Just within last few hours there were multiple terrorist attacks in Paris, capital of France, so far no organization is claiming responsiblity. First reports are saying over 100 people dead in 4-5 different locations, but those numbers will probably change as french special forces raided the theater where almost 100 people were hold hostage. Multiple shooting sites, 3 bombs went outside stadiums etc.
France has declared state of national emergency and is also closings all the borders.
it's all going down in 10 years when the need for oil in the middle east will be a lot smaller and supplies are everywhere that these people will be left to kill each other instead of going to your pretty cities and ruining your way of life. PC lpers we racists still at fault here or is it still U.S.A when this shit happens all over the world?
Last edit: 14/11/2015 05:47
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 14 2015 07:52. Posts 2226
one of the attackers literally said "this is your fault, this is hollande's fault" in the middle of shooting people
if i rape a girl and say that then i'm "victim blaming"
but the minute someone gets shot for a cartoon every insufferable university communist in the west comes out of the woodwork to say some dumb fuck thing about how the USA created radical islam and terrorism is an expression of muslim culture and i'm racist because i like civilization
in fact i'll be surprised if the left notices this at all since it was people of color shooting up a theater and not a white man
although i already saw #BLM people whining because attention was being taken
we all know that religions are bullshit of course
however, politically it will be impossible not to destroy the world without enlisting the aid of "moderate" muslims to actually reform the muslim world and make everything secular like turkey. so in normal talks we have to do this careful pussyfooting around about how we know not all muslims are terrorists, that extremists don't represent the faith, that faith is so important how could a billion and a half people be full of it, better not say they're full of it or they might all come beat you up, which is all true but extremely tiring because moderate muslims themselves are apparently all too fucking brainwashed to imagine that people decrying the gunning down and massacre of innocent, unarmed civilians could be anything but a personal attack on their faith
was waiting for dogmeat to post but i guess he's not coming
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 14 2015 08:01. Posts 6374
i m very well established in the other thread, mate
islam should be banned and all muslims concentrated and then deported
ban baal
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 14 2015 08:05. Posts 2226
because apparently if you ask the left what they think about donald trump
they say it's impossible to deport millions of illegal immigrants
but when it comes to europe it's suddenly easy to vet and accept hundreds of thousands of refugees and give them residency
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On November 14 2015 06:52 Santafairy wrote:
every insufferable university communist in the west comes out of the woodwork to say some dumb fuck thing about how the USA created radical islam
Except that this is true.
Of course Islam is barbaric, backwards and the worst religion in the modern world but what has radicalized most people against the west has been the US foreign policy for the last few decades.
Obama has increased the Drone attacks in the middle east, and over 90% of its kills are "unidentified" AKA fucking civilians, you are turning random people into radicals every single day by the dozen, it is not surprising that people are brain washed into blowing themselves up into defend what they believe is just.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 14 2015 08:57. Posts 2226
what do you mean "radicalized against the west"
have you ever heard of a radical Islam that thinks the west is great
either you're radical or not? i would like to know if i missed something on this one, because literally the religion has been doing this to infidels for over a millennium, but in this one case everyone would have gotten along great if it weren't for the US
did you ever find yourself radicalized against russia because of their foreign policy towards mexico, what do you even care?
or are you saying that the US is so incompetent that their history of favoring authoritarian dictators and islamist regimes in the middle east, so as not to disturb the status quo of oil, created two generations of hateful people. because that at least makes sense but it still doesn't make it your "fault" when they bomb you
i mean seriously what foreign policy snafu was the US involved in when september 11th happened? how are you going to spin that one? remember when you woke up one day and al qaeda, who rejects future isis members for being too radical, had killed 3000 people?
what's your next thesis? israeli foreign policy causes antisemitism?
oh wait it's US foreign policy that made people execute civilians in France, i think i get it, France, the fourth country to get the atomic bomb, the center of NATO, is not responsible for their own foreign policy, they have no say in the matter and just follow the US, so it's the US's fault that it's France's fault that Islamists go there and execute cartoonists, take hostages in coffee shops, and fire automatic rifles into restaurants
tell me how you're supposed to kill jihadis besides air and drone strikes because you same liberals would never accept military intervention in syria and iraq
that's literally the only reason there aren't soldiers in syria already, obama can't fucking do it before the election. if you want to blame foreign policy then accept that it's the left that holds you back from taking a hard line
nothing's their fault is it, it's everyone else's responsibility except the person that brainwashes some sexually repressed teenager to suicide bomb a bus
it couldn't be that extremists just become psychotic when you tell them there's counrties where women don't cover their face and legs, gays get married, you can eat bacon and drink beer and only ever face east to close your blinds when the sun wakes you up too early. it must be that obama ordered a drone strike in a war zone that 4 million people just fled from, and that pissed some jihadist off so much he decided to rape and murder a yazidi woman just to get back at the US
do you think muslim extremists are spending most of their time and energy fighting "the west" or fighting other muslims?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Royal_Rumble Germany. Nov 14 2015 09:33. Posts 1760
Muslims doing what Muslims do. Whoever is surprised by the Terror attacks has been living under a rock the last 14 years. The political class in Brussels in general and in Germany in particular are guilty of treason and perjury and should be sent to court, Angela Merkel up front.
Agree with Baal. American foreign policy directly created this situation. The war machine loves it. Number of times the west went in, destroyed democratization and installed Islamic governments.
This is godsend to NSA et al. Watch new laws come into effect now. More surveillance less and less privacy.
hola
1
traxamillion United States. Nov 14 2015 10:45. Posts 10468
On November 14 2015 06:52 Santafairy wrote:
but the minute someone gets shot for a cartoon every insufferable university communist in the west comes out of the woodwork to say some dumb fuck thing about how the USA created radical islam and terrorism is an expression of muslim culture and i'm racist because i like civilization
Don't make hard statements when you are uneducated. Radical religions only arise when a society is being suppressed for a large period of time. The USA was the global leader of the world for decades, they were the ones dictating politics, they are the ones responsible for the current state of the Middle East. They did create radical islam, its all their responsibility.
@trax you don't seem to understand how extreme israelis are either and rofl at supporting them
jews are so fucking brainwashed at this point they are not any better either
On November 14 2015 07:57 Santafairy wrote:
what do you mean "radicalized against the west"
I think its pretty clear, it makes them hate western civilization with passion
either you're radical or not? i would like to know if i missed something on this one, because literally the religion has been doing this to infidels for over a millennium, but in this one case everyone would have gotten along great if it weren't for the US
And Christianity has been doing even worse things for also millenia, they werent great before american intervention, but you made it worse and made yourselves a target.
did you ever find yourself radicalized against russia because of their foreign policy towards mexico, what do you even care?
Russia doesnt have dozens of military bases spread in latin-america and doesnt wage war against us constantly and on daily basis kills innocents with drones strikes, if they did I would probably hate Russia.
i mean seriously what foreign policy snafu was the US involved in when september 11th happened? how are you going to spin that one? remember when you woke up one day and al qaeda, who rejects future isis members for being too radical, had killed 3000 people?
Are you serious? do you want me to list american military and CIA interventions in the middle east?
what's your next thesis? israeli foreign policy causes antisemitism?
I think palestinians hate Israelis a lot
oh wait it's US foreign policy that made people execute civilians in France, i think i get it, France, the fourth country to get the atomic bomb, the center of NATO, is not responsible for their own foreign policy, they have no say in the matter and just follow the US, so it's the US's fault that it's France's fault that Islamists go there and execute cartoonists, take hostages in coffee shops, and fire automatic rifles into restaurants
Of course not, when did I blame the US for this specific attack?
tell me how you're supposed to kill jihadis besides air and drone strikes because you same liberals would never accept military intervention in syria and iraq
You should focus on not creating more, for everyone you kill you create 10 more with drone strikes killing 90% civilians, it works like an Hydra... stop being idiots cutting heads off, more will grow.
that's literally the only reason there aren't soldiers in syria already, obama can't fucking do it before the election. if you want to blame foreign policy then accept that it's the left that holds you back from taking a hard line
Obama has increased considerably the amounts of Drone strikes, way more than Bush, he has been a huge violent warmonger, pretty crazy that you want troops in Syria, what fucking stake do you have there?
nothing's their fault is it, it's everyone else's responsibility except the person that brainwashes some sexually repressed teenager to suicide bomb a bus
Of course its their fault, their religion is barbaric, backwars and from the middle ages, I said that alrady, the US is also barbaric and violent and is only making things worse.
do you think muslim extremists are spending most of their time and energy fighting "the west" or fighting other muslims?
I think they are at war with pretty much anything... very alike the US, just more primitive
SIX seperate attacks over Paris and death count up to 127 and still possible more victims:
Bataclan theatre – 87 people killed
Stade de France – unknown number killed
Boulevard de Charonne – 18 reported killed
Boulevard Voltaire – one killed
Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi – five killed
Rue Alibert – 14 killed
On November 14 2015 13:03 chris wrote:
People were being beheaded, raped, and enslaved, with crops salted, long before the US existed.
For a fun read , look up Saladin and the wars fought in the Muslim world as they built their own empires. This is also where assassins come from.
Are you for real ? :D
Did you really give Saladin as an example ?
Holy fucking shit
Give the guy that OPPOSED the Crusades as an example- you know the same crusades that killed babies and raped women. CHRISTIAN crusades.
And now idiots all around the world want border closure in Europe, so refugees can suffer. Those same refugees that are fleeing from the terror that happened in Paris, except where they live thats something that happens on a daily basis. Hypocrite society. You deserve to be the sheep that you are
Last edit: 14/11/2015 16:45
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 14 2015 16:52. Posts 6374
On November 14 2015 13:03 chris wrote:
People were being beheaded, raped, and enslaved, with crops salted, long before the US existed.
For a fun read , look up Saladin and the wars fought in the Muslim world as they built their own empires. This is also where assassins come from.
Are you for real ? :D
Did you really give Saladin as an example ?
Holy fucking shit
Give the guy that OPPOSED the Crusades as an example- you know the same crusades that killed babies and raped women. CHRISTIAN crusades.
And now idiots all around the world want border closure in Europe, so refugees can suffer. Those same refugees that are fleeing from the terror that happened in Paris, except where they live thats something that happens on a daily basis. Hypocrite society. You deserve to be the sheep that you are
You mean that they were a good thing or what? Do you know that my country was forced to oppose some of the Crusades too and made them go through a different path cause they were burning villages here although we were allies? Do you think that it wasn't like that all through Europe? Do you think they were better than the muslims at those times? They were burning people. Don't know if thats better than stoning
Dont you understand it already
It's all about political power and geopolitical influence.
How hard is to grasp that
Its been like that 1000 years ago. It's the same now
It doesn't matter how developed we are compared to them. When fear strikes we re back to our savage ways.
Last edit: 14/11/2015 17:08
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 14 2015 21:50. Posts 2226
either you're radical or not? i would like to know if i missed something on this one, because literally the religion has been doing this to infidels for over a millennium, but in this one case everyone would have gotten along great if it weren't for the US
And Christianity has been doing even worse things for also millenia, they werent great before american intervention, but you made it worse and made yourselves a target.
this is always a good point. one time there was a spanish inquisition and now the pope rides around in a fucking golf cart, therefore christianity is just as destructive now as islam. i don't understand the argument entirely but i get the (apolo)gist of it.
did you ever find yourself radicalized against russia because of their foreign policy towards mexico, what do you even care?
Russia doesnt have dozens of military bases spread in latin-america and doesnt wage war against us constantly and on daily basis kills innocents with drones strikes, if they did I would probably hate Russia.
it's my mistake that i used the wrong analogy. what i was trying to convey is that you don't care about a country halfway around the world. but even in the case of the country directly to the north of your homeland, you would never fly a plane into a building over the war on drugs
i mean seriously what foreign policy snafu was the US involved in when september 11th happened? how are you going to spin that one? remember when you woke up one day and al qaeda, who rejects future isis members for being too radical, had killed 3000 people?
Are you serious? do you want me to list american military and CIA interventions in the middle east?
Are you so consumed by pacifism that you would cowardly insist using the most advanced military in the world to try and stop evil is categorically wrong? that there's no fight worth fighting?
what's your next thesis? israeli foreign policy causes antisemitism?
I think palestinians hate Israelis a lot
no shit, what's your excuse for, for example, the hundreds of years of antisemitism before 1945, which is part why we created a jewish state, or all the antisemitism from people who aren't palestinian. it's the jews' own fault?
oh wait it's US foreign policy that made people execute civilians in France, i think i get it, France, the fourth country to get the atomic bomb, the center of NATO, is not responsible for their own foreign policy, they have no say in the matter and just follow the US, so it's the US's fault that it's France's fault that Islamists go there and execute cartoonists, take hostages in coffee shops, and fire automatic rifles into restaurants
Of course not, when did I blame the US for this specific attack?
tell me how you're supposed to kill jihadis besides air and drone strikes because you same liberals would never accept military intervention in syria and iraq
You should focus on not creating more, for everyone you kill you create 10 more with drone strikes killing 90% civilians, it works like an Hydra... stop being idiots cutting heads off, more will grow.
the figure you are citing is not "civilians" but "not the intended targets," i may research this later but if you think critically for one second that would also include when you blow up a house with a target in it and even though there are 9 other people with the target it was a jihad meeting. since you didn't bring up this question in an honest way, although the degree and frequency of collateral damage is a legitimate question, i am not going to go into the fact that collateral damage is inevitable when the military is involved, just like ISIS throwing homosexuals from rooftops is inevitable when you just sit there
that's literally the only reason there aren't soldiers in syria already, obama can't fucking do it before the election. if you want to blame foreign policy then accept that it's the left that holds you back from taking a hard line
Obama has increased considerably the amounts of Drone strikes, way more than Bush, he has been a huge violent warmonger, pretty crazy that you want troops in Syria, what fucking stake do you have there?
what fucking stake do we have there? do you feel no sympathy for your fellow man? do you have any moral fortitude left? have you heard of ISIS? a group of people wants to destroy civilization and you think the best bet is to just ignore them?
this is a civil war that has displaced 4 million people
what the fuck do you suppose is the way to save that country? wait and see what happens, see if it works itself out? wait until it completely destroys itself? wait until the entire population of 17 million people leaves the country and divide them among other countries?
do you think global jihadism is stronger or weaker when there are literally groups carving out territory in its name?
you can't simultaneously say problems in the middle east are the US's fault yet act so arrogantly shocked when someone suggests that it's the US's responsibility to fix it when the lazy puppet states of the region take no initiative
jesus what are you talking about "what fucking stake do we have there," the people being raped, murdered, executed, in what way are there two sides to this? what stake does russia have? what stake would iran have?
the west pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into wahhabi oil, and yet the moment we assassinate bin laden, suddenly we're not allowed to meddle, it's imperialism, intervention never works, ??? if you want to know what doesn't work, it's shrugging your shoulders
people have some wicked idea that if doing nothing has cons, doing x has cons, and doing y has cons, that they're all equal so doing nothing wins. it's like saying if you fold your EV is $-2, if you raise the pot your EV is $-1, and if you call your EV is $-3. well you lose money either way so just fold? it's bullshit
remember the dead kid on the beach? ask yourself in your heart of hearts what war-torn country that kid came from and tell me it's a bad idea to fight to create peace there
nothing's their fault is it, it's everyone else's responsibility except the person that brainwashes some sexually repressed teenager to suicide bomb a bus
Of course its their fault, their religion is barbaric, backwars and from the middle ages, I said that alrady, the US is also barbaric and violent and is only making things worse.
do you think muslim extremists are spending most of their time and energy fighting "the west" or fighting other muslims?
I think they are at war with pretty much anything... very alike the US, just more primitive[/QUOTE]
yes that's it the US is just as bad, everyone's equal, the japanese empire went around raping and killing everything but the US was just as bad for stopping them and only made things worse, now they produce infinite anime and cheap cars, the US never does anything right
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
LemOn[5thF] Czech Republic. Nov 14 2015 21:51. Posts 15163
Still, surprised you guys see it so black and white at a poker site, yes Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist attacks on average, but it still boils down to each individual person, the religion just increases the probability of extremism within the population.
93% Sure!
Last edit: 14/11/2015 22:00
1
Minsk United States. Nov 14 2015 21:51. Posts 1558
Just standard human shit, I don't know.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 14 2015 21:56. Posts 2226
On November 14 2015 20:51 LemOn[5thF] wrote:
we can rebuild her, we have the technology
On November 14 2015 12:05 spugru wrote:
No way the drone kills are 90% civilians.
indeed, it was something about 90% of casualties weren't the intended target. not necessarily "civilians." it'd normally be an interesting topic because whistleblowing is really important to keep people honest, but it was brought up disingenuously to be used as an excuse never to fight extremism, rather than as a review of the actual methods used
...however, even if that were true as originally stated, the casualties of the attacks on friday were 100% civilians, so by baal logic it's fine
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Don't waste your time arguing with 'liberals' (cultural marxists). Pro lgbt and pro islamification of Europe = liberal logic.
Rear naked woke
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 14 2015 23:23. Posts 4943
Is there any other group of people who would resort to terrorism when they feel slighted? For instance, lets say in the USA rampant police militarization results in numerous civilian casualties for target apprehension. The cops start using drones with hellfire missiles to take out speeding cars, and in the chaos they kill a few civilians each time. Do you see a bunch of Christians, Mormons, or anybody else shooting up a movie theater or school to exact their revenge? I dont think so. Regardless of what atrocities were committed by whatever popular religions existed in the past, those are over and done with. There is only one group of people performing this horse shit today.
bye now
1
chris United States. Nov 15 2015 01:08. Posts 5503
I didn't mean Muslim vs Christian - I just meant the lengths different groups went through to fight each other. Ruthless
5 minute showers are my 8 minute abs. - Neilly
1
chris United States. Nov 15 2015 01:11. Posts 5503
Also every time there is a discussion it goes like:
Radical Islamic Group Bombs _____, _______ killed (Headline)
"Oh wow all muslims are bad!"
