enemy wants us to feel against our muslim citizens. 

I think I pointed out in my previous point that lone wolves are very obviously inspired by ISIS and other radical groups, they absolutely are sympathetic to such organisations. But it's not like the fact he is Islamic is being ignored - everyone knows the attacker was muslim. The investigators are aware that he is muslim. This isn't a cover up of this fact, Obama/Hillary are not oblivious to the fact that ISIS is an islamic terrorist group and this attacker was a muslim likely inspired by such a radical islamic group.

The intention isn't to cover up, the reason why they are not using the term "Islamic terrorist" is not because they are naive to the reality of the situation, the reason they are not using the term "Islamic terrorist" is because it's an unhelpful, divisive term. It's because they are trying to avoid divisive rhetoric and fear mongering over Islamic citizens.

[Luv u Sum 2,538]

Wow I really like what he said and agree with him 100%

[Adakam 2]

2 hours ago, Goosey said:

You say this, but the average GagaDaily member says: "ban guns!" I think they should educate themselves and stop being so naive to believe that a silly ban would even do anything.

The thing is, that I havent really seen anyone specifically call for a full ban on guns, what people like me want, is just more control, have better background and psychological tests to make sure only people capable of using guns are able to get them, which shouldnt be hard to control, and if you are mentally healthy, then, fire awaaay fire awaaayy

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 minutes ago, Adakam said:

The thing is, that I havent really seen anyone specifically call for a full ban on guns, what people like me want, is just more control, have better background and psychological tests to make sure only people capable of using guns are able to get them, which shouldnt be hard to control, and if you are mentally healthy, then, fire awaaay fire awaaayy

I've told him this before, its pointless   Even Hillary (and yes I've been on her website  ) isn't calling for a full ban on guns. Its just false.

The only people on GGD who are like "ban all guns" honestly are people who come from countries that don't let their citizens have guns like we do and they have less gun violence accordingly. I get that entirely though, even if it comes from not understanding the culture and politics behind it in America specifically.

Personally, id be okay with all guns being gone, but I'm a radical in many ways politically so I accept that my will is not the will of the people  

[Adakam 2]

11 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I've told him this before, its pointless   Even Hillary (and yes I've been on her website  ) isn't calling for a full ban on guns. Its just false.

The only people on GGD who are like "ban all guns" honestly are people who come from countries that don't let their citizens have guns like we do and they have less gun violence accordingly. I get that entirely though, even if it comes from not understanding the culture and politics behind it in America specifically.

Personally, id be okay with all guns being gone, but I'm a radical in many ways politically so I accept that my will is not the will of the people  

I know its pointless, but im bored lol

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

4 hours ago, MJHolland said:

It matters because there is obviously a fundamental ideology of Islam that promotes violence through draconian Sharia practices. That's why it matters.

Because Christians didnt commit the crusades, Jim Crowe laws, manifest destiny, burning of protistants and witch hunting 

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

1 hour ago, cameron9814 said:

Wow I really like what he said and agree with him 100%

Ban ha