Minnesota Democrat says ISIS is just 'doing what they think is best for their community'. Ends campa - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/v1an.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.dankimmelstaterep.org/2015/11/evil/][img]http://i.imgur.com/ooi1vwF.png[/img][/url] [url]http://www.dankimmelstaterep.org/2015/11/evil/[/url] [url]http://www.startribune.com/dfler-abruptly-quits-race-after-saying-isis-isn-t-necessarily-evil/349824001/[/url] [quote]A Burnsville DFLer’s campaign for the state House abruptly ended Sunday morning within hours of him posting on social media that ISIS “isn’t necessarily evil” and is “made up of people doing what they think is best for their community.” The Twitter posting Saturday by Dan Kimmel, coming as the world’s emotions remain raw from Friday’s terror attacks in Paris, brought swift rebuke from others on Twitter. House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, called for Kimmel to give up his campaign. “I’m folding up the campaign tent,” Kimmel told the Star Tribune. He later issued a written apology and called his tweet “stupid,” adding that it’s probably best for him to “shut up” for the time being. Kimmel said in the interview that the posting “was not interpreted as I intended. It was so badly misinterpreted.” He added that he was dropping out of the race “to remove the ick” from his party.[/quote]

...like, I can see where is he coming from, but how the [B]FUCK[/B] can you fuck up this badly?!

Syrian rebels in general think they're doing what's best for Sunnis. That's why they're such a useful pawn for the US and the Sunni monarchies. We couldn't destroy the secular nationalist regime in Syria without tribalism and sectarianism.

The KKK and the nazis also did what they thought was best. How can you be such an incredible daft knob head as to say something like that.

political suicide 101

In a way, I feel bad for politicians having to use Twitter to engage with their constitutents. 140 characters is way too tiny a wordcount to express complex and potentially unpopular notions when dealing with terrorism and foreign policy in political discourse. I don't know what this guy was trying to say (I can make guesses), but he clearly wasn't being an apologist for ISIS atrocities. :tried:

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49123071]In a way, I feel bad for politicians having to use Twitter to engage with their constitutents. 140 characters is way too tiny a wordcount to express complex and potentially unpopular notions when dealing with terrorism and foreign policy in political discourse. I don't know what this guy was trying to say (I can make guesses), but he clearly wasn't being an apologist for ISIS atrocities. :tried:[/QUOTE] If he spends his 140 character saying isis is only doing what they think is right, yes he clearly is being a terrorist apologists.

It's probably best for him to shut the fuck up for the rest of his lifetime. That tweet was incredibly fucking retarded, it has to be trolling.

At least he was self-conscious and realized his fuck up, had this been some other politician he'd probably try to save face and justify it (if only trump would say something like that).

[QUOTE=T553412;49123032]...like, I can see where is he coming from, but how the [B]FUCK[/B] can you fuck up this badly?![/QUOTE] Twitter. Twitter is not the place to discuss anything remotely complex. Limited to 140 characters, I don't think he could have put it any better way.

Now is really not the time to be an ISIS apologist. You cannot have worse timing.

Well he's probably not, like, wrong but wowe

Demonizing the vast majority of ISIS as some sort of cartoon notion of evil through and through isn't productive. Understanding/recognizing why people are joining ISIS is an important piece of the puzzle of not only crippling ISIS, but crippling the ability for groups like ISIS to form in the future. Still, not the best presentation, if that's even what he was trying to say.

Not wrong, but what the fuck dude [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] Actually maybe wrong, ISIS is framing itself as a community helper, the people involved in it probably think that, but leadership is probably a power grab a la hitler

[QUOTE=gastyne;49123086]If he spends his 140 character saying isis is only doing what they think is right, yes he clearly is being a terrorist apologists.[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, consider the following statement: [QUOTE]Hitler envsioned a perfect world and tried to realize it. Unfortunately, his vision of a perfect world included white supremacy and the genocide of Jews and pretty much everyone else, and he caused millions of innocents to die, millions more in military casualties on all sides, and unmeasurable suffering for most of Europe for decades including setting up the starting conditions for the Cold War. He intended to create his vision through mass extermination and war and fear, and for that, history brands him a monster and a tyrant.[/QUOTE] If someone said that to you, you could accuse them of playing the devil's advocate and you'd probably be right. But look how many words it took to communicate that Hitler's intentions could be looked at in a certain light but that does not excuse all of the horrible things he did. You can't fit that in 140 characters, there is no way. This poor shmuck tried and found out why it's a mistake to even try.