"No they aren't, they are a religion of peace"
"No they aren't!"
"Christians are worse!"
Yes, christians commit atrocities, too. They are not the ones taking down planes and seeking out muslims to execute them just for being muslim. Other times, maybe. We cannot live in the past.
Religion is just a tool being used as a means to divide at this point. The matter at hand is there are a group of people using religion as a tool to manipulate a populace into doing horrible deeds.
On November 14 2015 13:03 chris wrote:
People were being beheaded, raped, and enslaved, with crops salted, long before the US existed.
For a fun read , look up Saladin and the wars fought in the Muslim world as they built their own empires. This is also where assassins come from.
Are you for real ? :D
Did you really give Saladin as an example ?
Holy fucking shit
Give the guy that OPPOSED the Crusades as an example- you know the same crusades that killed babies and raped women. CHRISTIAN crusades.
And now idiots all around the world want border closure in Europe, so refugees can suffer. Those same refugees that are fleeing from the terror that happened in Paris, except where they live thats something that happens on a daily basis. Hypocrite society. You deserve to be the sheep that you are
Mad Arab?
Border closure is completely logical. Islam is backwards and dangerous. Europeans want it out of their society (and it's not even that drastic they just don't want a flood of Muslims coming in. Who knows if all of these refugees are even what they say they are. Could be plenty of extremists creeping in under the guise of being displaced). Let Islamic peoples live in Islam controlled territorries and leave them be as they leave everyone else to themselves. If you want to live in the past fine but we decent people have no obligation to allow you to drag down modern society
this is always a good point. one time there was a spanish inquisition and now the pope rides around in a fucking golf cart, therefore christianity is just as destructive now as islam. i don't understand the argument entirely but i get the (apolo)gist of it.
You mentioned millenia of muslims crimes, I simply stated that Christianity has been historically even worse, but as I said for 3rd time, yes today Islam is more barbaric than Christianity.
it's my mistake that i used the wrong analogy. what i was trying to convey is that you don't care about a country halfway around the world. but even in the case of the country directly to the north of your homeland, you would never fly a plane into a building over the war on drugs
Yet you have dozens of military bases in many countries halfway around the world
Are you so consumed by pacifism that you would cowardly insist using the most advanced military in the world to try and stop evil is categorically wrong? that there's no fight worth fighting?
You are not the world police, countries have sovereignty and your objective is not fight "evil" that is ridiculous, the US wages war based on self interest, only a naive fool believes you are the white knights of the world.
no shit, what's your excuse for, for example, the hundreds of years of antisemitism before 1945, which is part why we created a jewish state, or all the antisemitism from people who aren't palestinian. it's the jews' own fault?
You asked if Israels foreign policy causes antisemitism, I said it does... and it fucking does.
the figure you are citing is not "civilians" but "not the intended targets,"
Oh my mistake.... let me correct that, 90% of the deaths caused by drones are not intended targets
what fucking stake do we have there? do you feel no sympathy for your fellow man? do you have any moral fortitude left? have you heard of ISIS? a group of people wants to destroy civilization and you think the best bet is to just ignore them?
this is a civil war that has displaced 4 million people
what the fuck do you suppose is the way to save that country? wait and see what happens, see if it works itself out? wait until it completely destroys itself? wait until the entire population of 17 million people leaves the country and divide them among other countries?
do you think global jihadism is stronger or weaker when there are literally groups carving out territory in its name?
you can't simultaneously say problems in the middle east are the US's fault yet act so arrogantly shocked when someone suggests that it's the US's responsibility to fix it when the lazy puppet states of the region take no initiative
jesus what are you talking about "what fucking stake do we have there," the people being raped, murdered, executed, in what way are there two sides to this? what stake does russia have? what stake would iran have?
the west pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into wahhabi oil, and yet the moment we assassinate bin laden, suddenly we're not allowed to meddle, it's imperialism, intervention never works, ??? if you want to know what doesn't work, it's shrugging your shoulders
people have some wicked idea that if doing nothing has cons, doing x has cons, and doing y has cons, that they're all equal so doing nothing wins. it's like saying if you fold your EV is $-2, if you raise the pot your EV is $-1, and if you call your EV is $-3. well you lose money either way so just fold? it's bullshit
Except that you support ISIS in other fronts when it suits the agenda, it seems to me you are deluded into thinking you are truly going in there to save the poor, feed the hungry and bring justice to the world, news flash for you, you are not, you are only destabilizing the region, this is the result of your meddling.
Dismantelate your military bases, retreat your troops and let them sort themselves out, work on your own country and your own people you are 7 trillion in fucking debt for fucks sake... get your shit together.
yes that's it the US is just as bad, everyone's equal, the japanese empire went around raping and killing everything but the US was just as bad for stopping them and only made things worse, now they produce infinite anime and cheap cars, the US never does anything right
I was pointing out the Irony, that the middle east and the US have much more in common than what you would like to admit, you both are obsessed with violence and war, you are both race and religious motivated but obviously the US is a much more advanced society.
-------------------------------------------
You are so blind that you associate me with "the left" or democrats that think this is all US blame and Islam is a religion of peace, let me make this clear to you, Im an anarchist, and I believe Islam is the worst religion to date and Id like it to dissapear, but Id also like Christianity and the rest gone too, and both the middle east and the US (in terms of foreign policy) cause great harm to the world.
I think one of the big problems about this is that it has polarized views so much that both sides are absolutely ridiculous.
On one hand you have the Santafairy dogmeats racists etc, that want Arabs wiped from this earth, and on the other hand you have the apologist, that will say "religion have nothing to do with terrorism" and that want to open borders no questions asked and anything said againts Islam is labed Islamophobic.
It is very rare to see an objective and rational position in the middle, that realizes this is caused by military presence in the past in their region but also acknowledges the dangers of Islam and mass migration
^^ The only thing that prevents a middle ground when it comes to these kinds of migrants is Islam. I am very much for immigration, I belong to a shitfuck 3rd world country and like mexicans, thais, filipinos, vietnamese, chinese etc, we assimilate quite well into different societies and mostly respect the host countries way of life, we are also self-policing and are very tolerant of a bit of racism, we know our place in society when we try to reap the benefits of the country we're in. We do not impose our beliefs even if we do keep to ourselves. It's not even an education issue, a lot of different asians and mexicans who come to migrate to other countries don't even speak the language of finished school. People seem to overlook that.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 15 2015 06:03. Posts 2226
it's kind of an important distinction that I thought you would have figured out by now, if you launch a predator drone to fire a missile at osama bin laden and also hit anwar al alwaki, it doesn't mean your drone strike killed 50% innocent people
your huffington post article is talking about "scores" of civilian casualties in multiple countries. yes, killing innocent people by accident is bad. it should absolutely be minimized to the extent possible. do you think i'm sitting here arguing FOR the murder of innocent people? this is exactly what i'm trying to fight. for some reason you don't mind accepting it's inevitable that terrorism will happen and that people will end up massacring innocent people intentionally when it's their single goal, but if it happens by accident in a foreign warzone, a place where the opposition kills innocent people for sport and for political ends, then you jump to oh god white devils
i mean come off it "scores" of civilians casualties in multiple countries are responsible for radicalizing people? if it were possible to make a billion people hate gays with a couple of drones don't you think republicans would apply that policy domestically?
yes, the US wages war in its own interests, and the US has made mistakes in the past. big fucking deal. I've played JJ like a fucking retard, I'm sure you can believe, it doesn't mean I fold it every time I get it now. The fact that someone made a mistake in the past IS NOT a reason to do NOTHING in some future situation. Doing nothing can be, and in the case of Syria clearly is, THE MOST EGREGIOUS mistake you can make. You're suggesting that bystanding is somehow the best thing to do. I might be the American, but even if you know nothing about geopolitics, take a five second look at a map and then take a guess at how bad the problem in Syria is if it's spilling into Northern Europe. You have no trouble opening your arms - as though Mexico is one of the ones taking in refugees - once people leave Syria, but when the suggestion is put to you that perhaps a laudable goal would be to fix Syria itself. it's crickets.
you sound like that tweet, do you think ISIS is just protecting their interests? jihadi john was a community organizer?
yes, the US has military bases around the world. this is the same USA that's responsible for south korea still existing. look at pax romana and pax britannica and tell me that having a strong, wide-reaching military is antithetical to peace. if not the US then who? I can't abide you pointing to a country where the US military isn't operating and saying "the US military must have destabilized this"
you want to talk about mistakes made by the US?
1) not removing Saddam in 1991. but that's okay with you because you want the US to just make a mistake, fuck something up, and then leave and watch it burn. you would rather we leave Saddam in power, leave with our tail between our legs, keep buying Saudi oil anyways without guarding our interests, and sit back and barbecue and drink bud light while Saddam genocided the Kurds. How enlightened.
2) not stopping the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. it took until 25% of the population was dead before Vietnam occupied the country. do you think any of those 2 million victims of genocide would have been whining "eww jingoism world police" if they had heard Huey helicopters flying over the mountains to rape the Khmer regime to death? apparently the US can never be the world police. just sit back and. do you know how big the Syrian diaspora is? it's about 4 million people. the population of Syria is only 17 million. does that proportion look familiar now? we're talking about a country that's close to total collapse.
I understand your point perfectly, believe it or not. What you're saying is basely immoral. I don't care if you're an anarchist, a monarchist, or a bicyclist, on this issue you are clearly aligned with the left, and with respect to this issue, the left have collectively turned off their brains, as have you that you would dare say something as transparently asinine as that I want to kill all Arabs.
You're looking at one of the biggest fires in the world today and saying no, firefighting causes just as many problems as arson. Not all sides are equal.
Look at this shit you're appealing to. The US national debt is high, therefore we shouldn't use the military that we spend half a trillion dollars a year on to fix the biggest problem in the Middle East, a civil war that's killing and displacing Arabs (Muslims) and their homes and exporting problems to all the other countries. What kind of logic is that supposed to be? Just wait until Russia or Iran takes over? 4 million refugees and you think the fucking region is going to do something about it themselves.
There is no "just sit back," you pitiful ideologue. There is no blank slate. Whether you do some drone strike or not, or whether you send in the army or not, it doesn't affect whether we're involved. We have always been involved. You can't just walk out and say I wash my hands of this. It's like raising a kid alone and when he's 1 year into puberty going "fuck this" and becoming a nomad in Mongolia. You didn't do nothing. You walked out. Let's be clear about that, Baal. What you're actually suggesting, which is disgusting but I would have at least respected you if you had been honest about it, is that you want the "west" to leave and let them destroy and kill themselves indefinitely in the hope that when the dust clears, things might be better than before.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1 - You continue to believe that your military incursions have anything to do with justice, and again I repeat to you that they are not, they are driven by political and corporate interests and the goal is profit, setting up regimes that are friendly towards us interests is the objective and the reason the CIA has been orchestrating coups since the 70s causing war, strife and resentment to the west in the area.
2 - Im not saying "dont send firefighters", Im saying that you arent firefighters, all you carry are buckets of fire... and by the way, YOU are on fire, how about putting you out first?
3 - Im not saying let them destroy themselves, I am saying this is not your war and you cannot help by massacring the side that is less favorable to you that coincidentally you deem "evil"
When you see things as simple as seeing your enemy as evil and consider yourself to be the saviour you must know you are wrong, I dont remember who im paraphrasing here... and this is where you explain to me how ISIS beheads gays etc and the point goes over your head one more time.
On November 14 2015 13:03 chris wrote:
People were being beheaded, raped, and enslaved, with crops salted, long before the US existed.
For a fun read , look up Saladin and the wars fought in the Muslim world as they built their own empires. This is also where assassins come from.
Are you for real ? :D
Did you really give Saladin as an example ?
Holy fucking shit
Give the guy that OPPOSED the Crusades as an example- you know the same crusades that killed babies and raped women. CHRISTIAN crusades.
And now idiots all around the world want border closure in Europe, so refugees can suffer. Those same refugees that are fleeing from the terror that happened in Paris, except where they live thats something that happens on a daily basis. Hypocrite society. You deserve to be the sheep that you are
Mad Arab?
Border closure is completely logical. Islam is backwards and dangerous. Europeans want it out of their society (and it's not even that drastic they just don't want a flood of Muslims coming in. Who knows if all of these refugees are even what they say they are. Could be plenty of extremists creeping in under the guise of being displaced). Let Islamic peoples live in Islam controlled territorries and leave them be as they leave everyone else to themselves. If you want to live in the past fine but we decent people have no obligation to allow you to drag down modern society
You do have obligations considering its your government that has been leading such politics for decades, its the fruit of their actions. Every single person that has brain and awareness has obligations. Of course you can be a shallow american who's first response to a humanitarian is " Mad Arab ? ". I feel jealous that im not so mind restricted as u are
Of course you can argue about whos fault it is and go for days or you can watch a video of any international relations expert and shut up
@Santafairy I have no idea how Baal has not called you an idiot yet. Its totally in his style, but since he hasn't. You sir are a brainwashed idiot living in fairy tales
There seems to be a lot of different statistics about civilian deaths from drone strikes. Pakistani government says it's 3%, some US study says it's 34%, some hactivist group says its over 9000. Maybe they define who's civilian differently. IMO if you are associating with known terrorist who's on kill list you don't count as civilian but possible threat to the great nation that is USA and you're fair game.
play your position small soldier
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 15 2015 18:45. Posts 3093
nice posts baal.
Islam has issues that other current religions don't have. But please, for the love of SCIENCE, don't use the medieval age as an example of how Christianity is superior, and don't use Saladin as an example of a cruel oppressive dictator. From 800-1250ish (until mongols sacked baghdad) Islam was genuinely more evolved than Christianity was, and the middle east was genuinely better off than Europe. As for Saladin, you'll have a hard time finding a single European ruler from the same period of time (800-1250) looked upon as favorably by history and historians. In Spain (you know, the one muslim area in Europe during the medieval time), religious liberty was far more respected during the rule of the Moors than after they were kicked out. (Which, in the context of Christianity-Islam isn't that weird, but for example Jews were also treated much more favorably by the Muslim than Christian rulers. )
And I don't even fucking understand how Vlad the impaler got invoked, I mean yeah he was involved in some crusades and opposition to the Ottomans, but how is that relevant?
I'm not gonna engage in the 'whats up now' discussion, but I think it's greatly offensive when anti-religious minds use ignorance as fuel for their beliefs. Not to mention that it's also not necessary. You don't have to pretend that Islam was worse than Christianity 1000 years ago to make the claim that Islam is currently worse than Christianity. Christianity became not-that-dangerous through hundreds of years of secularization and modernization, Islam in arabic countries has undergone no such transformation, and islam in western countries is in an early stage of it.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 15 2015 18:50. Posts 3093
On November 15 2015 10:59 spugru wrote:
There seems to be a lot of different statistics about civilian deaths from drone strikes. Pakistani government says it's 3%, some US study says it's 34%, some hactivist group says its over 9000. Maybe they define who's civilian differently. IMO if you are associating with known terrorist who's on kill list you don't count as civilian but possible threat to the great nation that is USA and you're fair game.
How do you think society Pakistani and Afghani society operate? You think terrorists just walk around telegraphing to the world that they are terrorists? You think in random pakistani village, every citizen knows who happen to be on american to-kill-lists so they can avoid contact with them? I mean if I were a terrorist, I would be hiding that fact as well as I possibly could from every other non-terrorist - I'd certainly try to blend in with others.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 15 2015 19:33. Posts 3093
On November 14 2015 22:23 NewbSaibot wrote:
Is there any other group of people who would resort to terrorism when they feel slighted? For instance, lets say in the USA rampant police militarization results in numerous civilian casualties for target apprehension. The cops start using drones with hellfire missiles to take out speeding cars, and in the chaos they kill a few civilians each time. Do you see a bunch of Christians, Mormons, or anybody else shooting up a movie theater or school to exact their revenge? I dont think so. Regardless of what atrocities were committed by whatever popular religions existed in the past, those are over and done with. There is only one group of people performing this horse shit today.
Meh. the IRA didn't happen that long ago. Basque separatists also. Go 40 years back and you have RAF in germany. Here in Norway we just 4 years ago had a guy whose depravity rivals the worst of them - he was motivated by hatred for islamic immigrants. In the US you also have your timothy mcveigh just 20 years ago - he was motivated in part by the Waco siege, which clearly makes him a christian extremist in my eyes.
Now there are some differences; firstly IRA/Basque conducted their terrorism domestically and for domestic gains, so they couldn't ever kill as many or as indescriminately as the Islamic terrorists do. Secondly, there are (especially numerically) way more potential muslim terrorists out there. Any rational individual can understand that someone is much more likely to become a terrorists if they live a shitty, hopeless life than if they have nice prospects for the future (people who engage in terrorist acts, not the ones who are at top planning, are pretty much always like, disenfranchised and thus impressionable male in the age 15-25, exact same group of the population most likely to join a nazi or whatever protest group if they live in the US or Europe), and there are way more muslims than westerners who fit this criteria. Then there's the third point, which is basically how Islam differs from other religions in terms of terrorism, in that they are much more positive towards martyrdom and individually genuinely believe in an eternal afterlife influenced by their earthly actions. This is one area which, from a terrorist point of view, does make Islam more dangerous than other religions, because a terrorist attack is far more likely to be very deadly and very terrifying if the people involved have no regard for their personal safety.
But if you solve the whole, shitty, hopeless lives part, that would make a far greater dent into islamic terrorist numbers than a modernization of their religious thought would. Obviously the latter is hugely important - but more so for the sake of improving their own lives than for making them stop terrorist activities. The amount of muslims involved in international terrorism is such an incredibly small fraction anyway.
On November 15 2015 10:59 spugru wrote:
There seems to be a lot of different statistics about civilian deaths from drone strikes. Pakistani government says it's 3%, some US study says it's 34%, some hactivist group says its over 9000. Maybe they define who's civilian differently. IMO if you are associating with known terrorist who's on kill list you don't count as civilian but possible threat to the great nation that is USA and you're fair game.
