Politifact: Democrats never mentioned terrorism on Day One of DNC

[TZucchini]

I'll just leave this here, because I think people forget: Google "operation inherent resolve" and take a look at CENTCOM's operation status.

The Combined Forces in the Syria/Iraq theater (of which the United States is by far the largest participant) have released nearly 50k weapons, over some 27k combat sorties. It has cost the United States $7.5 billion so far. You can see the battle estimates of how much damage has been done.

If you are going to argue with strangers on the Internet about American foreign policy, by all means, have fun. But let's not forget that the United States is engaged in actively bombing territory held by IS, every day, and is killing a lot of people. Hundreds, on some days. And that the Syrian government is engaged in far more indiscriminate bombing across much of its former territory.

That's the reality of what the US (and its allies) are doing against IS. The air war could be intensified, but you can be certain that would cause even more dislocation of the population and a larger wave of refugees into Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and southern Iraq. The propaganda campaign waged by ISIS, which has caught the imagination of a couple violent losers, is really not the main story.

Interesting post. Funny to think that the Commander-in-chief of this operation is a Democrat too.

[lockedout]

Too much credit? It was Obama's call, and his call alone to take out Osama. His security advisers weren't even certain that Osama was in that compound. Some put the odds as low as 30%. Most put the odds around 60%.

And how about the call to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan by sending the SEALS? We could have simply blown the place to bits with a drone, but there were dozens of children kept at that compound.

Too much credit? You'll have to explain that.

They should do this more often, instead of drone strikes.

[SL1200]

Good, and I thank them for it. I won't be scared into voting for anyone because of some boogeyman.

[Sunseeker]

The Democrats aren't talking about what the Republicans want them to talk about! Clearly they're bad people!

Damn you'd think 'cons had some some kind of attention complex.

[Darkeon]

Good, and I thank them for it. I won't be scared into voting for anyone because of some boogeyman.

The Boogeyman never felt so real before, just ask all the French people~

-

Also, on the topic of "Islamophobia"..
How many terror attacks gotta be done, in the spawn of a month, by extremist Muslims (but Muslims nonetheless), for the expression "Islamophobia" - the irrational fear of Islam - to be gone and it being actually justifiable?

-

And, lastly, on the thread's topic:
I reckon it's due to America, generally speaking, having forgotten the imminent danger that it is to be targeted at their own country soil. Should what is happening in Europe start happening in America - and at the rate it's happening* - things would certainly be different than they are and Terrorism would, more likely than not, be mentioned.
For now though, I feel it's a matter of "Not my problem"-kinda thing.

[jaykco]

This isn't surprising because when it comes to national security with Radical Islamic terrorism, their heads are in the sand like an ostrich.

[Wulfey]

I'll just leave this here, because I think people forget: Google "operation inherent resolve" and take a look at CENTCOM's operation status.

The Combined Forces in the Syria/Iraq theater (of which the United States is by far the largest participant) have released nearly 50k weapons, over some 27k combat sorties. It has cost the United States $7.5 billion so far. You can see the battle estimates of how much damage has been done.

If you are going to argue with strangers on the Internet about American foreign policy, by all means, have fun. But let's not forget that the United States is engaged in actively bombing territory held by IS, every day, and is killing a lot of people. Hundreds, on some days. And that the Syrian government is engaged in far more indiscriminate bombing across much of its former territory.

That's the reality of what the US (and its allies) are doing against IS. The air war could be intensified, but you can be certain that would cause even more dislocation of the population and a larger wave of refugees into Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and southern Iraq. The propaganda campaign waged by ISIS, which has caught the imagination of a couple violent losers, is really not the main story.

I came here to say this. President Obama has killed at least 5 digits of human beings in the war against ISIS (justified and necessary). Yet Trumpkins act like Obama is sitting on his hands.

[Darkeon]

A gigantic amount of people.
It's an irrational fear and it always will be.

Gigantic? 100s? 1000s?

I find the amount of attacks we got lately - and the "few, worthless" lives lost to them - to be more than sufficient. But then again, I'm no apologist :3

[MasterOfNone]

A relatively small incident in comparison to the numerous daily shootings. Hell you are more likely to die in a car accident.

Amazing how the "republican bias statistics" come out here when it fits your narrative.

[May90]

True, but in each of those occurrences a huge amount of resources, regulations and laws went into place to reduce the number.

Cars are constantly under federal regulations to insure safety. Couple that with seat belt laws and speed limits, you clearly see action take to reduce that number. The same can be said for shark attacks. There are signs, life guards and other actions take to warn people of the risk and reduce the death.

Terrorism is something that will grow if not taken seriously. I am not honestly complaining that the DNC didn't talk terrorism last night, but to think it isn't important is quite silly.

But terrorism is taken seriously already; both the Western coalition and Russia are fighting against ISIS as we speak. The necessary actions are taking place.

We are talking about the "scare" used by politicians to promote their goals. Talking about a problem that is already addressed and reduced to the point of being almost irrelevant to an average citizen wouldn't make sense on an event in support of a presidential candidate. Again, same way you could criticize Democrats for not mentioning the shark problem, because sharks are more likely to attack you than a terrorist attack to kill you.

A gigantic amount of people.
It's an irrational fear and it always will be.

Yes, something like 1.5 billion out of 1.6 billion Muslims would have to participate in terrorist activities, for prejudiced attitude against all Muslims to be somewhat relevant - and even then it still would be illogical, although understandable.

