5 ms·

It's grotesque to divert attention and create the narrative that the real tragedy here is not the ever-increasing number of victims of a sickening ideology, but

by dracht 11y ago

It's grotesque to divert attention and create the narrative that the real tragedy here is not the ever-increasing number of victims of a sickening ideology, but the fact that the reaction to these events (as if fear and anger are inappropriate emotions to an attack) will drive people to a politician you oppose. If people voting for Trump makes you "just as sad" as people getting blown up, there is something seriously wrong with you.

viraptor 11y ago
US can go to war in many places for many reasons. Not always good or fully justified ones too. Some leaders are more likely to jump to such scenarios than others. So while it's comparison between one specific act and years of political decisions, I don't think there's got to be anything wrong with OP for such comparison. Electing a terrible leader of a powerful country can cause many more people getting blown up than we've heard of today.
- dracht 11y ago
  If I said I'm worried about people voting for politicians that will facilitate the spread of islam in Europe, I'd get downvoted for it in this progressive echo chamber. The US has engaged in useless conflicts both with democratic and republican presidents at the helm. The notion that Trump could and would start deadly wars on his own accord is highly speculative, bordering on baseless propaganda, and moot at this point. I don't have a dog in the fight since I'm not from the US, but it's appalling how pervasive and slanderous the American left is (perhaps my perspective is skewed through the internet, maybe the American right has no significant online presence). People getting killed in Belgium is not a chance for you to inject some US presidential campaign bullshit.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    I might downvote you for that, yes - if you said you were worried that people voting for politicians would facilitate the spread of terrorism in Europe, that would be an entirely understandable point of view. The fear of Trump is based on what we've learned from history: charismatic leaders, sowing discord and tension, talking about building walls to separate and contain people, trying to rid a country of certain races and religions, have caused the utmost tragedy in recent times. Trump is the one injecting US presidential campaign bullshit into this issue, and that must be countered.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Why is it grotesque? The reaction ensures even more innocent people will die. And this time, the blood will be on our part. Reacting to this tragedy with organised hatred only creates a new, far worse tragedy.
- dracht 11y ago
  >The reaction ensures even more innocent people will die. What reaction and how will it kill innocent people? Be concrete. You are speaking of a vague hypothetical as if it were a fact. >And this time, the blood will be on our part. I know it's trendy to be self-loathing, but I would rather have blood on my hands than someone else having my blood on their hands. An innocent civilian dying due to coalition forces' attempt to combat terrorists is not the same as a civilian being killed by said terrorists.

by dracht 11y ago

viraptor 11y ago

US can go to war in many places for many reasons. Not always good or fully justified ones too. Some leaders are more likely to jump to such scenarios than others. So while it's comparison between one specific act and years of political decisions, I don't think there's got to be anything wrong with OP for such comparison. Electing a terrible leader of a powerful country can cause many more people getting blown up than we've heard of today.

dracht 11y ago
If I said I'm worried about people voting for politicians that will facilitate the spread of islam in Europe, I'd get downvoted for it in this progressive echo chamber. The US has engaged in useless conflicts both with democratic and republican presidents at the helm. The notion that Trump could and would start deadly wars on his own accord is highly speculative, bordering on baseless propaganda, and moot at this point. I don't have a dog in the fight since I'm not from the US, but it's appalling how pervasive and slanderous the American left is (perhaps my perspective is skewed through the internet, maybe the American right has no significant online presence). People getting killed in Belgium is not a chance for you to inject some US presidential campaign bullshit.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  I might downvote you for that, yes - if you said you were worried that people voting for politicians would facilitate the spread of terrorism in Europe, that would be an entirely understandable point of view. The fear of Trump is based on what we've learned from history: charismatic leaders, sowing discord and tension, talking about building walls to separate and contain people, trying to rid a country of certain races and religions, have caused the utmost tragedy in recent times. Trump is the one injecting US presidential campaign bullshit into this issue, and that must be countered.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Why is it grotesque? The reaction ensures even more innocent people will die. And this time, the blood will be on our part. Reacting to this tragedy with organised hatred only creates a new, far worse tragedy.

dracht 11y ago
>The reaction ensures even more innocent people will die. What reaction and how will it kill innocent people? Be concrete. You are speaking of a vague hypothetical as if it were a fact. >And this time, the blood will be on our part. I know it's trendy to be self-loathing, but I would rather have blood on my hands than someone else having my blood on their hands. An innocent civilian dying due to coalition forces' attempt to combat terrorists is not the same as a civilian being killed by said terrorists.