A serious Aladdin problem.

[DanieltheDragon]

A recent survey of republicans churned up some interesting notes. For one the majority support raising the minimum wage to 10-15$ an hour. On a more deeply disturbing note there is a minority fraction within the party that is becoming irrationally xenophobic. A silly throw away question at the end of this survey
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... esults.pdf

asked a very silly question,"would you support the bombing of agrabah?"

Agrabah is a fictional Arabic city in Aladdin. It is not real yet a full 30% of respondents checked yes. Islamic extremists are real and they are very much a threat especially for those who actually live in the Middle East who face the vast brunt of Islamic terrorism. How can we as a country address this threat when our rhetoric has gone so far that a significant segment in our population is willing to bomb any Arabic sounding name?


For debate has our rhetoric gone to far?

[Willum]

I rather think we need to look at the root cause of the article and issues.
My assumption is always, people are all just folks.
Giving people the same motivations as Biblical demons should be raising serious flags in anyone receiving the message. Let's face it, the media is giving these nations the same motivation as demons.

We really need to go down the street and meet an Afghani, Syrian, etc., if they aren't too terrified you'll kill them for it.

But the real question is:

Who has the motivation and resources to promote a hatred of these people, and why?

I think one hint is that the press mourned King Abdullah's death more than President Reagan or Ford.

[bjs]

Obviously it is a problem that people’s knee jerk reaction is to bomb a fictional city, but let not go too far with this. It is like when Jimmy Kimmel goes out and asks people if they saw on TV the astronaut landing on Pluto this morning. Obviously that didn’t happen but they still found people willing to say they saw it happen, and even give details about where they saw it and what they saw. Some people don’t want to appear uniformed and so they make up an answer and hope to bluff their way through.

It would be good if people were more informed, and even better if people would admit when they are not informed enough about a topic. But there will always be a segment of the population that does not act that way. The hope is that the majority will not make snap decisions without enough information. In this case the majority on both side of the political line did act wisely.

[Strider324]

How can we as a country address this threat when our rhetoric has gone so far that a significant segment in our population is willing to bomb any Arabic sounding name?

For debate has our rhetoric gone to far?

I think the real problem is that we have a group of people (regressive leftists) so disconnected from reality that they'd rather focus on rhetoric they don't like rather than the radical jihadists who are killing people, torturing women and oppressing minorities.

Btw, I don't support bombing Agrabah. However, I do wholeheartedly support bombing nonfictional cities with "Arabic sounding names" like Raqqa and Mosul.

Oh wait, saying that I support bombing ISIS strongholds is "dangerous rhetoric" right? And dangerous rhetoric is far, far worse than Islamic radicals blowing people up and chopping off people's heads right?

Raqqa and Mosul have children in them. How many are you willing to see killed for this apparent indiscriminate religious based bloodlust you favor?

[Willum]

Oh wait, saying that I support bombing ISIS strongholds is "dangerous rhetoric" right? And dangerous rhetoric is far, far worse than Islamic radicals blowing people up and chopping off people's heads right?

Why does everyone always make these statements like they are obvious.
How many people do suicide bombers kill, hundreds?
Beheadings: scores?

How many does carpet bombing kill? tens to hundreds of thousands. Do you really believe anyone fights a war like that?

The following conversation is fictitious, exaggerated and ironic-not to be taken seriously, except in counter-point.

"Hey Habib, I've got a great idea, let's kidnap people from the most powerful military in the world and say we will decapitate these people unless our demands are met."

"Great idea Hizez, it hasn't work before, but thousands of our friends and neighbors are dead and hundreds of thousand are destitute immigrants, so maybe it will work this time!"

"NOT ONLY THAT, but we can kill them anyway! How great will that be!"

"You must be some kind of genius Habib. What shall we demand?"

"That doesn't matter, nobody ever pays any attention."

[WinePusher]

I think the real problem is that we have a group of people (regressive leftists) so disconnected from reality that they'd rather focus on rhetoric they don't like rather than the radical jihadists who are killing people, torturing women and oppressing minorities.

Btw, I don't support bombing Agrabah. However, I do wholeheartedly support bombing nonfictional cities with "Arabic sounding names" like Raqqa and Mosul.

Oh wait, saying that I support bombing ISIS strongholds is "dangerous rhetoric" right? And dangerous rhetoric is far, far worse than Islamic radicals blowing people up and chopping off people's heads right?

Raqqa and Mosul have children in them.

Yes, every city on Earth will have some children in it. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

How many are you willing to see killed for this apparent indiscriminate religious based bloodlust you favor?

Your posts contain so many errors. Let's go through them, shall we?

1) The bombings are not indiscriminate. They are specifically targeted at ISIS strongholds.

2) The bombings aren't based on any type of "blood lust." The west is sanctioning and implementing these bombings in order to prevent further blood lust. You know, things like chopping off peoples heads, stoning and raping women, blowing up planes and shooting over 100 people in Paris. Do these things not concern you?

3) The bombings aren't "religious based." If they were, the west would be bombing cities like Mecca, which is Islam's holiest site. Rather, the west is bombing cities which are home to terrorists and barbarians.

Understand?

[WinePusher]

Oh wait, saying that I support bombing ISIS strongholds is "dangerous rhetoric" right? And dangerous rhetoric is far, far worse than Islamic radicals blowing people up and chopping off people's heads right?

Why does everyone always make these statements like they are obvious.

Have you considered the possibility that "everyone" is right and you are wrong?

How many people do suicide bombers kill, hundreds?

Ever heard of 9/11? Suicide bombers killed approximately 3 thousand people in just that one day.

Beheadings: scores?

I'm not sure what the exact number is, but it's far too many. If you curious why not google it?

How many does carpet bombing kill? tens to hundreds of thousands.

Yup, many of them are terrorists. ISIS is estimated to have around 200,000 members. There are dozens of other militant Islamic jihadist groups that contain huge numbers of members/terrorists. I don't have a problem killing terrorists.

Do you really believe anyone fights a war like that?

Bombing campaigns have been successfully used in many major wars, including WWI, WWII and Vietnam.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by WinePusher]

1) The bombings are not indiscriminate. They are specifically targeted at ISIS strongholds.

If they are not indiscriminate, how come there are something like 200,000 refugees?

Ever heard of 9/11? Suicide bombers killed approximately 3 thousand people in just that one day.

Yup, many of them are terrorists. ISIS is estimated to have around 200,000 members. There are dozens of other militant Islamic jihadist groups that contain huge numbers of members/terrorists. I don't have a problem killing terrorists.

9/11 was an attack by the Saudi Arabian "prince," Usama ben Laden. ISIS was created by the US response, an inappropriate attack decimating Iraq, which ISIS is the only possible consequence of, especially when, after we left, we left our toys to keep the peace.

Do you remember the quote from the Onion in 2003?

If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.

Honestly, how could the majority be right? The majority blindly followed idiots who created this atrocious reality. One the Onion wasn't the only one to predict. One anyone who knows anything about the Mid-East, or human beings, predicted easily.
Welcome to the new world. The world the majority supports. Is there any way it can end well?