How do you think society Pakistani and Afghani society operate? You think terrorists just walk around telegraphing to the world that they are terrorists? You think in random pakistani village, every citizen knows who happen to be on american to-kill-lists so they can avoid contact with them? I mean if I were a terrorist, I would be hiding that fact as well as I possibly could from every other non-terrorist - I'd certainly try to blend in with others.
I meant terrorist leaders and other high ranking people in such organizations.
Some threw a firecracker during memorial for victims, look at the panic:
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 15 2015 20:19. Posts 3093
what about family members of known terrorists? I mean these people are often patriarchal figures with large families. those families have members who may or may not be involved in the terrorist agenda. These family members have friends who will be very upset to learn about their demise. Like, I get that if there's a secret meeting in hidden shack between the two mountains with four known terrorists from different factions trying to coordinate a massive action then it's like, yeah, you're there on your own responsibility, but it just seems to me like that's not the typical scenario.
Baal's hydra allegory is dead on. As long as there are like, any genuinely civilian casualities at all, then for each terrorist you kill, another (or more) will plop up in his place. Each civilian death grants legitimacy to the fight that the terrorists are fighting, each grants more legitimacy to their claim that no option is too extreme, each death grants more legitimacy to the opinion that our (democratic) populations deserve to be hit strong and hard right back for electing leaders that continue to bomb them. Of course it's fucking difficult as hell, because many current terrorists are in the 'can't be rehabilitated' camp. But the current situation, that's just leading up to perpetual war imo, and I'd rather take the moral high ground.
On November 15 2015 19:14 Defrag wrote:
Some threw a firecracker during memorial for victims, look at the panic:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lzvtfHle7oU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And meanwhile even in Norway we are taking in 1000's of same kind of people that put the norwegian embassy on fire for some drawings + welfare immigrants from 35-40 other countries.
I dont know why our politicians feel like they can take this risk on behalf of the european people.
:D
Last edit: 16/11/2015 13:03
1
austrian oak Belgium. Nov 16 2015 13:32. Posts 520
By hatred consumed heavily armed loonies vs 9 to five deskjob monkeys that only want a nice car under their ass.
Glgl
Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!
people should, much like baal, try to think for themselves about these issues. ask yourself, what is the motivation behind terrorism? if your parents/siblings/children got killed in a drone attack or whatever, how would you feel and what would you do? would you sit around and mope or would you join the people (for example, isis) who are taking action and telling you that they strive for vengeance against the people they say killed your family? of course their response is idiotic because now they only killed even more civilians and the western world will probably bomb the shit out of isis. everybody should just take a moment to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes you will see that you get a better understanding of the whole situation. it's easy to say that "those guys are evil". but that accomplishes nothing and that in fact just worsens the situation.
it is clear in this thread that a lot of people are oblivious to their own government's foreign policy, specifically towards the middle east. and now the governments as I said will bomb the shit out of isis, many civilians will probably die, and though the organisation of isis can and will probably be removed, the problem will still persist. there will still be inequality and people (of the middle-east) will still get buttfucked and terrorists will keep coming. inequality is what terrorism feeds on. you have to fight inequality, not the terrorists.
i would also like to say that i think it is fucked up how much attention these kinds of attacks get when they are on western soil. in kenya back in april 2015, 150ish students were, much like in Paris, brutally murdered (by al-shabaab). did channels broadcast 24/7 about that situation? did people change their profile pictures? did anyone give a fuck? it makes me bitter that some human lives are worth so much more than others. i'm not trying to compare tragedies and say that one was worse or the other, they were both totally fucked up. but how about we actually give a fuck about the hundreds that are dying in poorer regions of the world every fucking day?
Do not push the river, it will flow by itself. - Polish proverb
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 16 2015 14:51. Posts 6374
lol @ baal using cheap acts of defamation, labeling ppl as racists, no point in discussion with such a person really. how is islam a race? you cannot convert to a race. by your logic anti-communism is racism as well? god
it has been stated 100 times before, theres no base for violent actions in new testament, thou its irrelevant as i dont see any radical christians shooting ppl in the streets. jihad is part of islam, as it have been seen for 1400 years. how about the battle of vienna in 17th century? just b/c their fucked up culture couldnt keep up with westerns technological advantage doesnt mean you can blame recent events on us foreign policy. now they have ez and cheap strategy how to spread fear thanks to westerns concern with "humanity"
not all belief systems are equal, we need public discussion about moral validity of islam. also note islam in itself cant be reformed, quarans gods words mediated by gabriel to muhamad ie unquestinable truth, whereas bible are just stories written by ppl.
i dont want to twist this topic to hitler again, but look what radical minority did to germany back then. thou in reality based on public pools majority of muslim thinks sharia should be above secular law. evn if not, the penalty for apostacy is death, do you think anyone will stand up?
and also lol @ liquiddrones moronism, taking higher moral ground, ie letting innocent ppl be gunned down just not to hurt anyones feelings
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 16 2015 14:54. Posts 6374
i mean its sad when you were born into islam and have to go with it for your whole life, but anyone who beliefs in it in the west is a human scum and pos
ban baal
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 16 2015 15:12. Posts 3093
If what you took from my three posts was that I think we should let innocent people be gunned down not to hurt anyone's feelings, then that basically makes you illiterate. And there's no point in attempting to discuss something with someone who does not actually understand words.
lol POKER
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 16 2015 15:49. Posts 6374
I didnt even read ur posts as i know you as multicultural pc coward from ur previous posts
ban baal
4
TianYuan Korea (South). Nov 16 2015 15:53. Posts 6817
Wow this thread, no punches pulled in here huh?
Hm.. Off-suite socks..
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 16 2015 16:14. Posts 6374
I take it back thou, it was unnecessary and i apologize. Its hard not to get emotional
the 'they are bombing and killing innocent people in Syria, so we are justified' defense is not applicable to the Islamic State. they don't give a s**t about Syrian civilians - they themselves kill everyone who opposes or resists them. the mass immigration we've been witnessing these past months is a testament to this. the motivation behind IS is to create a islamic caliphate. it is a religious motivation. they think it's justifiable to kill non-believers because that's what they want to interpret out of their holy book. if you want to say that these attacks were some kind of a payback, it would be a payback which says 'this is what you get for meddling in our affairs'. they want to conquer land and the west is making it difficult for them. hell, they've never been weaker - they've lost 25% of the territories they once ruled.
also, yes its fucked up but: France is a much more important country to the world than Kenya (Lebanon as well for that matter). it's just a fact, which the media coverage just corroborates. the world cares more about Parisian people than Kenyan people. if you dont want the world to be this way, be the change you want to see in the world.
And what does self awareness have to do with anything you retard? srsly stfu. - baal
On November 15 2015 03:55 Baalim wrote:
You mentioned millenia of muslims crimes, I simply stated that Christianity has been historically even worse, but as I said for 3rd time, yes today Islam is more barbaric than Christianity.
Sorry I don't want to intrude in the discussion because I think it's useless but it bugs me when people say stuff like this. Please study history before making false claims. There has never been a religion promoting violence and inequality as much as Islam and worse than Islam towards people of different beliefs. And I am not even taking into consideration terrorism because in fact terrorism kills very few people. People have no reason to be so scared of terrorism when they are millions of times more likely to die from car accident, heart attack or cancer. What's scary about Islam is that it started as a cult of warfare and subjugation and it remained pretty much the same through centuries because to them their holy book represents the word of god, while 99% of christians basically laugh their ass off when they read old testament. So it does not apply to christianity and anyway they killed way less people and destroyed way less cultures than Islam. Just please inform yourself ok?
Oh I dont know whats worse, the terrorist attack or all the political correct people stating that "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM YOU INTOLERENT, RACIST, ANTI-MULTICULTURAL xxx"
Just because they are quoting the quran doesnt mean it has anything to do with it ! They could be quoting any book ! Should we bann all books now ? lol
Today 1500 "refugees" just disappeared from UD's controI here in Norway. I want to send my thanks again to the stupid politicians in Norway that are taking this major risk on behalf of our citizens. Nobody knows how many of these people are supporters of ISIS for example, 1% ? 10% ? 25% ? 50% ? no one can prove which number it is, but it is still a really good idea to take in as many as possible. Especially men, young men that come here and is upset for only getting 3 warm meals per day. Or upset that nobody from the state comes to clean after them, or upset because the internet is slow. Yeah "refugees" my ass !
:D
1
sniderstyle United States. Nov 16 2015 20:26. Posts 2046
We like to oust leaders that don't have our interests in mind for an existential threat: Right now its Bashaar Al Assad
How we respond to an attack like this is important:
France responded by bombing Syria 20 times with U.S. Intelligence.
For those that have read AntiFragility and the Black Swan by Taleb can see why ISIS is so successful:
They thrive on Chaos. . The create Chaos, they already know what the response will be, adn they are miles ahead of us on a chess board.
They are small, decentralized, they move all over the Levant. They don't believe in borders. If we attack them in Raqqa, then they move to LIbya. We can't send air attacks all over the middle East. If we bomb LIbya, (btw we ousted Gadaffi who was a nationalist, now Libya is a free for all) ((we outed Saddam who was a Nationalist)) Now Iraq is a free for all ((Now we want to oust Assad who is a nationalist, can we guess what that will turn into?))) they move to Iraq...They are a hydra.... And the more we bomb, the more innocents we kill, the more they are able to recruit.
The solution is to recheck our Foreign Policy, Recheck our allegiance to Israel, and check who we sell our weapons of war to..
This terrorist attack in France was an at attack against the Western way ofe life: They chose the targets carefully (Rock Concert, Soccer Game, Restaraunts) and they are trying to make foreign Muslims choose between the apostate life in the West or their way.
Everyone should ready Confessions of an Economic HItman to get a better idea of our Foreign POlicy.
On November 16 2015 13:51 dogmeat wrote:
lol @ baal using cheap acts of defamation, labeling ppl as racists, no point in discussion with such a person really. how is islam a race? you cannot convert to a race. by your logic anti-communism is racism as well? god
I am not calling youa racist, I dont know if you are or not, I was saying that opinions are usuallly too polarized (and both wrong) about this issue, the warmongers, racists etc vs liberals that wont acknowledge the threat of Islam etc.
it has been stated 100 times before, theres no base for violent actions in new testament, thou its irrelevant as i dont see any radical christians shooting ppl in the streets. jihad is part of islam, as it have been seen for 1400 years. how about the battle of vienna in 17th century? just b/c their fucked up culture couldnt keep up with westerns technological advantage doesnt mean you can blame recent events on us foreign policy. now they have ez and cheap strategy how to spread fear thanks to westerns concern with "humanity"
You dont want to turn this into a religious debate with me, I guarantee you you will lose, I am far more knowledable than you on the subject and Ive discussed it hundreds of times, so spare yourself the trouble of making a fool out of yourself here.
There is no violent acitons in the new testament? how about Luke 19:27 where jesus said: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me
Also you dont get to ignore the old testament, those are the words of Yahwe, Jesus is an avatar of him and the same person, remember Christianity is monotheist and god is perfect and doesnt make mistakes, so you dont get to say "oh its the old testament... that doesnt count"
But its not like anybody is saying current Christianity is worse than Islam, pull your head out of your ass, making arguments about 1000 years ago is ridiculous, especially when historically Christianity has been much more detrimental to the world than Islam, but again, it doesnt matter anybody in this fucking thread is aware current Islam its more violent than Christianity.
and also lol @ liquiddrones moronism, taking higher moral ground, ie letting innocent ppl be gunned down just not to hurt anyones feelings
You are also a fool who thinks the US army saves countries from massacre for selfless reasons instead of actually massacring people for selfish ones
On November 16 2015 13:54 dogmeat wrote:
i mean its sad when you were born into islam and have to go with it for your whole life, but anyone who beliefs in it in the west is a human scum and pos
Ok after this Im done replying to this dumbass, he clearly isnt prepared to engage in an intelligent discussion
On November 15 2015 03:55 Baalim wrote:
You mentioned millenia of muslims crimes, I simply stated that Christianity has been historically even worse, but as I said for 3rd time, yes today Islam is more barbaric than Christianity.
Sorry I don't want to intrude in the discussion because I think it's useless but it bugs me when people say stuff like this. Please study history before making false claims. There has never been a religion promoting violence and inequality as much as Islam and worse than Islam towards people of different beliefs. And I am not even taking into consideration terrorism because in fact terrorism kills very few people. People have no reason to be so scared of terrorism when they are millions of times more likely to die from car accident, heart attack or cancer. What's scary about Islam is that it started as a cult of warfare and subjugation and it remained pretty much the same through centuries because to them their holy book represents the word of god, while 99% of christians basically laugh their ass off when they read old testament. So it does not apply to christianity and anyway they killed way less people and destroyed way less cultures than Islam. Just please inform yourself ok?
Christianity has been laughing about the Old testament for the last 200 years.. but it has existed for over 2,000 where they took it very seriously, where they committed genocide in the name of god, tortured countless in the inquisitions, Crusaded across half the world turning everything to ashes in their path, obstructed cience for hundreds and hundreds of years, Christianity has been the most detrimental religion to mankind.
People clearly confuse actual christianity with ancient one
On November 16 2015 13:51 dogmeat wrote:
lol @ baal using cheap acts of defamation, labeling ppl as racists, no point in discussion with such a person really. how is islam a race? you cannot convert to a race. by your logic anti-communism is racism as well? god
I am not calling youa racist, I dont know if you are or not, I was saying that opinions are usuallly too polarized (and both wrong) about this issue, the warmongers, racists etc vs liberals that wont acknowledge the threat of Islam etc.
On November 15 2015 04:00 Baalim wrote:
On one hand you have the Santafairy dogmeats racists etc, that want Arabs wiped from this earth,
you used that word intentionaly to dehonest our opinions
On November 17 2015 04:20 Baalim wrote:
You dont want to turn this into a religious debate with me, I guarantee you you will lose, I am far more knowledable than you on the subject and Ive discussed it hundreds of times, so spare yourself the trouble of making a fool out of yourself here.
There is no violent acitons in the new testament? how about Luke 19:27 where jesus said: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me
i m not sure if this is ignorance or st8-up manipulation, given how knowlegable you are, id guess the latter. its not a quote from jesus, its jesus telling the story of a lord and the whole story is a parallel: the lord being god and "slaying enemies" represents gods punishment of all sinners on the judgement day. do you consider the concept of heaven and hell violent per se?
whenever in doubt, check the key characteristic of these 2 prohepts:
On November 17 2015 04:20 Baalim wrote:
Also you dont get to ignore the old testament, those are the words of Yahwe, Jesus is an avatar of him and the same person, remember Christianity is monotheist and god is perfect and doesnt make mistakes, so you dont get to say "oh its the old testament... that doesnt count"
new test. puts the old one in the context, same as in quaran later verses are above the earlier ones. and old test. isnt actual gods word except for specific quotes wheres quaran is, word from word
On November 17 2015 04:20 Baalim wrote:
You are also a fool who thinks the US army saves countries from massacre for selfless reasons instead of actually massacring people for selfish ones
another manipulation, i ve never said that, i consider western foreign policy terrible. that said, you know why democracy doesnt work in the middle east and after removing dictators every country turns into shit? islam. using violence or not, muslims always try to force their fucked up ideals upon others. look at turkey. removing dictators only exhibits th underlaying problem with islam
On November 16 2015 13:54 dogmeat wrote:
i mean its sad when you were born into islam and have to go with it for your whole life, but anyone who beliefs in it in the west is a human scum and pos
Ok after this Im done replying to this dumbass, he clearly isnt prepared to engage in an intelligent discussion
ppl are free to choose what they believe in and i have the right to judge them based on their choices. fwiw i think the very same of communists, fascists and other violent collectivists
On November 17 2015 11:50 dogmeat wrote:
you know why democracy doesnt work in the middle east and after removing dictators every country turns into shit? islam.
I chuckled. If only things were so simple
Last edit: 17/11/2015 12:58
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 17 2015 20:00. Posts 6374
Well i havent said it the only problem, but this death cult indoctrinating violence and superiority over others contributes heavily to unstaability of any region really
While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.
-Gandhi
Also i dont get why christianity gets brought up constantly, its irrelevant. Islam is a problem now and "derp christians back in the day" ismt an excuse (that doesnt mean i consider them equal)
ban baal
Last edit: 17/11/2015 20:04
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 18 2015 00:18. Posts 4943
On November 16 2015 19:26 sniderstyle wrote:They thrive on Chaos. . The create Chaos, they already know what the response will be, adn they are miles ahead of us on a chess board.
Miles ahead of us huh. So what exactly have they accomplished? They are mad because we invade their country. They piss us off so we invade more.. Check mate?
bye now
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 18 2015 00:24. Posts 4943
Glenn Beck was on the Howard Stern show yesterday, and I actually found something he said to be rather interesting. He basically described the USA as pursuing 2 agendas that often overlap and contradict each other. Principles and Interests. Baal has discussed our interests, and unfortunately seems to think thats all we're interested in. But then you have our principles, the idea of stopping genocide, pedophilia, and every other absurd Muslim belief held by significant portions of the population over there. While we dont always pursue our principles, i.e. there are plenty of opportunities we have had to "save the world" that we just ignored, you cant argue with the fact that some aspects of what is happening in the middle east need to stop. There a vile cesspool of an area that is nothing more than a cancer. It is not cultural, it is not just "my point of view", it is abhorrent and deserves to be removed.
bye now
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 18 2015 00:53. Posts 3093
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
Not gonna answer further to Baalim because he clearly is unaware of what Islam did to the world since its birth. There's no point in enumerating only what christianity did in the past when we are making a comparison - also LOL at anyone saying christianity was faulty of the horrendous crusades. The amount of people affected by crusades is nothing compared to the constant islamic wars. There's clearly a religion who brought more destruction to the world but since some of you disregard facts and logic to defend your stance it means you are too emotionally involved to identify reality and have a discussion of reason. You will change idea in the coming years anyway when things will get worse and you will be unable to ignore the truth, no point arguing right now.