I will say it's still pretty stupid reasoning, but it's not as bad as saying something along the lines of "Isis has good intentions, just bad executions" or "The French had it coming to them; just look at [insert French celebrity/politician]". There are a lot of people who will side against victims in tragedies simply because they [I]do not like them[/I]. Not because they saw a dark side or benefit to those people being attacked, but simply because they have negative feelings. Not that I have necessarily read anything like that with regards to this attack, but like elixwhitetail said, it appears this guy was more so trying to play devil's advocate than actually saying he defends the actions of Isis.

[QUOTE=NO ONE;49123685]I will say it's still pretty stupid reasoning, but it's not as bad as saying something along the lines of "Isis has good intentions, just bad executions" or "The French had it coming to them; just look at [insert French celebrity/politician]". There are a lot of people who will side against victims in tragedies simply because they [I]do not like them[/I]. Not because they saw a dark side or benefit to those people being attacked, but simply because they have negative feelings. Not that I have necessarily read anything like that with regards to this attack, but like elixwhitetail said, it appears this guy was more so trying to play devil's advocate than actually saying he defends the actions of Isis.[/QUOTE] I don't even think he was trying to play devil's advocate so much as he made the dumb move of trying to communicate a very nuanced and complex foreign policy statement into 140 characters. I believe he was going closer to this: [QUOTE=DaMastez;49123590]Demonizing the vast majority of ISIS as some sort of cartoon notion of evil through and through isn't productive. Understanding/recognizing why people are joining ISIS is an important piece of the puzzle of not only crippling ISIS, but crippling the ability for groups like ISIS to form in the future. Still, not the best presentation, if that's even what he was trying to say.[/QUOTE] A lot of the Muslim men joining extremist groups since [I]at least[/I] the mid-90s (and probably earlier) have been men who see no future waiting for them. The countries they come from have deep gulfs between the standard of living for rich people and the rest, and economies are mismanaged or altogether under international sanctions. A lot of them aren't even disaffected uneducated youth with no career potential; you have certified engineers and doctors joining out of desperation because the industries they were trained in have all but shut down due to the sorry state of the middle eastern nations. Any forward progress the country was making has been lost to religious fanaticism and bickering between Gulf states and Israel/US. Look at recent photos of the remains of the Palestinian territory in Gaza and you'll see how men could decide that they might as well throw their life away for a cause - there won't be a Silicon Valley springing up in Palestine anytime soon to make use of that computer engineering degree, so why not bomb a marketplace? Simply treating them all like they're ideology-crazed zealots who've been brainwashed by the cult of Muslimism who have a holy book that says they'll get 72 virgins if they suicide bomb (there is ZERO mention of 72 heavenly bitches in the Koran, btw) will only perpetuate the conflict. Does everyone see how none of these posts fit in 140 characters? Can you imagine how badly they'd be mangled if we tried to have this discussion on Twitter?

