It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Wastes No Time Politicizing Orlando Massacre

page: 6
61
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
You're equally politicizing it. Hypocrisy much?




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
It's ok for the great orange to do anything in the eyes of his supporters. If Obama is an ass for politicizing the shooting then Trump is no different. Unfortunately the Trump supporters will flood this thread to make excuses for him or drift the thread away from him. Too late they have already shown up.


I agree with you up to a point. The only thing is, if Trump ever becomes C.I.C. and there is another mindless mass killing on his watch, what might he say? everyone should buy a bigger gun?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
It's ok for the great orange to do anything in the eyes of his supporters. If Obama is an ass for politicizing the shooting then Trump is no different. Unfortunately the Trump supporters will flood this thread to make excuses for him or drift the thread away from him. Too late they have already shown up.


He was right again though wasn't he so we should probably ask for him to expand on his ideas to stop this. Obama should shut up and let someone who actually seems to understand the nature of the threat talk.

Which part of Trump's statement is not absolutely spot on?


DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT REGARDING TRAGIC TERRORIST ATTACK IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.

In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency. If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.

The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law. We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States. Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.

We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone. - Donald J. Trump


edit on 12/6/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Which part of Trump's statement is not absolutely spot on?


When he politicized it.

This is about the victims, their families, the community, and the incident.

NOT attacking Obama or Clinton. To politicize and attack them at a time when people are still in shock and grieving is tasteless.

But to narcissistic Trump it's always about Trump.

ETA:

The ONLY thing he said about the victims or families in his statement was:

My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.


Everything else was a selfish and cowardly political attack.
edit on 12-6-2016 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
No this is not just about todays events.

It's about radical islamic terrorism. Lets not forget Paris, San Bernadino and Brussels.
We can all feel sympathetic to those that lost their lives today but unless the problem is tackled head on then more will die tomorrow.

Trump is not jumping on some band wagon today, he has made it a key part of his platform for nearly a year. Politicizing it is exactly the right thing to do because it is a political problem that must be solved.

The only cowardice being exhibited is from politicians who err on the side of political correctness in order to not upset anyone and potentially lose votes.
edit on 12/6/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


We can only battle ideas with ideas. For that, we have to criticize them. In order to criticize them, we have to define them.

Former Islamic extremists such as Tawfik Hamid and Maajid Nawaz have written books about their radicalization, and revealed their Islamic motivations. If former Islamic extremists are honest about it, perhaps we should try to be as well.


I ask for explanations and you give me platitudes. I'm not terribly familiar with Mr. Hamid but I've heard plenty from Maajid Nawaz and read some of what he's written and you might as well be paraphrasing what he's said about Obama.

I disagree with Mr. Nawaz's hypothesis which is, as far as I can tell, essentially, that we could better fight against radical Islam if we were more comfortable talking about Islam and that Obama's reluctance to use the term Islamic terrorist typifies the Left's discomfort with criticizing any Muslims for fear of being perceived as Islamaphobic.

It's a neat hypothesis and easy enough to explain but I don't believe it's correct and worse yet, the conclusions it leads to are of absolutely no utility. I've heard him make repeated reference to communism and how somehow properly labeling communism was responsible for stopping its spread in Western Europe and North America. This is rather telling to me and not surprising given that something like a quarter of Quilliam's funding comes from the John Templeton Foundation.

We didn't stop the spread of communism by calling it communism nor did we stop the spread of communism by turning toward authoritarian measures like locking up American communists. The failures of communism stopped the spread of communism. The similarities are purely superficial, the dynamics are entirely different.

Do you know what Mr. Nawaz says about Trump and his rhetoric?

Donald Trump is radicalizing his followers: Terrorism expert explains how Trump is marching Americans towards extremism

But according to at least on terrorism expert, allusions to leaders of extremist movements like the one suggested by the Daily News are hardly a most hyperbolic conclusion to draw from the rise of Trump’s rampantly xenophobic campaign.