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
I mean everytime US citizen didn't want to take part into a war USA strategy was just to intentionally kill their own civilians in 3 different circumstances and blame whoever they wanted to invade. It worked pretty well so props to them This also works because they instilled a deep sentment of nationalism into their people, and to be able to do that properly they had to make the vast majority of population dumber and more susceptible to manipulation. USA is pretty awesome they just do stuff right.
Last edit: 18/11/2015 02:12
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 18 2015 06:54. Posts 4943
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
For sure. Dont get me wrong, the USA is no saint, and we're like 1:10 for reputable principled pursuits. Regardless of what the interest is in the middle east these days, anything that disrupts their way of life is a good result. The only problem is the consequences, them coming over here for revenge. I cant honestly say I agree with the price of war in this regard. If I had to choose my girlfriend dying in a terrorist attack or knowing that 1,000,000 children will suffer at the hands of Islam left unobstructed, I'm probably choosing my g/f and just letting the scumbags sort themselves out in the desert longterm. That kind of society is not sustainable, it will eventually die/evolve.
On November 17 2015 23:24 NewbSaibot wrote:
Glenn Beck was on the Howard Stern show yesterday, and I actually found something he said to be rather interesting. He basically described the USA as pursuing 2 agendas that often overlap and contradict each other. Principles and Interests. Baal has discussed our interests, and unfortunately seems to think thats all we're interested in. But then you have our principles, the idea of stopping genocide, pedophilia, and every other absurd Muslim belief held by significant portions of the population over there. While we dont always pursue our principles, i.e. there are plenty of opportunities we have had to "save the world" that we just ignored, you cant argue with the fact that some aspects of what is happening in the middle east need to stop. There a vile cesspool of an area that is nothing more than a cancer. It is not cultural, it is not just "my point of view", it is abhorrent and deserves to be removed.
Most people pursue self interest over principles, if tomorrow you held a vote in the US to go to war, but if they voted YES you give them $10,000 in cash YES would win by a landslide.
Society likes to blame government and politicians when in reality they would behave exactly the same in their shoes, both are part of human nature.
It is gullible to believe the government, military industrial complex etc. will let go opportunities to make huge profits for principles.
Dogmeat I didnt directly called you a racist, I missed a comma but the "etc" its pretty clear, but there is a pretty good chance you are, or worse, your statement about any western Muslim being scum says it all.
Yes Islam is a belief and you can judge people based on a belief, I do that all the time, however your judgement is stupid.
Ok it seems you want to engage me in a religious debate, lets go ahead.
The old testament is the word of god told by the prophets, Yahwe is a genocidal, infanticidal petty monster in the bible, Jesus is an avatar of Yahwe, its a monotheist religion, they share will and identity, what Yawhe says and does its also work of Jesus and the holy ghost.
Also even if you thought of the trinity as some kind of multiple-personality disorder when the 3 of them actually disagree, Yahwe is god creator of everything, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and perfect in all ways, he cannot do wrong, therefore Jesus cannot disagree with his actions or word because as we established earlier Yawhe is perfect.
Do you really expect anyone who wasn't already in 100% agreement with you to change their minds after watching that video?
I don't care to discuss my opinions on this stuff here, but regardless of whether you agree with what he's saying or not, he doesn't add anything new to the discussion that everyone hasn't heard a million times before. I mean ffs they cut out the other guy's responses, lol. The way the video is edited, it's a guy preaching to people who already agree with him. No matter where you stand, that video is trash.
Truck-Crash Life
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 18 2015 12:14. Posts 4943
There are plenty of reasons to believe they are false flags - like the found "passport" from a suicide bomber much like they found passports of 9/11 " terrorists " and drills being ran much like NORAD ran drills during 9/11 etc. etc. Of course for you to even permit those evidences, you d have to believe 9/11 was an inside job, which it was as all facts are pointing and imo only idiots or people that are not aware of the facts would think otherwise
On the contrary not even allowing yourself to think that both things are possible is quite bad. Obviously I'm not stating that Paris was a CIA job, however the timing and the circumstances seem shady the least. The main problem with Paris being a setup is that there is no real motive - or at least I can't see one. It's not like the western countries needed another reason to do the things they are doing right now as a response to the attacks, but perhaps we d have to wait and see
Last edit: 18/11/2015 12:35
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 18 2015 12:53. Posts 4943
I just love it when evil gov't mastermind conspirators who control the world are so easily caught by random fucktards on the internet.
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 18 2015 15:50. Posts 6374
On November 18 2015 08:51 Baalim wrote:
Dogmeat I didnt directly called you a racist, I missed a comma but the "etc" its pretty clear, but there is a pretty good chance you are, or worse, your statement about any western Muslim being scum says it all.
Yes Islam is a belief and you can judge people based on a belief, I do that all the time, however your judgement is stupid.
one reads about muhamads actions and ideals and thinks these are worth following, what does it says about him as a person?
On November 18 2015 08:51 Baalim wrote:
Ok it seems you want to engage me in a religious debate, lets go ahead.
The old testament is the word of god told by the prophets, Yahwe is a genocidal, infanticidal petty monster in the bible, Jesus is an avatar of Yahwe, its a monotheist religion, they share will and identity, what Yawhe says and does its also work of Jesus and the holy ghost.
Also even if you thought of the trinity as some kind of multiple-personality disorder when the 3 of them actually disagree, Yahwe is god creator of everything, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and perfect in all ways, he cannot do wrong, therefore Jesus cannot disagree with his actions or word because as we established earlier Yawhe is perfect.
you just repeated your previous post, just skipping ur silly quote. do you know there are multiple versions of bible, with multiple verses or even chapters missing? while theres only one quaran, why? b/c quaran is exact gods words mediated by gabrial to muhamad, ei unreformable , whreas bible is just stories written by men
the reason why the old testament is inclued is b/c bible is progressive, christiany is build upon judaism and you cant read the new testament without knowing the old tes facts eg why are jews expecting a messiah, why did he come, why is he jesus, prophecy details, details from his life and relations to other older prophecies, how his sacrific replaces all the previous sacrificies, puts the whole sacrificies system into new context etc. for christians, jesus is the ideal man and the source of morality.
Romans 3:19-28New International Version (NIV)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[b] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 18 2015 15:54. Posts 6374
btw islam is like 20% religion, 80% governing system, dunno why christianity or other religions are being discussed here
Mellan 10-15 killar i gymnasieåldern trängde sig in i klassrum på Polhemsgymnasiet i Göteborg och ropade: "Flickor ska ha slöjor".
10-15 muslim "kids" (16-18 year old) walking around in different classrooms @ school in Gøteburg, yelling "Women shall have Hijab!"
One story like this every single day now when they are not busy with terrorist attacks. Its really scary. Honestly im getting really "Islamophobic" or what they say. And I used to be supportive of Palestine until Hamas implemented Sharia law on the Gaza strip.
:D
Last edit: 18/11/2015 19:31
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 18 2015 23:36. Posts 4943
Mellan 10-15 killar i gymnasieåldern trängde sig in i klassrum på Polhemsgymnasiet i Göteborg och ropade: "Flickor ska ha slöjor".
10-15 muslim "kids" (16-18 year old) walking around in different classrooms @ school in Gøteburg, yelling "Women shall have Hijab!"
One story like this every single day now when they are not busy with terrorist attacks. Its really scary. Honestly im getting really "Islamophobic" or what they say. And I used to be supportive of Palestine until Hamas implemented Sharia law on the Gaza strip.
This is where that whole "how different are they really?" comes in to play. For instance take a group like the westboro baptist church. While non-violent, they would probably kill you if they thought they could get away with it. They are a good example of an extremist religion. However they represent a really really really small percentage of the population. A lot of people say the same thing about Muslims, that these fanatical offshoots represent less than 1% of true Muslims, but does it really? There have been numerous studies shown that seem to depict a large portion of the Muslim population actually do agree with ISIS ideology, and that they are basically just too pussy to do anything about it. Thats where Islamophobia comes in. I dont think we're quite that confident that the fanatical side of Islam is really all that isolated. While your sweet Muslim neighbor might not behead you any time soon, they secretly want to.
I've always considered LP to have a much higher average intelligence for a 'public forum'. Despite Newb's handgun in his glove compartment to help protect him (hah, had to dude).
That said, it boggles my mind the closed-mindedness that some of the members have on this forum. Say what you will about dog, I've always liked reading his posts (and will continue to), but this is one instance where he's not thinking rationally.
Pretty certain we can all agree that religion is detrimental to society. I remember one (who I consider anyway) smart dude saying the exact opposite recently, but realistically, it's not the religion that's the problem. It's the people who manipulate it as they see fit to push their own agenda. People claiming that Christianity is 'better now' apparently forget that Africa exists.
A tiny number of people doing crazy shit doesn't justify hating an entire sect of people. To think that way is stupid and immature. If you hate the idea of allowing refugees and migrants in, sure, hate that, but don't blame it on a faith.
I'm pretty sure everyone has stereotypes, I know I certainly do. But c'mon people, wtf. You're not 'thinking outside the box' by jumping in on some senseless shit-slinging parade. If anything, you're dumbing yourself down for the the masses.
Then again, I'm just as much of a fool thinking that writing a post like this will actually make people think critically. F it, fingers needed some exercise anyway.
A small car bomb exploded near where I live outside a mall. Initial reports? Snackbars, Also the guy who got caught bombing my city's airport 12 years ago killing over 20 people recently got caught, another snackbar - not even ISIS, just another pos group. Did the moderates try catching those guys or cooperate without taking in bribes to rat on their brethren? No. Until you actually deal with the shit they've been done you will never understand, which is why I never really disliked Israel since I can only imagine how fucked up it is to live just beside those people who openly declare that they want your country annihilated if they could. The moderates are free to roam around in malls here looking like ninjas no problem, catholics though are required to remove hats sunglasses, helmets lol, they can practice their religion but once shit happens they really don't do shit or help in any way possible - mostly just lip service "condemning" etc etc. Imagine if some fundamental Catholics kept doing shit in the middle east cities, how long do you think they start hacking christians to death in their own homes?
Lastly, a kidnapping of 4 white guys last month in a yacht club still not resolved (another snackbar group), a separate kidnapping incident earlier this year happened also and the poor malaysian who was part of that group of hostages just got beheaded for not being able to pay ransom. Ignorance of this issue is more dangerous, more people should speak up and call it what it is without being called a bigot or a traitor(if you are a muslim). So sick of reading posts here from people with zero experience about the issue and say people like me are the ignorant ones lol
^ Very true that the vast majority of people that hold views similar to mine have most likely never experienced anything of this nature first hand. I guess I'm lucky enough to have the luxury to look at these things objectively and not be swayed by media propaganda and what have you.
Don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all btw, just wanted to clarify. I would totally have a hate-on for any 'group' of people that instilled fear in my community. I like to think that I'd be above that line of reasoning, but I probably wouldn't be.
That being said, I doubt any of the 'muslim-haters' here have any firsthand experience that they can relate to to justify their views.
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 19 2015 00:35. Posts 4943
On November 18 2015 22:54 devon06atX wrote:
I've always considered LP to have a much higher average intelligence for a 'public forum'. Despite Newb's handgun in his glove compartment to help protect him (hah, had to dude).
Cmon, someone followed me around in a high speed pursuit for 20 minutes, even through the parking lot of a walmart before I finally ran out of road and got trapped, then zoomed up right next to me with their window rolled down. People will kill you over road rage.
But as to the rest of your argument, I kinda see it like this; If you go hiking in the woods there is a chance that you may encounter wild animals, some of whom may attack you. Not all wolves will kill you, but there is a reasonable expectation that your life is in danger if you encounter one. There are more fanatical Muslims roaming about than any other group in the world. I dont think it is too terribly unrealistic to be concerned about them. The French police already found a second cell preparing for their next attack after the initial one, and this wasnt some stupid planning phase, one of them detonated themselves with a suicide vest in the siege. There are certainly more in the works, at this point you have no choice but to assume the worst about them. If it werent for the previous attack this second group would be blending in doing their thing. They were there this whole time amongst the rest of us, and were only caught as a result of heightened action by French law enforcement. Who is "them"? I dont know, it seems like a lot of intel already exists on these people but they fall into categories that dont warrant immediate inspection. That has to end now. Anyone even remotely suspicious is given a full SWAT type response.
But as to the rest of your argument, I kinda see it like this; If you go hiking in the woods there is a chance that you may encounter wild animals, some of whom may attack you. Not all wolves will kill you, but there is a reasonable expectation that your life is in danger if you encounter one. There are more fanatical Muslims roaming about than any other group in the world.
This is the one thing that always seems to get ignored or whatever. No shit cartels, westboro baptist, menonites, whatever are bad an oppressive too. Obviously the Crusades are bad and Catholics are a giant money machine pedo ring.
It's not a matter of any one being "worse" than the other, it's a matter of volume and radical Muslims outnumber every other radical group exponentially - it's not even close.
Just google search Abu Baraa, check out some of these Jihadi twitter accounts or youtube channels. Some of these guys put up videos talking about how to best enslave kuffars and murder polytheists and get 100k+ views with thousands of likes. It's not honest to call Islamic extremism a "fringe" issue, it's quite a popular ideology in comparison to it's extremism peers.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
But as to the rest of your argument, I kinda see it like this; If you go hiking in the woods there is a chance that you may encounter wild animals, some of whom may attack you. Not all wolves will kill you, but there is a reasonable expectation that your life is in danger if you encounter one. There are more fanatical Muslims roaming about than any other group in the world.
This is the one thing that always seems to get ignored or whatever. No shit cartels, westboro baptist, menonites, whatever are bad an oppressive too. Obviously the Crusades are bad and Catholics are a giant money machine pedo ring.
It's not a matter of any one being "worse" than the other, it's a matter of volume and radical Muslims outnumber every other radical group exponentially - it's not even close.
Just google search Abu Baraa, check out some of these Jihadi twitter accounts or youtube channels. Some of these guys put up videos talking about how to best enslave kuffars and murder polytheists and get 100k+ views with thousands of likes. It's not honest to call Islamic extremism a "fringe" issue, it's quite a popular ideology in comparison to it's extremism peers.
Muslims like these should be empowered more, sad thing is that these types are educated in the west lol. Which is why this will never be solved through intelligent discussion - the cool ones who can assimilate are already doing exactly that and are as helpless as everyone else. The rest are dying or being tortured in some jail, some are about to be killed for having dissident views.
Last edit: 19/11/2015 04:53
1
DooMeR United States. Nov 19 2015 04:52. Posts 8546
But as to the rest of your argument, I kinda see it like this; If you go hiking in the woods there is a chance that you may encounter wild animals, some of whom may attack you. Not all wolves will kill you, but there is a reasonable expectation that your life is in danger if you encounter one. There are more fanatical Muslims roaming about than any other group in the world.
This is the one thing that always seems to get ignored or whatever. No shit cartels, westboro baptist, menonites, whatever are bad an oppressive too. Obviously the Crusades are bad and Catholics are a giant money machine pedo ring.
It's not a matter of any one being "worse" than the other, it's a matter of volume and radical Muslims outnumber every other radical group exponentially - it's not even close.
Just google search Abu Baraa, check out some of these Jihadi twitter accounts or youtube channels. Some of these guys put up videos talking about how to best enslave kuffars and murder polytheists and get 100k+ views with thousands of likes. It's not honest to call Islamic extremism a "fringe" issue, it's quite a popular ideology in comparison to it's extremism peers.
Zero chance you are good at poker.
LOL!!!! LOL nolan is literally one of the top 5 winners this site has ever produced. I havent read what hes said on the issue. besides this comment so i'm not sure whats going on in this whole thread. but just seeing this comment made me lmao.
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance, by running away from the scene of an accident.
Do you really expect anyone who wasn't already in 100% agreement with you to change their minds after watching that video?
I don't care to discuss my opinions on this stuff here, but regardless of whether you agree with what he's saying or not, he doesn't add anything new to the discussion that everyone hasn't heard a million times before. I mean ffs they cut out the other guy's responses, lol. The way the video is edited, it's a guy preaching to people who already agree with him. No matter where you stand, that video is trash.
True it wont change peoples mind, but what would?
I dont think the video is trash I think his points are valid
As I said earlier there isnt much rational people in this debate, people are either strongly aligned with nationalists that are absolutely anti-muslim and very bellligerent or they are apologists that will say stupid crap like "terrorism has no faith"
The rights have to realize that war doesnt help, it makes things worse and the only reason war is waged is economical, not based on principles, and the ones on the left have to realize that playing blind, being politically correct and sing kumbaya doesnt solve anything either.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 19 2015 07:48. Posts 4943
On November 19 2015 04:39 Baalim wrote:
The rights have to realize that war doesnt help, it makes things worse and the only reason war is waged is economical, not based on principles, and the ones on the left have to realize that playing blind, being politically correct and sing kumbaya doesnt solve anything either.
Cmon, terrorist shoots 100 people, we kill them, you're saying that's not principled? While there may be an economic advantage to everything counter-terrorism pursues, the fact that you kill terrorists in the process cant be considered a bad thing. I think the problem right now is that our strategy of using air strikes is just not good enough. France gets attacked and they "drop 20 bombs on ISIS strongholds". They say 20 bombs like that is supposed to be impressive. I'm pretty sure we do that every single day. Precision strikes simply dont kill enough people. The population of ISIS is enough that only a full scale invasion could ever stop them, something I dont see happening any time soon. The reason you can kill 1 ISIS member and 5 more pop up in his place is because there are no qualifications to join ISIS. Every time some senior member is killed it makes headlines as if it were a big deal, but all that member was responsible for was throwing a dart at a map for the next village to plunder.
what baal is saying (or at least what I think he is) is pretty simple.
western intervention in their politics/quality of life makes them angry, and certain aspects of islam gives them some needed justification and encouragement to act out violently on that anger.
pretty sure all he's saying is that there is multiple sources of negativity and there's no reason to act like it has to be 100% one or the other. he can correct me if i'm wrong.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
On November 19 2015 04:39 Baalim wrote:
The rights have to realize that war doesnt help, it makes things worse and the only reason war is waged is economical, not based on principles, and the ones on the left have to realize that playing blind, being politically correct and sing kumbaya doesnt solve anything either.