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49123069]political suicide 101[/QUOTE] Y'know, we sometimes throw that around whenever someone says something stupid. This though... This really is THE definition of political suicide. Akin to saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" and meaning it.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49123590]Demonizing the vast majority of ISIS as some sort of cartoon notion of evil through and through isn't productive. Understanding/recognizing why people are joining ISIS is an important piece of the puzzle of not only crippling ISIS, but crippling the ability for groups like ISIS to form in the future. Still, not the best presentation, if that's even what he was trying to say.[/QUOTE] nah fuck that sounds like effort just bomb the fuck out of them lmao glass the place Blowing these places up is what got us into this mess, if we're going to go back to blowing them up, we need to actually stick around to pick up the pieces and create something resembling a society after we level it. Every time we manage to destroy a village or town with IS links, we are undoubtedly killing, maiming or otherwise traumatising people on the sidelines, who may be driven to join the fight against us much in the same way we get an influx of armed forces recruits every time we suffer a terrorist attack. There aren't many feasible alternatives that are 100% peaceful, but we can at least try and get close to them. It's a given we will likely have to destroy power bases for IS, take out infrastructure and resource generating facilities that they are using to supply themselves and maintain hold of the area with. But what we do after that is important, if not more important, than killing the IS members in the first place. Teaching the local population that we genuinely do not want to harm them, and rebuilding what we destroyed. And seeing that through, rather than starting it and then just bouncing the fuck out of there a few years later with the job not even half done. Yeah, public approval went through the roof when we first went in to Iraq, and yeah, it rapidly declined as time wore on. But pulling out when we did, without completing infrastructure rebuilding tasks, was a fucking amazing way to create a load of disenfranchised locals and seeded a lot of hatred as we left a huge power vacuum ready to be filled by any of the number of insurgent forces.

Literally every atrocity in history done by man was done with good intent.

[QUOTE=Conscript;49123041]Syrian rebels in general think they're doing what's best for Sunnis. That's why they're such a useful pawn for the US and the Sunni monarchies. We couldn't destroy the [B][B]secular nationalist regime[/B][/B] in Syria without tribalism and sectarianism.[/QUOTE] I think "Alawite regime backed by Iran and Hezbollah" would be a more fitting description for Assad's government. The Baathists have created a narrative of secular nationalism that suits your worldview just fine. But the reality is that their bias towards the Alawite minority that Assad comes from created the same results as Maliki's government in Iraq, an alienated Sunni population that was willing to accept a brutal Sunni organization over a slightly less brutal Shiite/Alawite regime.

[QUOTE=kweh;49123740]Y'know, we sometimes throw that around whenever someone says something stupid. This though... This really is THE definition of political suicide. Akin to saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" and meaning it.[/QUOTE] No this is far from the definition of political suicide. Political suicide would be denouncing your country and renouncing your citizenship. We see ISIS as terrorists, but that doesnt mean that the entire world does. There is a population that is relying on ISIS for their way of life. ISIS puts food on the table, provides security, etc. Radical Islam is just as dangerous as radical Judaism or radical Catholicism. Religion has driven many a war throughout history of the world. This time its just ISIS giving radical Islam their turn at the table. Whats ridiculous about all this is how many people are becoming islamophobic.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;49123416]Twitter. Twitter is not the place to discuss anything remotely complex. Limited to 140 characters, I don't think he could have put it any better way.[/QUOTE] "To beat ISIS, and to prevent the rise of others, we have to give people in the region an alternative perspective[ to lead a better life]." 113 [135] characters. [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] Alternatively: "To beat ISIS, and to prevent the rise of others, we have to give people in the region a better perspective to live their life peacefully." (137 characters) It's totally doable to be nuanced on Twitter. He just massively screwed up with his starting point and then went from there.

[QUOTE=T553412;49123032]...like, I can see where is he coming from, but how the [B]FUCK[/B] can you fuck up this badly?![/QUOTE] It's amazing really. I too can see what he was trying to say but damn. The wrong words in the wrong way at the wrong time.

[QUOTE=Conscript;49123041]Syrian rebels in general think they're doing what's best for Sunnis. That's why they're such a useful pawn for the US and the Sunni monarchies. We couldn't destroy the secular nationalist regime in Syria without tribalism and sectarianism.[/QUOTE] i wouldn't go so far as to say assad is secular his entire political base is supported by Alawite minority to maintain power much like what happened in iraq, and they've used their power to crush other sects in the country. much like sadam, just because he wears a suit doesn't mean there isn't a religious motivation, ya its not nearly as influential as say his family's need to control the country as a series of dictators, but its definitely there

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;49123872]Literally every atrocity in history done by man was done with good intent.[/QUOTE] you've lived a very sheltered life I take it. there was no "good intent" behind columbine, Jeffrey Dahmer had no righteous intentions...