[Darkeon]

No, you are worse.
You're like that guy that's afraid to go outside because lightning might hit him.
Man up!

Well, we can't really compare random Natural Disasters with Terrorists.

But, if in the middle of a lightning storm, with smart, sentient lightening bolts, that have proved over and over again that they are out to get you and want you dead - damn right I would be scared.

And, would that also be Lighteningophobia?

[May90]

Well, we can't really compare random Natural Disasters with Terrorists.

But, if in the middle of a lightning storm, with smart, sentient lightening bolts, that have proved over and over again that they are out to get you and want you dead - damn right I would be scared.

And, would that also be Lighteningophobia?

Well, then, if you see terrorists around you killing people right now on your watch, then you should be scared. What if you don't? Then it is the fear of random lightnings.

[urasim]

A gigantic amount of people.
It's an irrational fear and it always will be.

Wait, so, why does it need to be a "gigantic amount of people" for Islam, but for BLM you only need a few cops killing blacks for it to be "systemic racism"?

I mean, we can point out a substantial number of Muslims actually condoning attacks, but you can only show a few examples of racist cops. How's that rational?

[alexw]

Gigantic? 100s? 1000s?

I find the amount of attacks we got lately - and the "few, worthless" lives lost to them - to be more than sufficient. But then again, I'm no apologist :3

Tell me are you scared of bathtubs? More people drown in them than die due to terrorism so you must be right? What do you want done about bathtubs? Should they be made illegal? Should there be continual TV warning advertisements about how dangerous they are? What do you propose as a solution to this worse than terrorism threat?

[truckboattruck]

they dont care about terrorism lol
they dont care about debt either

the democrats are a coalition of dependents
they want everyone else to pay their way, and nothing short of offering them MORE will make them vote otherwise

- - - Updated - - -

Democrats don't discuss terrorism a lot because they are not unenlightened xenophobic paranoid bunch. They want to discuss important matters "that actually make a difference" such as tax, education, and minimum wage.

what is enlightened about pretending that legitimate threats don't exist?

[Darkeon]

Well, then, if you see terrorists around you killing people right now on your watch, then you should be scared. What if you don't? Then it is the fear of random lightnings.

Exactly why there was no mention, as said in the OP. "Does it affect me, personally? No. Then it doesn't exist." ;D

Tell me are you scared of bathtubs? More people drown in them than die due to terrorism so you must be right? What do you want done about bathtubs? Should they be made illegal? Should there be continual TV warning advertisements about how dangerous they are? What do you propose as a solution to this worse than terrorism threat?

Are you.... comparing an inanimate object to terrorists? I don't think I can't properly reply to such a funny remark o.o

[May90]

Wait, so, why does it need to be a "gigantic amount of people" for Islam, but for BLM you only need a few cops killing blacks for it to be "systemic racism"?

I mean, we can point out a substantial number of Muslims actually condoning attacks, but you can only show a few examples of racist cops. How's that rational?

You misunderstand. What BLM talks about is that, among the police shootings, the blacks are killed more often due to racism. Whether it is true or not is another matter, but the sample is different. Here you are looking at all Muslims, while there you are only looking at police shootings and not, say, at all cases of interaction of police officers with citizens.

For your analogy to work, you need to look at all terrorist attacks and notice that the vast majority of them are done by Muslims. Now, this is something you can talk about and make certain conclusions.

Those BLM members who say that "cops are racist" are wrong, both factually and logically. Those who say, "Among violent cops, many are racist", make a much better case - although, again, I'm not sure if they are right.

Exactly why there was no mention, as said in the OP. "Does it affect me, personally? No. Then it doesn't exist." ;D

If it is EXTREMELY unlikely to affect you personally, with probability of 1:20,000,000 - then yes, you can safely say that in your life it doesn't exist.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Democrats don't discuss terrorism a lot because they are not unenlightened xenophobic paranoid bunch. They want to discuss important matters "that actually make a difference" such as tax, education, and minimum wage.

Weird, they haven't mentioned any of those things though, well Bernie did mention wages, but he pivoted away from his $15 an hour to a "livable wage".

Democrats have only talked about inclusion.

Good the Democrats can all go down together.

[alexw]

Exactly why there was no mention, as said in the OP. "Does it affect me, personally? No. Then it doesn't exist." ;D


Are you.... comparing an inanimate object to terrorists? I don't think I can't properly reply to such a funny remark o.o

Answer the questions I have posed. If you are worried about terrorism then why not bathtubs which are more likely to kill you? Why are you not more worried about bathtubs than terrorism since the likelihood of death is higher? Etc. Etc.

[Darkeon]

If it is EXTREMELY unlikely to affect you personally, with probability of 1:20,000,000 - then yes, you can safely say that in your life it doesn't exist.

That was the case in France too, a while ago
I got a feeling that Terrorism is a topic that will most likely be touched on similar conferences there, in the future though.

Let us hope that America retains their current special status and doesn't have to worry about Terrorists in the future!

Answer the questions I have posed. If you are worried about terrorism then why not bathtubs which are more likely to kill you? Why are you not more worried about bathtubs than terrorism since the likelihood of death is higher? Etc. Etc.

I really tried, trust me. But I couldn't keep a straight face at someone comparing Terrorism to inanimate objects.