Cmon, terrorist shoots 100 people, we kill them, you're saying that's not principled? While there may be an economic advantage to everything counter-terrorism pursues, the fact that you kill terrorists in the process cant be considered a bad thing. I think the problem right now is that our strategy of using air strikes is just not good enough. France gets attacked and they "drop 20 bombs on ISIS strongholds". They say 20 bombs like that is supposed to be impressive. I'm pretty sure we do that every single day. Precision strikes simply dont kill enough people. The population of ISIS is enough that only a full scale invasion could ever stop them, something I dont see happening any time soon. The reason you can kill 1 ISIS member and 5 more pop up in his place is because there are no qualifications to join ISIS. Every time some senior member is killed it makes headlines as if it were a big deal, but all that member was responsible for was throwing a dart at a map for the next village to plunder.
I am not opposed to rid the world of insane murderous people, but you are not doing that you are creating more and more of them, for every death you cause there will be 5 people now strongly motivated for revenge.
It seems to me that you are aware of this, yet your conclusion is that you are not killing enough people, you should go on an all-out invasion? how can you be so dense? Obviously the same thing will happen and millions will be strongly motivated to counter attack.
It seems to me that people like you are beyond the grasp of reason, that the sole idea of maybe not killing people,withdrawing the military and stopping an ever-growing circle of violence is unfathomable.
^ Pretty certain it's a bit more complicated than that. But yes, I agree with you regarding Baal's general argument.
Could be Islam. Could be Christianity. Could be fucking power rangers. If people are oppressed, all they need is a common totem to flock to.
Afterall, people are animals too.
Analytical people, THINK. Stop being a bitch to mass media.
1
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 19 2015 10:28. Posts 4943
On November 19 2015 08:15 Baalim wrote:
It seems to me that people like you are beyond the grasp of reason, that the sole idea of maybe not killing people,withdrawing the military and stopping an ever-growing circle of violence is unfathomable.
I'd be willing to try this if it werent for instances like Charlie Hedbo. Those cocksuckers killed 11 people over a cartoon. They are not going to stop committing acts of terror even if we withdraw from their territory, unless you think that is a truly rare occurrence akin to any other random act of terror (school shootings, etc).
bye now
Last edit: 19/11/2015 10:29
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 11:37. Posts 6374
On November 19 2015 03:51 whamm! wrote:
Muslims like these should be empowered more, sad thing is that these types are educated in the west lol. Which is why this will never be solved through intelligent discussion - the cool ones who can assimilate are already doing exactly that and are as helpless as everyone else. The rest are dying or being tortured in some jail, some are about to be killed for having dissident views.
40:00 maajid smashing baals simplistic views of foreign policy :D
Tbh LP and this thread is the perfect place if you d want to observe how to push and pull certain ideas and manipulate people. It almost seems too easy tbh, everyone having such strong beliefs, but having no real argument. Seems like Baal is the only one questioning his own beliefs before actually typing something
Last edit: 19/11/2015 13:01
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 13:07. Posts 6374
he indirectly confirms islam is terrible and leads to violent behaviour and opression of others, claims that "we need to find "alternative interpretation of original verses" lol ie ignoring 90% and ending up with completely different religion in the end
lost some credibility explaining hate-crime against muslims going up 17% and antisemitism rising in hundrends of %, while these statics are true, jews are leaving france due to common attacks from muslim communities, while ppl are getting arested for acts of hate-crime like writing comments on fb
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 13:11. Posts 6374
On November 19 2015 12:00 Spitfiree wrote:
Tbh LP and this thread is the perfect place if you d want to observe how to push and pull certain ideas and manipulate people. It almost seems too easy tbh, everyone having such strong beliefs, but having no real argument. Seems like Baal is the only one questioning his own beliefs before actually typing something
or maybe you actually fail to see them? no wonder you ve been manipulated by baal using words like smart, grasp of reason, rational, dense, then claiming how knowledgeable he is to avoid answering -_-
i ve only read half of this thread but from the past i know you and baal act like some sort of moral authorities, defaming your opponents by labeling them while you seems to make antisemitic remarks in your posts quite regularly. using phrases and big words like wisdom, voice of reason, "its not that simple" while providing no solution expect for retarded simplistic ones like withdrawing troops and twisting topics into different directions derping about christianity and crusades (without knowing enough facts).
you both are not grounded in reality and fail to realize you cant "pull sam harris" on muslims. the more time will it take for everyone to realize islam is a problem per se, the more innocent ppl will die.
realistically what do you think will happen? these attacks will happen more frequenly, but ppl dont have infinite temper. all the wrath will be unleashed upon innocent muslims as well, some racist will win elections across the word (true racists, not used as defaming label asi its common today), then they will proceed to persecute ppl based on their race etc
ban baal
Last edit: 19/11/2015 14:35
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 14:52. Posts 6374
Do you expect me to prove a belief ? How does one prove that ? You act like you've found a solution to the biggest international problem the past 30 when in fact there are so many things to grasp a single man will never do that alone. I'm not some conspiracy theorist like NewbSaibot thinks, him hinting that just shows how easy to control he is. There are tons of facts to be taken and you can't ignore a single one of them, leading to the fact that there needs to be at least 2 large groups of intelligent people to go against each other and provoke a defense of each other's arguments. Which in a way is what this thread is, however this cannot work if you re not able to allow that you're wrong.
I would instantly change my mind and defend your thesis if your beliefs were actually open minded. No extreme measure is ever good in the long run, doesn't matter what the topic. I'm not going to defend myself that I actually agree with Baal cause he actually puts logic behind his thesis and while yes, he has not provided any solid proof in this case, he used to provide proof for every single belief he s ever defended on LP and you people would always neglect that with some shallow minded stupidity.
Sure Islam as a religion is what Christianity used to be 600 years ago and sure there are things that should not be tolerated. Sure you have kilometers of ground to lean on, however a solution like "bomb the shit out of them, kill them all and fuck the refugees and fuck muslims " which is what it all comes down to no matter how hard you try to hide it behind reason and logic is not what a civilized person would ever think and definitely not the solution. Strong measures must be taken, I agree with that absolutely, there s a thin line between strong and insane measure however and the moment you pass it is the moment that the problem will only get bigger.
I get it, you're scared that the current politics might lead to something terrifying throughout whole Europe, sure I'm scared of it too. The danger is very real, the politics ran in the EU are surely somewhat insane. However all this anger you've gathered is not contributing to any real discussion and is only a result of that fear. I do understand it though, if you were affected by it in your real life.
This is a topic where the global power of the USA is at stake, where trillions of dollars are at stake, where the dilemma about millions of lifes arises, where culture is what drives millions and you have to understand it first in order to take action. It's a complete shit storm. In a way if it was indeed a conspiracy that would be great cause it would be much easier to solve. And yes I will agree once again with you that my arguments are not always defended by proof and do you know what? No shit! I cannot post a random youtube video or a random article of some media claiming something simply because 99% of it is all bullshit and would be worse than having no proof at all, in fact it would prove that I am the sheep that I pretend not to be and there is a strong reason behind that and an opportunity is good to prove it.
Watch the video in the previous post with the swede muslim extremist. You certainly instantly realize that this man is an idiot and a hypocrite and that he s been brainwashed so hard that he s probably passed the point of return already. Absolutely agree. Now on the interesting part - how did you feel while watching the video? Did you get angry ? Did you instantly think that such people must be thrown out of society, in fact considering all events in the near past all muslims probably deserve that just so no risks would be taken. Now what if all media created such a opinion for people and put it in their heads making them think its their own mind that created it ? In a way its indeed their own mind, however they were led there. They have this power for any topic. They can push ideas in the masses much like "Inception " and that is even more terrifying
Last edit: 19/11/2015 17:08
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 17:49. Posts 6374
On November 19 2015 15:59 Spitfiree wrote:
Do you expect me to prove a belief ? How does one prove that ? You act like you've found a solution to the biggest international problem the past 30 when in fact there are so many things to grasp a single man will never do that alone. I'm not some conspiracy theorist like NewbSaibot thinks, him hinting that just shows how easy to control he is. There are tons of facts to be taken and you can't ignore a single one of them, leading to the fact that there needs to be at least 2 large groups of intelligent people to go against each other and provoke a defense of each other's arguments. Which in a way is what this thread is, however this cannot work if you re not able to allow that you're wrong.
I would instantly change my mind and defend your thesis if your beliefs were actually open minded. No extreme measure is ever good in the long run, doesn't matter what the topic. I'm not going to defend myself that I actually agree with Baal cause he actually puts logic behind his thesis and while yes, he has not provided any solid proof in this case, he used to provide proof for every single belief he s ever defended on LP and you people would always neglect that with some shallow minded stupidity.
Sure Islam as a religion is what Christianity used to be 600 years ago and sure there are things that should not be tolerated. Sure you have kilometers of ground to lean on, however a solution like "bomb the shit out of them, kill them all and fuck the refugees and fuck muslims " which is what it all comes down to no matter how hard you try to hide it behind reason and logic is not what a civilized person would ever think and definitely not the solution. Strong measures must be taken, I agree with that absolutely, there s a thin line between strong and insane measure however and the moment you pass it is the moment that the problem will only get bigger.
islam is what christian CHURCH used to be 600 years ago. just compare lives of these two prophets. islam is bad in its very core. does this make me close-minded in your eyes?
i do think anyone who decides muhamad ideals are worth following is a retard.
secret services officially stated: security thread is directly proportional to % of muslims in population. which is quite obv. i dont need to be culturally enriched, i dont want them in europe. does this mean i want to nuke saudi arabia? ofc not.
you cant tolerate intolerant culture, so somewhat drastic measures need to be applied. not letting migrants in would be a good start, anyone who crosses 5 states isnt a war refugee anyway
you claim extreme measures arent good in long term, well define long time? if it extends our lifetime?
On November 19 2015 15:59 Spitfiree wrote:
I get it, you're scared that the current politics might lead to something terrifying throughout whole Europe, sure I'm scared of it too. The danger is very real, the politics ran in the EU are surely somewhat insane. However all this anger you've gathered is not contributing to any real discussion and is only a result of that fear. I do understand it though, if you were affected by it in your real life.
This is a topic where the global power of the USA is at stake, where trillions of dollars are at stake, where the dilemma about millions of lifes arises, where culture is what drives millions and you have to understand it first in order to take action. It's a complete shit storm. In a way if it was indeed a conspiracy that would be great cause it would be much easier to solve. And yes I will agree once again with you that my arguments are not always defended by proof and do you know what? No shit! I cannot post a random youtube video or a random article of some media claiming something simply because 99% of it is all bullshit and would be worse than having no proof at all, in fact it would prove that I am the sheep that I pretend not to be and there is a strong reason behind that and an opportunity is good to prove it.
Watch the video in the previous post with the swede muslim extremist. You certainly instantly realize that this man is an idiot and a hypocrite and that he s been brainwashed so hard that he s probably passed the point of return already. Absolutely agree. Now on the interesting part - how did you feel while watching the video? Did you get angry ? Did you instantly think that such people must be thrown out of society, in fact considering all events in the near past all muslims probably deserve that just so no risks would be taken. Now what if all media created such a opinion for people and put it in their heads making them think its their own mind that created it ? In a way its indeed their own mind, however they were led there. They have this power for any topic. They can push ideas in the masses much like "Inception " and that is even more terrifying
i didnt get angry at that poor fool (who hasnt necessarily been brainwashed, just a faithful muslim), i just see him as a danger and think some actions must be taken to isolate him and similarly thinking retards from society, w/e it may be, i dont really care for his life, life of his family or other muslims. secret services operate with 5% constant, in reality its probably more, and as its impossible to recognize who is who, i m all up for reducing muslim population in europe. couldnt care less about human rights of a person who doesnt believe in them himself. watch out, i m a radical
lold a bit about inception and brainwashing, you sound like a conspiracy freak tbh
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 19:30. Posts 6374
watching this atm, sam harris pretty much proves my points
ban baal
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 19:53. Posts 6374
I sound like a conspiracy freak sure. Do you know like who else do I sound ? Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government and who will tell you the same about the media. Like Edward Bernays, you know the nephew of Freud creator of PR and brainwasher of millions. I sound like that cause you re uneducated. You know what lack of education leads to ? Those radical muslims you re so afraid of.
Maybe a global war wouldn't be so bad, all close minded idiots will grab guns and kill each other
On November 19 2015 18:30 dogmeat wrote:
watching this atm, sam harris pretty much proves my points
ban baal
Cenk is so hard to watch at times. I can't tell if he sincerely believes some of the things he says or is just playing to his viewerbase. I like the TYT format in that it originally was a fully internet-based news/opinion source outside of mainstream media control but at some point they clearly started playing specifically to their largest viewer demographic (15-25 year olds from rich families in the U.S. coasts) and covering retarded reality TV drama on occasion.
Also quite astonished you targeted the most irrelevant parts in my post... well at first at least.
You fail to realize what ISIS is the result of , you fail to realize that even if they lead a total war and destroy it in the next 2 decades something more powerful will arise. I can guarantee it - no doubt, its a process that happens in the best case scenario 60 years apart and unless something majorly happens on the planet it will continue to do so, the only one able to divert it was Otto Von Bismarck - probably the greatest politician to ever live. You have no idea how the world works. Take a few courses on geopolitics and international relations and you ll realize that everything you stand for is pure crap. At this point im done with this, when you take a few courses there might be a reason to argue with you
p.s. also things like this
"you claim extreme measures arent good in long term, well define long time? if it extends our lifetime?"
only proves that you re an egoistical egocentric imbecile - no offense, now that i've pointed to the truth you might actually start to change it now that i've given you awareness
Last edit: 19/11/2015 21:11
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 21:15. Posts 6374
On November 19 2015 19:53 Spitfiree wrote:
I sound like a conspiracy freak sure. Do you know like who else do I sound ? Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government and who will tell you the same about the media. Like Edward Bernays, you know the nephew of Freud creator of PR and brainwasher of millions. I sound like that cause you re uneducated. You know what lack of education leads to ? Those radical muslims you re so afraid of.
Maybe a global war wouldn't be so bad, all close minded idiots will grab guns and kill each other
i hate chomsky, that means i m uneducated, now you showed me. pretty much sums up what i said about you and baal. theres massive eu, immigration, multiculture propaganda running throughout europe and borderline censorship of non-approved opinions, i dunno where you like.
you think us foreign policy is terrible and also like Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government? that irony -_-
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 19 2015 21:20. Posts 6374
On November 19 2015 20:04 Spitfiree wrote:
Also quite astonished you targeted the most irrelevant parts in my post... well at first at least.
You fail to realize what ISIS is the result of , you fail to realize that even if they lead a total war and destroy it in the next 2 decades something more powerful will arise. I can guarantee it - no doubt, its a process that happens in the best case scenario 60 years apart and unless something majorly happens on the planet it will continue to do so, the only one able to divert it was Otto Von Bismarck - probably the greatest politician to ever live. You have no idea how the world works. Take a few courses on geopolitics and international relations and you ll realize that everything you stand for is pure crap. At this point im done with this, when you take a few courses there might be a reason to argue with you
"you claim extreme measures arent good in long term, well define long time? if it extends our lifetime?"
only proves that you re an egoistical egocentric imbecile - no offense, now that i've pointed to the truth you might actually start to change it now that i've given you awareness
i wasnt even talking about isis as i dont care what happens there, wtf?
nor i was advocating a total war against isis would be a good idea. gj putting words in my mouth and then refuting them to claim ur superiority :D
ban baal
1
Ryan Neilly United States. Nov 19 2015 21:24. Posts 1631
omg.
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 20 2015 01:18. Posts 6374
On November 19 2015 18:30 dogmeat wrote:
watching this atm, sam harris pretty much proves my points
ban baal
Cenk is so hard to watch at times. I can't tell if he sincerely believes some of the things he says or is just playing to his viewerbase. I like the TYT format in that it originally was a fully internet-based news/opinion source outside of mainstream media control but at some point they clearly started playing specifically to their largest viewer demographic (15-25 year olds from rich families in the U.S. coasts) and covering retarded reality TV drama on occasion.
NewbSaibot United States. Nov 20 2015 02:38. Posts 4943
On November 19 2015 15:59 Spitfiree wrote:
I'm not some conspiracy theorist like NewbSaibot thinks, him hinting that just shows how easy to control he is.
How does me thinking you're a potential conspiracy theorist show that I am easy to control? You said something about the passport found and acted like "omg how convenient!", when in reality no such evidence would need to be found in that manner to justify retaliation, and if someone were indeed trying to conspire for war they wouldnt fucking do it in the most blatantly obvious manner that any simpleton on the internet would immediately dispute.
you think us foreign policy is terrible and also like Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government? that irony -_-
Noam Chomsky is not only against US imperialism, but against the existence of your governments at all, he is an anarchist ffs, do you think anarchist support foreign invasions across the globe for economical and political reasons? lol
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
On November 20 2015 04:47 Baalim wrote:
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
In my country, and especially in Sweden, there is a contest in how to be as most politically correct as possible. Every time some muslim kills a lot of people everyone will say "oh it has nothing to do with Islam" "they are not really muslims" bla bla bla.
I just cant take this bullshit anymore
:D
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 20 2015 06:33. Posts 5296
I agree with Baal on drone strikes, i don't think any serious observer would disagree.
As for Islam being more barbaric than Christianity, i have to disagree. And there are different types of Islam and Christianity connected to different institutions. Some are violent, and crazy, some are not.
in 2003 a group of powerful and fanatic christian fundamentalists invaded iraq, which has killed over 700,000 people. That's one example of extremist christian violence, but there are others.