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49124825]you've lived a very sheltered life I take it. there was no "good intent" behind columbine, Jeffrey Dahmer had no righteous intentions...[/QUOTE] And the Armenian genocide was committed with what good intent? Reminder that this series of atrocities [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide"]prompted the [I]invention[/I] of the word 'genocide' to describe what had happened[/URL].

[QUOTE=Tamschi;49124296]"To beat ISIS, and to prevent the rise of others, we have to give people in the region an alternative perspective[ to lead a better life]." 113 [135] characters. [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] Alternatively: "To beat ISIS, and to prevent the rise of others, we have to give people in the region a better perspective to live their life peacefully." (137 characters) It's totally doable to be nuanced on Twitter. He just massively screwed up with his starting point and then went from there.[/QUOTE] In all likelihood(and in my opinion, too), that isn't what he meant. I'd interpret it as: [QUOTE]ISIS isn't objectively evil, nor does it try to be; They're just a group with very strongly held beliefs, which, if those beliefs were accurate, they would be the ultimate force of good for the world. Because it isn't accurate, and mankind's "good" goal is to make the world a better place(instead of work towards an afterlife), they're evil in that regard.[/QUOTE] And that's only the first part. I also would say the part: "Violence is not the answer, though" could be a shortened version of: [QUOTE]Attacking them is not the solution to the problem. Many countries in the region really need good infrastructure, and education. With proper education, we can align the youth who believe they are doing good, into helping the same "good" that we all agree on.[/QUOTE] And that's about enough to get the point across, but not enough to hammer it home. OK, wait, that's basically what you said. But the problem is once again, I think you could have expressed it better with more characters. Even though I knew you were using less characters, the point still confused me and leaves alot to the imagination.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49123731]I don't even think he was trying to play devil's advocate so much as he made the dumb move of trying to communicate a very nuanced and complex foreign policy statement into 140 characters. I believe he was going closer to this: A lot of the Muslim men joining extremist groups since [I]at least[/I] the mid-90s (and probably earlier) have been men who see no future waiting for them. The countries they come from have deep gulfs between the standard of living for rich people and the rest, and economies are mismanaged or altogether under international sanctions. A lot of them aren't even disaffected uneducated youth with no career potential; you have certified engineers and doctors joining out of desperation because the industries they were trained in have all but shut down due to the sorry state of the middle eastern nations. Any forward progress the country was making has been lost to religious fanaticism and bickering between Gulf states and Israel/US. Look at recent photos of the remains of the Palestinian territory in Gaza and you'll see how men could decide that they might as well throw their life away for a cause - there won't be a Silicon Valley springing up in Palestine anytime soon to make use of that computer engineering degree, so why not bomb a marketplace? Simply treating them all like they're ideology-crazed zealots who've been brainwashed by the cult of Muslimism who have a holy book that says they'll get 72 virgins if they suicide bomb (there is ZERO mention of 72 heavenly bitches in the Koran, btw) will only perpetuate the conflict. Does everyone see how none of these posts fit in 140 characters? Can you imagine how badly they'd be mangled if we tried to have this discussion on Twitter?[/QUOTE] How were the Europe-born Charlie hebdo attackers (and at least 1 of the recent attackers) disadvantaged by the economic conditions of the Middle East? Why do you assume the Ph.D. educated 9/11 hijackers had no future ahead of them?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49123590]Demonizing the vast majority of ISIS as some sort of cartoon notion of evil through and through isn't productive. Understanding/recognizing why people are joining ISIS is an important piece of the puzzle of not only crippling ISIS, but crippling the ability for groups like ISIS to form in the future. Still, not the best presentation, if that's even what he was trying to say.[/QUOTE] I agree. The only reason this is a "political suicide" is because so many people unconditionally reject any ideas past the group being literal devil. [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49126524]How were the Europe-born Charlie hebdo attackers (and at least 1 of the recent attackers) disadvantaged by the economic conditions of the Middle East? Why do you assume the Ph.D. educated 9/11 hijackers had no future ahead of them?[/QUOTE] I think it's more of the perception of having a future than actually having a future. Our local school shooters saw no future for themselves personally and Breivik saw no future for Europe other than war for example.