On CNN’s “New Day,” terrorism expert Maajid Nawaz explained how Trump’s extreme xenophobia, like rhetoric espoused by racist groups and terror groups, serves to radicalize supporters.

“When you pump people up and promise them all forms of dreams and utopian visions and populist aims, but you can’t deliver on those, people become very frustrated and take action into their own hands,” Nawaz said on Tuesday.

Nawaz told host Alisyn Camerota that after observing and studying radical Islamist groups and extremism for years, he now worries that Trump’s “followers, when he doesn’t deliver what he’s promised them, end up joining fascist or far-right groups and taking matters into their own hands against the eight million Muslims in the United States and we end up with an extremely polarized discourse and it’s very bad for social cohesion.”


I'd add to that idea that the lack of distinction being made between radical Islam and the rest of Islam by approximately half of the US and I imagine, a similar percentage of the Western world, only fuels radicalization. Again, I'll turn to Mr. Nawaz's own words:

Why ISIS Just Loves Profiling


Islamist radicalization is a process. It begins when a person, whether originally of Muslim origin or not, starts to become convinced that a certain version of Islam must be enforced over society, and that it is incumbent on them to work to resurrect a theocratic “Islamic Caliphate” in order to achieve this. Usually, this is accompanied by the false notion that the entire West is at war with all of Islam.

This process of radicalization is complete when jihadist violence is prescribed to “resist” the West.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
No doubt this was an intelligence failure by the Obama administration.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc


a reply to: theantediluvian
You're equally politicizing it. Hypocrisy much?


Awesome. Be sure not to vote for me for President of the United States of America then.

I answered the first two dubious allegations on the first page, but I'll quote myself for emphasis:


If criticizing politicization is politicization, then you criticizing me for politicization for criticizing politicization is in fact, politicization. This is what is known as an infinite regress or homunculus fallacy.

The answer to your question is "No."



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


We can only battle ideas with ideas. For that, we have to criticize them. In order to criticize them, we have to define them.

Former Islamic extremists such as Tawfik Hamid and Maajid Nawaz have written books about their radicalization, and revealed their Islamic motivations. If former Islamic extremists are honest about it, perhaps we should try to be as well.


I ask for explanations and you give me platitudes. I'm not terribly familiar with Mr. Hamid but I've heard plenty from Maajid Nawaz and read some of what he's written and you might as well be paraphrasing what he's said about Obama.

I disagree with Mr. Nawaz's hypothesis which is, as far as I can tell, essentially, that we could better fight against radical Islam if we were more comfortable talking about Islam and that Obama's reluctance to use the term Islamic terrorist typifies the Left's discomfort with criticizing any Muslims for fear of being perceived as Islamaphobic.

It's a neat hypothesis and easy enough to explain but I don't believe it's correct and worse yet, the conclusions it leads to are of absolutely no utility. I've heard him make repeated reference to communism and how somehow properly labeling communism was responsible for stopping its spread in Western Europe and North America. This is rather telling to me and not surprising given that something like a quarter of Quilliam's funding comes from the John Templeton Foundation.

We didn't stop the spread of communism by calling it communism nor did we stop the spread of communism by turning toward authoritarian measures like locking up American communists. The failures of communism stopped the spread of communism. The similarities are purely superficial, the dynamics are entirely different.

Do you know what Mr. Nawaz says about Trump and his rhetoric?

Donald Trump is radicalizing his followers: Terrorism expert explains how Trump is marching Americans towards extremism

But according to at least on terrorism expert, allusions to leaders of extremist movements like the one suggested by the Daily News are hardly a most hyperbolic conclusion to draw from the rise of Trump’s rampantly xenophobic campaign.

On CNN’s “New Day,” terrorism expert Maajid Nawaz explained how Trump’s extreme xenophobia, like rhetoric espoused by racist groups and terror groups, serves to radicalize supporters.

“When you pump people up and promise them all forms of dreams and utopian visions and populist aims, but you can’t deliver on those, people become very frustrated and take action into their own hands,” Nawaz said on Tuesday.