ISIS has so far, killed many people but not as many as the neo conservatives who draw their power from christian fundamentalism in America.
I read a book today by Syrian historian Sami Moubayed, called 'under the black flag'. He has lived under ISIS's regime and describes Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's regime as almost identical to Saddam Husseins in its practices of torture and savagery, which is understandable, since he learn't all his techniques living in Husseins regime and he uses former Baathist party members as his henchmen. We should remember most of Europe and the neo-cons like Raegan and bush senior supported Saddam Hussein up until 1990, germany and america even gave him weapons of mass destruction like mustard gas. You can read this in 'The great conquest of civilization' by Robert Fisk.
ISIS grows out of something that has built up over hundreds of years, from a culmination first of salafi-wahhabi religion which was founded by the Saud family and some crazy religious fanatic. Their conquests in the middle east eventually led to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which are spreading this violent religion everywhere they can. America and Britian, the west in general have always opposed movements that try to seek to nationalize their resources, that is 'secular nationalism', so they support crazy fanatic totalitarian regimes like the saud family. It's a cheap way to conduct an imperialist policy. You keep get an elite group to do your dirty work for you, and let them keep a little of the money.
America supported Al Qaeda in 1979 in their plan to draw russia into a war they couldnt win. This plan was drawn up by the American statesman zbigniew breziznski.
in 1982, the Hafez al Assad regime in syria massacred their opposition who were wahhabi salafists, which then vowed revenge and joined Al qaeda and bin laden in afghanistan. Now they are back as Al Nusra.
ISIS was a branch off from Al qaeda, which is even more extremist than the Al qeada group is. ISIS is what you get when you rape a country as hard as the mongols did in 1258. It's easily predictable that when you destroy a country you will turn them into a bunch of fanatics. Any student of history will know this. And their are other factors which have helped create ISIS, like the ones i have pointed out. It's quite complex.
I havn't posted very often on LP and hardly visit anymore, but i came back and found a thread on one of my topics so i thought i would comment.
One of the reasons i left is people like dogmeat. I am no fan of being around stupid people. People like you don't respond to argument, for you to look in the mirror and think about what your responsible for is crazy, since it would be rational. that's why you blame problems on arabs and their inferior culture or whatever it may be. This is why the powers in Europe still rape the poorer nations with their neo-colonial policies.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 20 2015 06:52. Posts 5296
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
The bombing of afghanistan was one the most immoral acts in modern history, in my view. It was predicted that the bombing would put 2.5 million extra afghans into starvation. It didn't happen though, but that doesn't stop the action from being terribly unethical.
As for Rwandan genocide, the party line given by US, EU and UN officials was that they didn't do anything to stop the atrocities. This is false, both the UN and American media have lied to the point that would make stalin proud. The Tutsi leader Paul Kagame is one of the most sadistic torturers in modern history. He invaded rwanda from uganda, assassinated the rwandan president by rpging his plane, and then preceded to carry out a genocide where most who died were Hutu.. This is ignored by the UN war tribual on rwanda and western intellectuals. 20 years later he is still one of the west's favourite dictators (gets his picture taken with bill gates at the economic forum ). And he's been plundering the congo ever since, where 6-10million have died since 1995.
There's a good book on this called 'enduring lies' by edward herman and david peterson.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On November 20 2015 04:47 Baalim wrote:
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
In my country, and especially in Sweden, there is a contest in how to be as most politically correct as possible. Every time some muslim kills a lot of people everyone will say "oh it has nothing to do with Islam" "they are not really muslims" bla bla bla.
I just cant take this bullshit anymore
Totally, as I said, this problem rarely has any objective smart people, and mostly are polar opposites and both are incredibly stupid.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 20 2015 08:06. Posts 2226
On November 14 2015 13:03 chris wrote:
People were being beheaded, raped, and enslaved, with crops salted, long before the US existed.
For a fun read , look up Saladin and the wars fought in the Muslim world as they built their own empires. This is also where assassins come from.
Are you for real ? :D
Did you really give Saladin as an example ?
Holy fucking shit
Give the guy that OPPOSED the Crusades as an example- you know the same crusades that killed babies and raped women. CHRISTIAN crusades.
And now idiots all around the world want border closure in Europe, so refugees can suffer. Those same refugees that are fleeing from the terror that happened in Paris, except where they live thats something that happens on a daily basis. Hypocrite society. You deserve to be the sheep that you are
Mad Arab?
Border closure is completely logical. Islam is backwards and dangerous. Europeans want it out of their society (and it's not even that drastic they just don't want a flood of Muslims coming in. Who knows if all of these refugees are even what they say they are. Could be plenty of extremists creeping in under the guise of being displaced). Let Islamic peoples live in Islam controlled territorries and leave them be as they leave everyone else to themselves. If you want to live in the past fine but we decent people have no obligation to allow you to drag down modern society
You do have obligations considering its your government that has been leading such politics for decades, its the fruit of their actions. Every single person that has brain and awareness has obligations. Of course you can be a shallow american who's first response to a humanitarian is " Mad Arab ? ". I feel jealous that im not so mind restricted as u are
Of course you can argue about whos fault it is and go for days or you can watch a video of any international relations expert and shut up
@Santafairy I have no idea how Baal has not called you an idiot yet. Its totally in his style, but since he hasn't. You sir are a brainwashed idiot living in fairy tales
Don't worry. He's not part of the left, but he already called me a racist, so that means he "wins" the discussion.
On November 16 2015 13:54 dogmeat wrote:
i mean its sad when you were born into islam and have to go with it for your whole life, but anyone who beliefs in it in the west is a human scum and pos
Ok after this Im done replying to this dumbass, he clearly isnt prepared to engage in an intelligent discussion
On November 15 2015 06:58 Baalim wrote:
1 - You continue to believe that your military incursions have anything to do with justice, and again I repeat to you that they are not, they are driven by political and corporate interests and the goal is profit, setting up regimes that are friendly towards us interests is the objective and the reason the CIA has been orchestrating coups since the 70s causing war, strife and resentment to the west in the area.
2 - Im not saying "dont send firefighters", Im saying that you arent firefighters, all you carry are buckets of fire... and by the way, YOU are on fire, how about putting you out first?
3 - Im not saying let them destroy themselves, I am saying this is not your war and you cannot help by massacring the side that is less favorable to you that coincidentally you deem "evil"
When you see things as simple as seeing your enemy as evil and consider yourself to be the saviour you must know you are wrong, I dont remember who im paraphrasing here... and this is where you explain to me how ISIS beheads gays etc and the point goes over your head one more time.
Here's your problem, which I've also explained, but was lost on you. You think that because two things are bad, or not perfect, that they're equal. You're unable to see anything in degrees. You're more interested in having some irrelevant theory craft debate with dogmeat about how one holy book is just as bad as another holy book. If you can't see that Islamic extremism, Islamic totalitarianism, is a threat to civilization on a short list only with things like nuclear proliferation, disease, and famine, then I speculate that a part of your body is going soft, and it's not the part you can fix with a daily pill.
1. Maybe Iran or Russia's intervention will be driven by justice, then.
2. Don't give me "physician heal thyself." The US is not in a civil war that has killed 2% of its population and displaced 20%. There will always be problems everywhere on Earth. The US can continue working on its various problems, most of which pale in comparison to those of your motherland, whose in turn pale in comparison to those of Syria and the surrounding area.
3. You're saying to let them destroy themselves because that's what's happening and what's going to happen. If you do nothing, that's where we're headed. If you pushed someone out of an airplane and told the judge you didn't murder him, you only wanted to push him out of the plane, it wouldn't matter because what happens when you push someone out of a plane is that they die.
And yes, it's our war. No man is an island. The west drew the fucking map of the Middle East. Pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into Wahhabism and conservative regimes. Do you think that that, the theocratic control of all aspects of life, might have a little bit more to do with the way people over there "see" us (which doesn't matter - what do you care how somebody sees you? what role does vanity play in defeating extremism?) than the CIA staging a coup somewhere once?
Besides which, you do not get to decide whether it's your war when someone attacks you.
Starting wars because people were born in the wrong part of the desert or are the wrong kind of Muslim is not a defensible form of self-determination. You have some delusion where you believe that some radical totalitarian people, because they happen to be brown skinned, have an inalienable right to destroy their own countries and kill their fellow man, and the victims have an inalienable right to permanent residency in Europe, but nobody without a relative named Mohammed can do something about fixing the problems and saving that part of the region. If this is all stemming from your misinformed anarchism, I don't see what your beef is with US foreign policy when you sit there saying anyone else can do whatever the fuck they please.
Actually, I think I found your problem. This is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. People aren't calling ISIS evil just because they're the other side. They are the "other" side because they are fighting and murdering people. Because they murder, massacre, rape, and torture people, not just as a political tool, but simply for the fuck of it. They are even doing this on an international level. If you can't tell that ISIS is pure evil, you don't know evil when you see it.
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
I agree there are always differences between rhetoric and reality. But... helping what population? The population of the country gone to war with? I don't think that's true. In WW2, the country was attacked by Japan and mainly had the goal of defeating them. And the Third Reich declared war on the US, not the other way around. None of us was alive at the time, but in my understanding, that war was sold to the public very much in a jingoistic way, as well as a case of stopping evil. Not that we were fighting directly to save Hans Doe or something.
My point is that if you defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, it doesn't matter what anybody believes about what happened or what misapprehensions people carry, you did something that was objectively good.
Korea and Vietnam were definitely portrayed as part of the struggle against communism. It happened to be the right thing to do in Korea as the country was fucking invaded, and it happened to be wrong in the case of Vietnam because Kissinger is a war criminal (among other reasons). Someone having lied or made a mistake in the past isn't an argument against doing the right thing now, despite what Baal would have us believe.
On November 18 2015 23:26 devon06atX wrote:
^ Very true that the vast majority of people that hold views similar to mine have most likely never experienced anything of this nature first hand. I guess I'm lucky enough to have the luxury to look at these things objectively and not be swayed by media propaganda and what have you.
Don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all btw, just wanted to clarify. I would totally have a hate-on for any 'group' of people that instilled fear in my community. I like to think that I'd be above that line of reasoning, but I probably wouldn't be.
That being said, I doubt any of the 'muslim-haters' here have any firsthand experience that they can relate to to justify their views.
This isn't about anecdotes, or I would point out one of my best friends is a black Muslim, but I won't do that because it isn't about anecdotes. This is not about you knowing a super friendly dentist who's an ethnic Arab. These are serious political issues. These are at a societal level. This is about extremism, and it's about fundamentalism, and it's about literally a class of people. The fact that there are people who can't openly talk about this without calling people who disagree with them ''muslim-haters'' and ''racist'' is a failure we owe to cultural marxism.
It's also ironic to call people victims of propaganda when the MSM is left-leaning.
On November 15 2015 19:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what about family members of known terrorists? I mean these people are often patriarchal figures with large families. those families have members who may or may not be involved in the terrorist agenda. These family members have friends who will be very upset to learn about their demise. Like, I get that if there's a secret meeting in hidden shack between the two mountains with four known terrorists from different factions trying to coordinate a massive action then it's like, yeah, you're there on your own responsibility, but it just seems to me like that's not the typical scenario.
Baal's hydra allegory is dead on. As long as there are like, any genuinely civilian casualities at all, then for each terrorist you kill, another (or more) will plop up in his place. Each civilian death grants legitimacy to the fight that the terrorists are fighting, each grants more legitimacy to their claim that no option is too extreme, each death grants more legitimacy to the opinion that our (democratic) populations deserve to be hit strong and hard right back for electing leaders that continue to bomb them. Of course it's fucking difficult as hell, because many current terrorists are in the 'can't be rehabilitated' camp. But the current situation, that's just leading up to perpetual war imo, and I'd rather take the moral high ground.
Yes. Let's take the moral high ground. Hundreds of innocent people shot in the cultural capital of Europe? Just turn the other cheek. Be the bigger man. Or rather, close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and wait for the problem to go away by itself.
When the US killed Osama bin Laden, Muslim views on US foreign policy took a hit. Maybe that means killing him was a mistake. I ask you, is this a tenable thesis?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On November 20 2015 06:17 spugru wrote:
How are you not a conspiracy theorist when you believe 9/11 and Paris were false flag operations Spitfiree looks really really dumb in this thread.
learn to read
then judge the capabilities of someone's intelligence
quite sure Finland has the best educational system in Europe so you must really fall off the natural selection
never did i say i believe Paris was a false flag, too hard to comprehend I guess, all I said is there are potential arguments about it which doesn't mean it is so or that I believe it to be so - not gonna bother about 9/11 part at all
Last edit: 20/11/2015 11:30
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 20 2015 11:31. Posts 6374
you think us foreign policy is terrible and also like Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government? that irony -_-
Noam Chomsky is not only against US imperialism, but against the existence of your governments at all, he is an anarchist ffs, do you think anarchist support foreign invasions across the globe for economical and political reasons? lol
im well aware of his opinions, but these are somewhat irrelevant in that sentence either way. its just spitfres attempt to sound smart and sophisticated that went wrong
On November 20 2015 04:47 Baalim wrote:
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
On November 20 2015 05:33 Stroggoz wrote:
I agree with Baal on drone strikes, i don't think any serious observer would disagree.
As for Islam being more barbaric than Christianity, i have to disagree. And there are different types of Islam and Christianity connected to different institutions. Some are violent, and crazy, some are not.
in 2003 a group of powerful and fanatic christian fundamentalists invaded iraq, which has killed over 700,000 people. That's one example of extremist christian violence, but there are others.
ISIS has so far, killed many people but not as many as the neo conservatives who draw their power from christian fundamentalism in America.
I read a book today by Syrian historian Sami Moubayed, called 'under the black flag'. He has lived under ISIS's regime and describes Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's regime as almost identical to Saddam Husseins in its practices of torture and savagery, which is understandable, since he learn't all his techniques living in Husseins regime and he uses former Baathist party members as his henchmen. We should remember most of Europe and the neo-cons like Raegan and bush senior supported Saddam Hussein up until 1990, germany and america even gave him weapons of mass destruction like mustard gas. You can read this in 'The great conquest of civilization' by Robert Fisk.
ISIS grows out of something that has built up over hundreds of years, from a culmination first of salafi-wahhabi religion which was founded by the Saud family and some crazy religious fanatic. Their conquests in the middle east eventually led to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which are spreading this violent religion everywhere they can. America and Britian, the west in general have always opposed movements that try to seek to nationalize their resources, that is 'secular nationalism', so they support crazy fanatic totalitarian regimes like the saud family. It's a cheap way to conduct an imperialist policy. You keep get an elite group to do your dirty work for you, and let them keep a little of the money.
America supported Al Qaeda in 1979 in their plan to draw russia into a war they couldnt win. This plan was drawn up by the American statesman zbigniew breziznski.
in 1982, the Hafez al Assad regime in syria massacred their opposition who were wahhabi salafists, which then vowed revenge and joined Al qaeda and bin laden in afghanistan. Now they are back as Al Nusra.
ISIS was a branch off from Al qaeda, which is even more extremist than the Al qeada group is. ISIS is what you get when you rape a country as hard as the mongols did in 1258. It's easily predictable that when you destroy a country you will turn them into a bunch of fanatics. Any student of history will know this. And their are other factors which have helped create ISIS, like the ones i have pointed out. It's quite complex.
I havn't posted very often on LP and hardly visit anymore, but i came back and found a thread on one of my topics so i thought i would comment.
One of the reasons i left is people like dogmeat. I am no fan of being around stupid people. People like you don't respond to argument, for you to look in the mirror and think about what your responsible for is crazy, since it would be rational. that's why you blame problems on arabs and their inferior culture or whatever it may be. This is why the powers in Europe still rape the poorer nations with their neo-colonial policies.
i love how you blame christianity for terrible us foreign policy. yet when it comes to isis etc, you search for every reason but islam. you even use the term wahhabism, which is just a fancy term for following islam fundamentals. pretty much what chomsky would said
i take being called stupid by a syndicalist as a compliment
ban baal
Last edit: 20/11/2015 11:31
1
KeyleK_uk United Kingdom. Nov 20 2015 14:56. Posts 1687
Santafairy, I think you are a little misguided in this and I think Baal is far closer to the truth. I've enjoyed all your previous posts (not this thread) and I think you need to take a look again at how you are viewing this (type of) issue.
You seem to have it ingrained into you that even if the USA made mistakes in the past, now they're trying to help people. This has never been the case of the USA or really any other country (and it never will be), every other thing in your history (and ours) has been in self interest. You got involved in WW1 and WW2 to varying degrees before getting troops on the ground involved? Why? Because it was in your interest to see the allies win both times, it was only when your hand was forced that boots were on the ground and you were involved. Remember Germany declared war on the United States in WW2, not the other way around. There is some belief among Americans that you go around saving the world because you're the land of the free, its just not true and I believe it's so far ingrained into you that you can't see the simple truth that every country does what is in its self interest. Western influence in the middle east has destabilized the region. Why is Saudi Arabia allowed to act the way it does, so barbaric? Because it suits your country and my country to have the people who are running Saudi continue running it.
I don't want to get too involved with bringing up random points so you can just make one comment and deflect everything I've said, just take a step back and try to look at it from someone elses point of view rather than someone who has been brought up in an oversized bubble of a country (this isn't supposed to be offensive, it is true though, all your influences come from the same people spewing the same rhetoric again and again that you never get to question the validity of it). I think you will understand that this is nowhere near as black and white as you think it is.
One point I will address directly is when you mentioned a mistake made was leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war... That wasn't the plan its just Geopolitics, politically you (we) had the mandate to invade kuwait and take it back from Iraq, we had other arab countries supporting this, but we had no support from the countries in the region to invade Iraq to topple Saddam, because he invaded Kuwait. Countries don't have a right to just choose whether someone should run another country. Of course this is only half the story, the US believed that after being beaten so quickly and completely in Kuwait that there would be an uprising and Saddam would be removed, just you wouldn't have to invade Iraq to do it. You were unprepared for the ability of Saddam Hussein to hold on to power and keep everyone in line. I believe the US helped start an uprising and bombled the entirity of Saddams fleeing army across the bridge to Iraq (in cold blood) in order to help this uprising succeed. However once again politically after kuwait was taken back it wasn't acceptable to continue helping the uprising you had started in Iraq so to a certain extent you just crossed your fingers and hoped it worked, it didn't they were all massacred and two hundred and fifty thousand more poople died. Bush stated
“There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
This story that you're being sold that the USA is trying to help people around the world... It's a lie, unless the USA has just changed its stripes in the last 10 years or w/e because I can bring examples of when the USA acts in self interest but claims otherwise (engineering wars, meddling for self interest in other countries with no care for civilians/liberty/rule of law (in their country) etcetc) from pretty much every other point in your history. I mean just look at the Monroe doctrine, on the face of it it's saying that no european power should be allowed to meddle in the Americas, reading between the lines what it's saying is "only the USA" from now on are allowed to meddle with the Americas.
You're reading the apple pie American airbrushed version of history Santafairy, not the true facts.
The U.S. is I think the biggest distributor of "Aid" all over the world, weapons food etc. They've done so much for the countryside here in the Philippines thru different government and non government agencies and yes they don't have U.S. bases here anymore, we kicked them out a decade ago. Yes, they do help people more than Islamic countries sorry. Whether its some ploy for future use, well I'll let the conspiratards take over on the subject.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 20 2015 19:42. Posts 2226
On November 20 2015 13:56 KeyleK_uk wrote:
Santafairy, I think you are a little misguided in this and I think Baal is far closer to the truth. I've enjoyed all your previous posts (not this thread) and I think you need to take a look again at how you are viewing this (type of) issue.
You seem to have it ingrained into you that even if the USA made mistakes in the past, now they're trying to help people. This has never been the case of the USA or really any other country (and it never will be), every other thing in your history (and ours) has been in self interest. You got involved in WW1 and WW2 to varying degrees before getting troops on the ground involved? Why? Because it was in your interest to see the allies win both times, it was only when your hand was forced that boots were on the ground and you were involved. Remember Germany declared war on the United States in WW2, not the other way around. There is some belief among Americans that you go around saving the world because you're the land of the free, its just not true and I believe it's so far ingrained into you that you can't see the simple truth that every country does what is in its self interest. Western influence in the middle east has destabilized the region. Why is Saudi Arabia allowed to act the way it does, so barbaric? Because it suits your country and my country to have the people who are running Saudi continue running it.
I literally just posted that Germany declared war on the USA. What bleeding heart point are you honestly trying to make? Imperial Japan and the Third Reich did nothing wrong until the USA forced them into war?
There's also at least one sentence about Wahhabism and oil money in every post I make. What's your grand suggestion? That the developed world stops driving cars tomorrow? Overnight we could either destroy everyone's economy or turn every Middle Eastern country into a beautiful copy of Turkey.
On November 20 2015 13:56 KeyleK_uk wrote:
One point I will address directly is when you mentioned a mistake made was leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war... That wasn't the plan its just Geopolitics, politically you (we) had the mandate to invade kuwait and take it back from Iraq, we had other arab countries supporting this, but we had no support from the countries in the region to invade Iraq to topple Saddam, because he invaded Kuwait. Countries don't have a right to just choose whether someone should run another country. Of course this is only half the story, the US believed that after being beaten so quickly and completely in Kuwait that there would be an uprising and Saddam would be removed, just you wouldn't have to invade Iraq to do it. You were unprepared for the ability of Saddam Hussein to hold on to power and keep everyone in line. I believe the US helped start an uprising and bombled the entirity of Saddams fleeing army across the bridge to Iraq (in cold blood) in order to help this uprising succeed. However once again politically after kuwait was taken back it wasn't acceptable to continue helping the uprising you had started in Iraq so to a certain extent you just crossed your fingers and hoped it worked, it didn't they were all massacred and two hundred and fifty thousand more poople died. Bush stated
“There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
I am aware that removing Saddam was not the plan in the first Gulf War. That's what makes it a mistake that he was left in power. If your mechanic says your brake lines need repaired and you don't have it done, then you Paul Walker your car into a tree, it can be said that you made a mistake, not despite that, but because repairing your brake lines was just "never the plan." This is a pretty common way to understand a mistake. It shouldn't be controversial to you in this case given that you just told us the hope was for the Iraqi people to do it themselves, and that never came to pass, and we went into the country a second time and removed him later.
Countries do have a right to choose who runs other countries. They in fact have an obligation to do so. Do you know why they have the right to? Ironically because governments don't have rights. They're not people. They don't have the right to rape their populace and fuck up their region with impunity. Why should you think a government has the right to do whatever it pleases? The Baathist regime 1) committed genocide 2) had and used WMDs 3) invaded its fucking neighbor, no it attacked multiple neighbors, and you don't suppose these things brought their legitimacy into question? I'm seriously puzzled by how morally fashionable cowardly bystanding has become.
On November 20 2015 13:56 KeyleK_uk wrote:
This story that you're being sold that the USA is trying to help people around the world...
I can't read the rest of this when you open with such a cock-eyed misunderstanding of what I'm saying while apparently calling me a puppet or propagandist. If you want a refutation about US foreign aid, it looks like you can ask whamm!, but I'm not going to address it because it's irrelevant. (The Monroe Doctrine. I mean, really.)
I'm talking about something very specific. What's the right thing to do in Syria now. If you have an alternative or supplement to military intervention against the group that's carving a country out of other countries in the name of Islamic nihilism and attacking everyone around it, if you want to make a salient point on current events, that would be really cool. If not, I will ring you when I need advice to give Thomas Jefferson about the impressment of US sailors by the Royal Navy.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
The bombing of afghanistan was one the most immoral acts in modern history, in my view. It was predicted that the bombing would put 2.5 million extra afghans into starvation. It didn't happen though, but that doesn't stop the action from being terribly unethical.
As for Rwandan genocide, the party line given by US, EU and UN officials was that they didn't do anything to stop the atrocities. This is false, both the UN and American media have lied to the point that would make stalin proud. The Tutsi leader Paul Kagame is one of the most sadistic torturers in modern history. He invaded rwanda from uganda, assassinated the rwandan president by rpging his plane, and then preceded to carry out a genocide where most who died were Hutu.. This is ignored by the UN war tribual on rwanda and western intellectuals. 20 years later he is still one of the west's favourite dictators (gets his picture taken with bill gates at the economic forum ). And he's been plundering the congo ever since, where 6-10million have died since 1995.
There's a good book on this called 'enduring lies' by edward herman and david peterson.
I was no fan of the invasion of Afghanistan. But I do think it's at least possible to argue for the legitimacy of it, both from a political sciency view (US was attacked) and from a moral perspective (betterment of afghani lives impossible without ousting the taliban, even if it creates temporary problems, enabling the afghanis to become masters of their own destiny is a long term good).
Now, I'm fundamentally skeptical towards bombing (well, almost any non-defensive military action basically), because the inevitable civilian casualities will always create more hatred and tension, but at the same time, what are the options? Could the US just tolerate that the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan and harboring terrorist leaders who were plotting how to inflict most possible damage towards them?
Obviously they should never have created what eventually became them back in 79, obviously they should not have deliberately armed the Afghanis with just enough weaponry to defend against the Soviets but not enough weaponry to repel them (I don't remember where other than it being a source I considered trustworthy, but I recall reading about how the US intentionally avoided giving the Afghanis some particular anti-air missile because if the Soviets kept losing helicopters they would be more likely to withdraw quicker, and the US wanted the war to last as long as possible), obviously mostly any current hellhole on earth can wholly or partially be attributed to some geopolitical gameplay by the major powers, cold war was dirty as fuck, but still it's like, while we got here because of interventionism, what amount of civilian suffering, 'our' fault or not, should we currently tolerate? Would there be any possible way of reforming and moderating the Taliban without taking them out? I don't know this stuff, but what I'm saying is just that, unlike Iraq and Vietnam and multiple other scenarios where it's hard to find a single true, idealistic selling point for US military involvement, it's possible to make a different argument for Afghanistan.
As for Rwanda, I don't really know enough about the conflict to engage in a real discussion, because it's a really really complex conflict and my knowledge is rudimentary. But I do know that for example the shooting of the plane you refer to is a contested issue - in 2012 a French court ruled from the ballistics that the shots originated from a Hutu-controlled area - thus that Kagama was not involved. However, it does stand out as somewhere the US intervened (but very lacklustry so, and probably for this very reason) without much being at stake for them. Then again, from quickly wikiing, I'm seeing that the entire US effort largely seemed focused around saving US citizens, so I guess they shouldn't really be part of the rhetorically idealistic camp anyway. ;p The 'majority died were hutu' also seems contested - although the numbers of dead-estimates also seem to vary from 500000 to 1.1 million, so whatever, hard to know.
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
I said why do you keep repeating how bad is Islam when in this thread I havent seen anybody saying things like "they are not real muslims" or "terrorism has no faith", I think everybody in this thread agrees that Islam is the most violent religion in our time.
And yes there are other reasons why they attack, and that is the west imperialism and constant military presence in their region, it is not the only one, but a big one, along with their faith.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 21 2015 08:28. Posts 3093
Santafairy, as for the first post you replied to, both WW1 and WW2 were largely sold to the american public as efforts to help free the world from tyrrany. I didn't really mean it as liberating the germans or japanese, but as liberating the countries invaded by them. Particularly in WW1 was the government propaganda towards the american population massive to build support for conscription. And yeah the US didn't actually engage until they were attacked/declared war upon, but when they did, the effort to sell the good vs evil, of saving the world from tyrrany (which in the case of WW2 genuinely has some merit) story was massive.
As for the second post, that post of mine was specifically regarding drone strikes. (Well, any type of 'surgical bombing' that happens to have 'unintended civilian casualities'). I don't believe that these attacks are instrumental towards stopping more incidents like the Paris terror attacks, rather I think they are instrumental in causing more of these types of incidents, because they invariably create hatred, which is pretty much the prime ingredient in any terrorist's mind. And please don't equate this position to me thinking that we should do nothing, because at no point did I say such a thing. I just have little faith in military solutions alone, especially drone strikes or bombing raids, solving this issue at all.
I even kinda think that drone strikes are very likely to result in more retaliation towards civilian targets specifically because there are no military casualities. If the US is able to conduct warfare without soldiers getting killed, then the US will not feel the domestic pressure to disengage (once again, vietnam-iraq). Basically, if there are no military targets for people fighting against american (or western) involvement in a region, then they are only left with civilian targets. (And please don't equate this to me defending their actions, I'm merely trying to understand so that we can act in a way that makes these types of terrorist attacks less likely to happen. )
How the fuck did this turn from Islamic extremism to the states history of imperialism?
lol
pro-tip - don't discuss geopolitical shit with shouters.
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 21 2015 13:13. Posts 3093
hey if you read the thread you can see how it happened
and it is relevant, because part of the discussion is to what degree islam itself is part of the problem or entirely the problem. For example if you're arguing that while Islam has certain warlike-martyrdom-cherishing aspects to it, it's very possible for Muslim countries to be peaceful, it makes perfect sense to point to how it's the middle eastern muslims who are by far most prone to terrorism - the same group who happen to live in a part of the region which has been torn asunder on multiple occasions by geopolitics. Meanwhile, while I'm not claiming that muslims in south east asia have been entirely peaceful, the fact is that Indonesia is the country in the world with most muslims, but it's not nearly as plagued by acts of terror. Malaysia, mostly peaceful as well. In Myanmar, you even have Buddhists persecuting Muslims.
These examples imo do show that a country having a majority Muslim population does not necessarily entail it being a particularly violent country.
However, recent history is riddled with current examples of how in the context of warfare/rebellion, there are aspects of Islam that makes it a particularly dangerous religion, because there are ways of interpreting it (and yes, muslim scholars will happily point to areas where IS is in great conflict with the Quran. http://binbayyah.net/english/2014/09/24/fatwa-response-to-isis/ or http://lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf ) But history is also rife with examples of Islam peacefully coexisting with other religions, at least compared with other contemporary religions.
Anyway, the reason why these historical discussions are relevant is because history should color your contemporary world view. But this also goes both ways - people also tend to color their historical view based on their contemporary understanding. And this isn't really weird, historical events are, with few exceptions, open for interpretation, and everybody is likely to make mental connections that rationalize a historical event to make it fit their personal world view, although sometimes, if a piece of information is sufficiently likely to be true and sufficiently at discord with your current idea, you actually adjust the idea instead. And thus, whatever your political agenda is, if you want to convince people that you are correct, you want to present as many pieces of evidence as you can, historical and contemporary and the relation between them, that back up the world view you are trying to make people adopt.
This is also why the discussions relating christianity earlier were of importance. Because if you showcase how in the medieval age Christianity was just as brutal as Islam was (and here it is easy to find historical examples to back up either point of view - history is so large that everything has happened on many occasions, and there doesn't actually exist statistics from year 650 - 1700 over how many people died at the hands of either religion, besides even that would be wholly up for interpretation because like, did native americans die at the hands of christianity or not? etc.. ) then you've showcased how clearly, that religion managed to evolve, because current day Christianity is not violent in the way medieval christianity was. (Or is it? To what degree does american imperialism constitute christian violence? ) And thus you've established the principle that religions can evolve - which is obviously relevant to Islam. If it's not static, it's possible to influence it, and then it what direction do we influence it?
Then from my point of view, one great historical, social, ubiquitous truth is that whatever feelings people are subjected to also tend to be the feelings they themselves subject others to. Thus, from my point of view, if you accept the notion that religions can evolve and that they are influenced by their surroundings, the best way to turn Islam away from war, hatred and ignorance is to be at peace with them, love them, and educate them. Similarly, from my point of view the best way to turn the religion into even more war, hatred and ignorance is to wage war on them hate them, and be ignorant of them. And thus also, the people who argue that there can be no peaceful coexistence, some of these people being highly intelligent and in need of a logical foundation for their world view, will be inclined to see Islam as, and argue that Islam is, more staticly warlike than what someone like myself would be inclined to do.
you think us foreign policy is terrible and also like Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government? that irony -_-
Noam Chomsky is not only against US imperialism, but against the existence of your governments at all, he is an anarchist ffs, do you think anarchist support foreign invasions across the globe for economical and political reasons? lol
im well aware of his opinions, but these are somewhat irrelevant in that sentence either way. its just spitfres attempt to sound smart and sophisticated that went wrong
On November 20 2015 04:47 Baalim wrote:
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
On November 20 2015 05:33 Stroggoz wrote:
I agree with Baal on drone strikes, i don't think any serious observer would disagree.
As for Islam being more barbaric than Christianity, i have to disagree. And there are different types of Islam and Christianity connected to different institutions. Some are violent, and crazy, some are not.
in 2003 a group of powerful and fanatic christian fundamentalists invaded iraq, which has killed over 700,000 people. That's one example of extremist christian violence, but there are others.
ISIS has so far, killed many people but not as many as the neo conservatives who draw their power from christian fundamentalism in America.
I read a book today by Syrian historian Sami Moubayed, called 'under the black flag'. He has lived under ISIS's regime and describes Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's regime as almost identical to Saddam Husseins in its practices of torture and savagery, which is understandable, since he learn't all his techniques living in Husseins regime and he uses former Baathist party members as his henchmen. We should remember most of Europe and the neo-cons like Raegan and bush senior supported Saddam Hussein up until 1990, germany and america even gave him weapons of mass destruction like mustard gas. You can read this in 'The great conquest of civilization' by Robert Fisk.
ISIS grows out of something that has built up over hundreds of years, from a culmination first of salafi-wahhabi religion which was founded by the Saud family and some crazy religious fanatic. Their conquests in the middle east eventually led to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which are spreading this violent religion everywhere they can. America and Britian, the west in general have always opposed movements that try to seek to nationalize their resources, that is 'secular nationalism', so they support crazy fanatic totalitarian regimes like the saud family. It's a cheap way to conduct an imperialist policy. You keep get an elite group to do your dirty work for you, and let them keep a little of the money.
America supported Al Qaeda in 1979 in their plan to draw russia into a war they couldnt win. This plan was drawn up by the American statesman zbigniew breziznski.
in 1982, the Hafez al Assad regime in syria massacred their opposition who were wahhabi salafists, which then vowed revenge and joined Al qaeda and bin laden in afghanistan. Now they are back as Al Nusra.
ISIS was a branch off from Al qaeda, which is even more extremist than the Al qeada group is. ISIS is what you get when you rape a country as hard as the mongols did in 1258. It's easily predictable that when you destroy a country you will turn them into a bunch of fanatics. Any student of history will know this. And their are other factors which have helped create ISIS, like the ones i have pointed out. It's quite complex.
I havn't posted very often on LP and hardly visit anymore, but i came back and found a thread on one of my topics so i thought i would comment.
One of the reasons i left is people like dogmeat. I am no fan of being around stupid people. People like you don't respond to argument, for you to look in the mirror and think about what your responsible for is crazy, since it would be rational. that's why you blame problems on arabs and their inferior culture or whatever it may be. This is why the powers in Europe still rape the poorer nations with their neo-colonial policies.
i love how you blame christianity for terrible us foreign policy. yet when it comes to isis etc, you search for every reason but islam. you even use the term wahhabism, which is just a fancy term for following islam fundamentals. pretty much what chomsky would said
i take being called stupid by a syndicalist as a compliment
i don't blame US foreign policy on just christianity. I blame it mostly on the concentrations of power from its private and state institutions, but that's a long story. As for ISIS, of course islam is a reason for its creation. There are a lot of other reasons too, like the one's i pointed out. To blame any violence on just religion is not true in either of these cases. There are always complex reasons. As for wahhabism, every serious scholar and historian-not just chomsky, uses the term, how can they not?