Nawaz told host Alisyn Camerota that after observing and studying radical Islamist groups and extremism for years, he now worries that Trump’s “followers, when he doesn’t deliver what he’s promised them, end up joining fascist or far-right groups and taking matters into their own hands against the eight million Muslims in the United States and we end up with an extremely polarized discourse and it’s very bad for social cohesion.”


I'd add to that idea that the lack of distinction being made between radical Islam and the rest of Islam by approximately half of the US and I imagine, a similar percentage of the Western world, only fuels radicalization. Again, I'll turn to Mr. Nawaz's own words:

Why ISIS Just Loves Profiling


Islamist radicalization is a process. It begins when a person, whether originally of Muslim origin or not, starts to become convinced that a certain version of Islam must be enforced over society, and that it is incumbent on them to work to resurrect a theocratic “Islamic Caliphate” in order to achieve this. Usually, this is accompanied by the false notion that the entire West is at war with all of Islam.

This process of radicalization is complete when jihadist violence is prescribed to “resist” the West.


A radical islamic terrorist and extremist murders 50 Americans and injures many more and you want to about Trump turning Americans into extremists? wow.
If it is extremist to want to do tackle the radical islamic terrorist threat head on, then so be it.

edit on 12/6/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump WINS again.

He won the debate, radical Islamic terror exists at home even though President Obama refuses to say the words.

Which leads to action needs to be taken as opposed to inaction through denying its existence.


Yes, it's all about Donald J. Trump winning.

I'd love to hear what action needs to be taken to stop a shooting like this.

Ban assault weapons? Oh no, too logical, not in line with the rabid beliefs of the base.

What will Trump do? Trash the Constitution and put all American Muslims in internment camps?






Revoke visas, profile, detain, deport and do full investigations of terror suspects along with vetting new entries to the country. Logical reasonable and legal steps that Islamic sympathizers have blocked us from doing. Obama banned the FBI from doing their jobs if people are Muslim and that didn't seem to work so well.


There are investigations in all 50 states.

I think you are right but these guys need more than investigations.

We have to declare war on the radicals, through congress. A real declaration of war.

That would change a lot of things the authorities can't do now.




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


All I see is Trump possibly offering a cure to the Islam problem. Obama and Clinton seek to medicate the symptoms. It's like big-pharma, the money is in medicating a problem, not making a cure. I'm thinking we're all getting a little tired of political medication. Cheers - Dave


What solution has Trump put forth to the issue of Islamic extremism? Honest question.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Too many have already made it about gun control.

I think that is wrong as well, don't you?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


A radical islamic terrorist and extremist murders 50 Americans and injures many more and you want to about Trump turning Americans into extremists? wow. If it is extremist to want to do tackle the radical islamic terrorist threat head on, then so be it.


"tackle the radical islamic terrorist threat head on?"

How's he going to do that again? Please, cite a couple examples of your favored "solutions" put forth by Trump and how they will be effective.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I believe Trump mentioned teaming up with Putin and actually bombing the 'shiza' out of the Islamic Terrorists, which is more than what the other wingdings have said or done in Office.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I do and I said so right in the OP.


Whether or not you or I agree with President Obama — and I think he missed the mark as this cowardly, homicidal scum would have passed a background check by all indications — his politicizing of the massacre is positively respectful next to Donald Trump's:



Yes, this is horrible. Yes, it is frightening to realize that a person bent on murder and mayhem could at any moment bring harm to you and yours but this my friends, is a fact of life in a free society. The President is wrong in suggesting that restricting legal access to guns will prevent terrorist attacks. Terrorists have and will employ a variety of instruments for doing their evil — bombs, knives, swords, acid, poisons, toxic gases, biological agents, cars, planes, box cutters — you name it. Donald Trump is even more wrong and what he suggests is far worse.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


All I see is Trump possibly offering a cure to the Islam problem. Obama and Clinton seek to medicate the symptoms. It's like big-pharma, the money is in medicating a problem, not making a cure. I'm thinking we're all getting a little tired of political medication. Cheers - Dave


What solution has Trump put forth to the issue of Islamic extremism? Honest question.


If anything he has shown the will and determination to do something about it and that is a hell of a lot more then any of the others have done who actually have shown the opposite of this just in order not to offend anyone's feelings.

Look at Obama today. He doesn't even want to mention ISIS, Islam or terrorism. Look at Russia, they started fighting ISIS and they accomplished more then Obama did in 2 years time. We dont need meek unwilling pretenders. We need people with the will to do something about it instead of doing their best to ignore it. Trump has shown that will and determination and no matter how you spin it, the others have not.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


All I see is Trump possibly offering a cure to the Islam problem. Obama and Clinton seek to medicate the symptoms. It's like big-pharma, the money is in medicating a problem, not making a cure. I'm thinking we're all getting a little tired of political medication. Cheers - Dave


What solution has Trump put forth to the issue of Islamic extremism? Honest question.


Stopping new influx of muslims until proper screening is in place
Monitoring mosques
Going after families of terrorists
Use of torture to get details of more terrorist threats
Cutting off sources of funding for ISIS - oil and banking channels
Creating safe zones in Syria and Iraq
Engaging other ME countries to do more - including fighting ISIS on the ground
Sending US troops to fight ISIS (he was not specific on how many)
Demanding that the Muslim community help root out terrorists (my assumption is that statement carries consequences for refusing to do so)
Leave Assad alone until after ISIS is destroyed.
Engage with Russia to help destroy ISIS.

I don;t actually agree with all the above tactics, but Trump is the only one offering any solutions. Obama's solution is take guns form Americans, arm 'moderate terrorists' in the ME', over throw Assad and blame Russia for everything, whilst opening up borders to more unchecked Muslin refugees. Hillary is right with him.
edit on 12/6/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Not just Obama, but Bernie, and a variety of politicians did.

It's what they do.

They don't care about freedoms, all they care about it more laws, more restrictions and how they can profit from it.

Trump, Obama, Sanders, Clinton, a host of congressmen.

It's what they do.

If Trump didn't say a thing, you'd probably be writing about how uncaring he is.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I will have to share my awesome appreciation to the only candidate for President who did not politicize his agendas regarding this massacre!




Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party's presidential nominee and a former governor of New Mexico, called the slaughter "both cowardly and infuriating" but warned against politicizing the situation. "In this immediate aftermath of what is clearly a tragic and despicable attack, our thoughts must be with the victims. Regardless of what the motivation is ultimately found to be, this violence against innocent people simply going about their lives is both cowardly and infuriating," Johnson said in a statement released Sunday afternoon. "We must allow the authorities to do their jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly. It is not a time to either politicize or jump to conclusions."


Obama, Trump, Clinton, and yes, even Sanders, all selfishly made this a platform for their individual biased agendas! I am liking Johnson more and more, nowadays.

Source link to preview all the candidates responses and decide for yourself who seems to be the sanest out of the group!



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I will have to share my awesome appreciation to the only candidate for President who did not politicize his agendas regarding this massacre!




Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party's presidential nominee and a former governor of New Mexico, called the slaughter "both cowardly and infuriating" but warned against politicizing the situation. "In this immediate aftermath of what is clearly a tragic and despicable attack, our thoughts must be with the victims. Regardless of what the motivation is ultimately found to be, this violence against innocent people simply going about their lives is both cowardly and infuriating," Johnson said in a statement released Sunday afternoon. "We must allow the authorities to do their jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly. It is not a time to either politicize or jump to conclusions."


Obama, Trump, Clinton, and yes, even Sanders, all selfishly made this a platform for their individual biased agendas! I am liking Johnson more and more, nowadays.

Source link to preview all the candidates responses and decide for yourself who seems to be the sanest out of the group!



He may be too high to realise that it even happened.
Seriously though, lots of people saying how sorry they are (which they are not really, otherwise they would have plans in place post San Bernadino)
Only one person talking about actually doing something about it.

Depends what you want, the problem tackled or people saying the usual things to make you think they are nice.
edit on 12/6/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
61
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join