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
The bombing of afghanistan was one the most immoral acts in modern history, in my view. It was predicted that the bombing would put 2.5 million extra afghans into starvation. It didn't happen though, but that doesn't stop the action from being terribly unethical.
As for Rwandan genocide, the party line given by US, EU and UN officials was that they didn't do anything to stop the atrocities. This is false, both the UN and American media have lied to the point that would make stalin proud. The Tutsi leader Paul Kagame is one of the most sadistic torturers in modern history. He invaded rwanda from uganda, assassinated the rwandan president by rpging his plane, and then preceded to carry out a genocide where most who died were Hutu.. This is ignored by the UN war tribual on rwanda and western intellectuals. 20 years later he is still one of the west's favourite dictators (gets his picture taken with bill gates at the economic forum ). And he's been plundering the congo ever since, where 6-10million have died since 1995.
There's a good book on this called 'enduring lies' by edward herman and david peterson.
I was no fan of the invasion of Afghanistan. But I do think it's at least possible to argue for the legitimacy of it, both from a political sciency view (US was attacked) and from a moral perspective (betterment of afghani lives impossible without ousting the taliban, even if it creates temporary problems, enabling the afghanis to become masters of their own destiny is a long term good).
Now, I'm fundamentally skeptical towards bombing (well, almost any non-defensive military action basically), because the inevitable civilian casualities will always create more hatred and tension, but at the same time, what are the options? Could the US just tolerate that the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan and harboring terrorist leaders who were plotting how to inflict most possible damage towards them?
Obviously they should never have created what eventually became them back in 79, obviously they should not have deliberately armed the Afghanis with just enough weaponry to defend against the Soviets but not enough weaponry to repel them (I don't remember where other than it being a source I considered trustworthy, but I recall reading about how the US intentionally avoided giving the Afghanis some particular anti-air missile because if the Soviets kept losing helicopters they would be more likely to withdraw quicker, and the US wanted the war to last as long as possible), obviously mostly any current hellhole on earth can wholly or partially be attributed to some geopolitical gameplay by the major powers, cold war was dirty as fuck, but still it's like, while we got here because of interventionism, what amount of civilian suffering, 'our' fault or not, should we currently tolerate? Would there be any possible way of reforming and moderating the Taliban without taking them out? I don't know this stuff, but what I'm saying is just that, unlike Iraq and Vietnam and multiple other scenarios where it's hard to find a single true, idealistic selling point for US military involvement, it's possible to make a different argument for Afghanistan.
If we want to get rid of the Taliban because its undemocratic then the safest option would be to give financial support to internal liberal democratic resistance in Afghanistan, if there is any. I do not think the Afghanistan war had any legitimacy. Suppose we want to bomb a country because it's harboring terrorists. Well, no one accepts that argument when the west harbors terrorists. Like, for example Orlando Bosch, a terrorist that blew up an airliner and was harbored by the Bush administration. This does not give Afghanistan the right to invade the US and start bombing the place.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Afghanistan invasion had less arguments than the Iraq invasion which had none. And if the USA didn't try to play god and only destabilized the region instead of on top of that tried to push their own culture and democracy things would've been far better, you can't force a society to change its ways over night.
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
Last edit: 21/11/2015 15:04
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 21 2015 16:02. Posts 3093
On November 17 2015 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
in regard to US foreign policy, the country has a very long and very consistent streak of rhetorically arguing for its principles while actually pursuing its interests. Wars/military involvement are sold to the population under the more or less truthful goal of helping the population (for the more, there's WW1/2/Korea/Rwanda, for the less there's pretty much every other military involvement I can think of, I guess like Afghanistan can be argued for), but (with the possible exception of Rwanda), there's pretty much never involvement without self interest, and sometimes (Vietnam, Iraq) the rhetoric is filled with deliberate lies and distortion.
The bombing of afghanistan was one the most immoral acts in modern history, in my view. It was predicted that the bombing would put 2.5 million extra afghans into starvation. It didn't happen though, but that doesn't stop the action from being terribly unethical.
As for Rwandan genocide, the party line given by US, EU and UN officials was that they didn't do anything to stop the atrocities. This is false, both the UN and American media have lied to the point that would make stalin proud. The Tutsi leader Paul Kagame is one of the most sadistic torturers in modern history. He invaded rwanda from uganda, assassinated the rwandan president by rpging his plane, and then preceded to carry out a genocide where most who died were Hutu.. This is ignored by the UN war tribual on rwanda and western intellectuals. 20 years later he is still one of the west's favourite dictators (gets his picture taken with bill gates at the economic forum ). And he's been plundering the congo ever since, where 6-10million have died since 1995.
There's a good book on this called 'enduring lies' by edward herman and david peterson.
I was no fan of the invasion of Afghanistan. But I do think it's at least possible to argue for the legitimacy of it, both from a political sciency view (US was attacked) and from a moral perspective (betterment of afghani lives impossible without ousting the taliban, even if it creates temporary problems, enabling the afghanis to become masters of their own destiny is a long term good).
Now, I'm fundamentally skeptical towards bombing (well, almost any non-defensive military action basically), because the inevitable civilian casualities will always create more hatred and tension, but at the same time, what are the options? Could the US just tolerate that the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan and harboring terrorist leaders who were plotting how to inflict most possible damage towards them?
Obviously they should never have created what eventually became them back in 79, obviously they should not have deliberately armed the Afghanis with just enough weaponry to defend against the Soviets but not enough weaponry to repel them (I don't remember where other than it being a source I considered trustworthy, but I recall reading about how the US intentionally avoided giving the Afghanis some particular anti-air missile because if the Soviets kept losing helicopters they would be more likely to withdraw quicker, and the US wanted the war to last as long as possible), obviously mostly any current hellhole on earth can wholly or partially be attributed to some geopolitical gameplay by the major powers, cold war was dirty as fuck, but still it's like, while we got here because of interventionism, what amount of civilian suffering, 'our' fault or not, should we currently tolerate? Would there be any possible way of reforming and moderating the Taliban without taking them out? I don't know this stuff, but what I'm saying is just that, unlike Iraq and Vietnam and multiple other scenarios where it's hard to find a single true, idealistic selling point for US military involvement, it's possible to make a different argument for Afghanistan.
If we want to get rid of the Taliban because its undemocratic then the safest option would be to give financial support to internal liberal democratic resistance in Afghanistan, if there is any. I do not think the Afghanistan war had any legitimacy. Suppose we want to bomb a country because it's harboring terrorists. Well, no one accepts that argument when the west harbors terrorists. Like, for example Orlando Bosch, a terrorist that blew up an airliner and was harbored by the Bush administration. This does not give Afghanistan the right to invade the US and start bombing the place.
But it's not just the harbors terrorists. It's the 'regime cruelly oppressess its own population while funding and enabling terrorism.'
Once again, not that I am supporting the invasion of afghanistan. But I really have a hard time seeing how it's on the same level of bad as Iraq/Vietnam. Basically, if bombing ever actually worked, then Afghanistan 2001 would from an american point of view be just about the most legitimate target in the world. I guess that's what I'm saying.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 21 2015 16:05. Posts 3093
spitfire I've never seen anyone on these forums, or hardly anywhere else in the past 5 years, say that the invasion of Iraq was not a disaster.
Afghanistan people are more likely to consider a disaster because of Iraq - that made US disengage too early and be spread too thinly for their mission to be completable. That's an argument anyway - the one I make is once again that bombs create hatred creates tension creates hostility and then circle is going - but if you believe in interventionism, then Afghanistan was almost as good of a target as they get.
After watching this I've read a few articles about the growing rape of women and mostly children in Sweden. Had no idea it was so bad, everything is so completely twisted there.
After watching this I've read a few articles about the growing rape of women and mostly children in Sweden. Had no idea it was so bad, everything is so completely twisted there.
"Sverigedemokraterna" which is considered a "racist party" in Sweden, are going in for the same politics about asyl/refugees etc as the other scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, Finland.
Does that mean they also consider Denmark, Norway, Finland racist ? I acctually wonder.
Basicly it says, its crisis. This crazy, insane man Stefan Lovfen already begged Norway and Denmark for help with their welfare immigrants. But we answered "no" and replied its their own fault. "In my opinion Sweden took in too many" our Prime minister added Hilarious
I honestly think Jimmie is the only man on the planet that can save Sweden now
:D
Last edit: 21/11/2015 18:27
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:01. Posts 6374
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
I said why do you keep repeating how bad is Islam when in this thread I havent seen anybody saying things like "they are not real muslims" or "terrorism has no faith", I think everybody in this thread agrees that Islam is the most violent religion in our time.
And yes there are other reasons why they attack, and that is the west imperialism and constant military presence in their region, it is not the only one, but a big one, along with their faith.
"in out time" seems like you didnt do your homework as cloud requested, still ignorant about how islam was spread by sword
anyway i m talking to you mostly b/c you seem to think we wont be facing these attacks if it werent for iraq and other interventions, which is very naive view
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:13. Posts 6374
you think us foreign policy is terrible and also like Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government? that irony -_-
Noam Chomsky is not only against US imperialism, but against the existence of your governments at all, he is an anarchist ffs, do you think anarchist support foreign invasions across the globe for economical and political reasons? lol
im well aware of his opinions, but these are somewhat irrelevant in that sentence either way. its just spitfres attempt to sound smart and sophisticated that went wrong
On November 20 2015 04:47 Baalim wrote:
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
On November 20 2015 05:33 Stroggoz wrote:
I agree with Baal on drone strikes, i don't think any serious observer would disagree.
As for Islam being more barbaric than Christianity, i have to disagree. And there are different types of Islam and Christianity connected to different institutions. Some are violent, and crazy, some are not.
in 2003 a group of powerful and fanatic christian fundamentalists invaded iraq, which has killed over 700,000 people. That's one example of extremist christian violence, but there are others.
ISIS has so far, killed many people but not as many as the neo conservatives who draw their power from christian fundamentalism in America.
I read a book today by Syrian historian Sami Moubayed, called 'under the black flag'. He has lived under ISIS's regime and describes Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's regime as almost identical to Saddam Husseins in its practices of torture and savagery, which is understandable, since he learn't all his techniques living in Husseins regime and he uses former Baathist party members as his henchmen. We should remember most of Europe and the neo-cons like Raegan and bush senior supported Saddam Hussein up until 1990, germany and america even gave him weapons of mass destruction like mustard gas. You can read this in 'The great conquest of civilization' by Robert Fisk.
ISIS grows out of something that has built up over hundreds of years, from a culmination first of salafi-wahhabi religion which was founded by the Saud family and some crazy religious fanatic. Their conquests in the middle east eventually led to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which are spreading this violent religion everywhere they can. America and Britian, the west in general have always opposed movements that try to seek to nationalize their resources, that is 'secular nationalism', so they support crazy fanatic totalitarian regimes like the saud family. It's a cheap way to conduct an imperialist policy. You keep get an elite group to do your dirty work for you, and let them keep a little of the money.
America supported Al Qaeda in 1979 in their plan to draw russia into a war they couldnt win. This plan was drawn up by the American statesman zbigniew breziznski.
in 1982, the Hafez al Assad regime in syria massacred their opposition who were wahhabi salafists, which then vowed revenge and joined Al qaeda and bin laden in afghanistan. Now they are back as Al Nusra.
ISIS was a branch off from Al qaeda, which is even more extremist than the Al qeada group is. ISIS is what you get when you rape a country as hard as the mongols did in 1258. It's easily predictable that when you destroy a country you will turn them into a bunch of fanatics. Any student of history will know this. And their are other factors which have helped create ISIS, like the ones i have pointed out. It's quite complex.
I havn't posted very often on LP and hardly visit anymore, but i came back and found a thread on one of my topics so i thought i would comment.
One of the reasons i left is people like dogmeat. I am no fan of being around stupid people. People like you don't respond to argument, for you to look in the mirror and think about what your responsible for is crazy, since it would be rational. that's why you blame problems on arabs and their inferior culture or whatever it may be. This is why the powers in Europe still rape the poorer nations with their neo-colonial policies.
i love how you blame christianity for terrible us foreign policy. yet when it comes to isis etc, you search for every reason but islam. you even use the term wahhabism, which is just a fancy term for following islam fundamentals. pretty much what chomsky would said
i take being called stupid by a syndicalist as a compliment
i don't blame US foreign policy on just christianity. I blame it mostly on the concentrations of power from its private and state institutions, but that's a long story. As for ISIS, of course islam is a reason for its creation. There are a lot of other reasons too, like the one's i pointed out. To blame any violence on just religion is not true in either of these cases. There are always complex reasons. As for wahhabism, every serious scholar and historian-not just chomsky, uses the term, how can they not?
i challenge you, show me new testament verses validating us foreign policy or any verses promoting violence really. til then your connections are just typical lefting nonsense and manipulation.
the way you used that term was just to cover up the fact that isis is doing nothing else but following islam fundamentals, similar to using term "islamist".
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:14. Posts 6374
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
well he indeed was, but still better than alternatives
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:15. Posts 6374
note this is 1y old
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:18. Posts 6374
quaran 33:21
VERILY, in the Apostle of God you have a good example for everyone who looks forward [with hope and awe] to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly.
ban baal
1
traxamillion United States. Nov 21 2015 20:33. Posts 10468
Why do I get the vibe sroggoz and spitfire are of middle eastern descent (esp Stroggoz)
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:35. Posts 6374
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
well he indeed was, but still better than alternatives
Yay at last something to agree on, don't know what the jew/atheist paradox should lead to other than showing a bias in society? There s a reason the usage of a martyr is so productive.
Cause traxx the prejudice has been ran deep in your life making you shallow minded, not only do I have nothing to do with arabs, our educational system was built in a way where the first 14 years of your life the only thing you learn in history classes is how osmans have enslaved us for 500 years and raped our women and killed our men pushing hatred deep into society, that may seem unbelievable to you simply because you are simple. Just as simple as the masses here that are all racist because of a system build to make them be so. There were ideas of replacing the information in a more softening way so hatred wouldn't be preached from such an early age and people PROTESTED about it. They protested to saving their children the unnecessary negative emotion about something that has ended over 120 years ago
Last edit: 22/11/2015 22:13
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 24 2015 07:30. Posts 2226
On November 21 2015 13:32 Stroggoz wrote:
If we want to get rid of the Taliban because its undemocratic then the safest option would be to give financial support to internal liberal democratic resistance in Afghanistan, if there is any. I do not think the Afghanistan war had any legitimacy. Suppose we want to bomb a country because it's harboring terrorists. Well, no one accepts that argument when the west harbors terrorists. Like, for example Orlando Bosch, a terrorist that blew up an airliner and was harbored by the Bush administration. This does not give Afghanistan the right to invade the US and start bombing the place.
This, to me, is an interesting frame of mind. Likening a country that observes the rule of law, and is founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, to a country where tribal nihilists have free reign.
I looked up this Bosch character, and it said he was found not guilty by a court for the accusation of having a part in an airliner that blew up. But it looks like he really did it, so it wouldn't be a stretch to grant that for the sake of argument. Now, I'm actually NOT an international lawyer, but this looks to me like a complaint you should file in that department rather than the US foreign policy box.
I'm sorry this guy apparently escaped justice. But shit does happen. OJ Simpson also killed his wife and a waiter. That doesn't mean the NFL can bomb the USA. Orlando Bosch is not a paramilitary pseudo-state hiding in the territory of a friendly regime. It looks like he's just a damn guy. If the US was housing the FLQ and they kept attacking Canada and killing people, then we would have a fitting analogy. Until then, what you have is nothing more than a case of the Venezuelan justice system letting a guilty guy off? Like, this is the best example you could come up with for Yankee hypocrisy?
This is what I mean when I say people have lost the ability to see degrees in anything. To compare things without equating them. People unironically saying the USA is just as bad as the Taliban.
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
Afghanistan invasion had less arguments than the Iraq invasion which had none. And if the USA didn't try to play god and only destabilized the region instead of on top of that tried to push their own culture and democracy things would've been far better, you can't force a society to change its ways over night.
Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban (this is the same Taliban that kills young girls who try to go to school), who was harboring al-Qaeda, who you may remember AtTaCkEd NeW yOrK cItY. However. "not having your country ripped apart by supposedly irreconcilable religious wars" is not some kind of unique American culture, it should be a natural human right of anyone born after the 18th century. It's true that you can't force a society to change overnight. It takes a long time, and a considered effort, and I submit there's nothing more worth doing if you do it right.
By the way, you can't simultaneously 1) argue that removing Saddam was a mistake after we've just been over in this thread that the Iraqi people couldn't do it themselves and 2) argue that nonintervention in Syria is going to have a favorable outcome for anyone except extremists if it's at all possible that ISIS is worse/harder to expel than the Baathists.
ISIS controls a region containing 8 million people. They are attacking other countries. All these bombs and massacres of civilians in the region and out, those are attacks, and they would happen whether or not France was bombing ISIS targets, because there's no such thing as a provoked massacre of civilians, and because, and I thought this was an uncontroversial idea, most of all they're just fucking psychotic. At a certain point you have to accept your enemy is the geopolitical Joker.
Everything about refugees is a sideshow that's keeping people in denial because they really can't fathom, in a liberal democratic paradise, that a geopolitical joker would exist "in 2015." It's a feel-good excuse to do nothing. What's that? 4 million of people have been driven out of Syria trying to escape violence? Let's give tens of thousands of them permanent residence in Sweden. thereifixedit.jpg. It presents the illusion of a solution. It's quite sad because it's possible to accept so many refugees that it has a negative effect on your home country while still not making a dent in the actual problem where the refugees came from. This perfectly fits the left's guilt complex, though.
The conflict in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced over 4 million. This has been going on for years already. Show me the possible future where we do nothing and the Middle East lives happily ever after. I want to know how that will work. Since the holidays are approaching, I want to be able to make an advent calendar of doing nothing in Syria and eat chocolate until the country is peaceful.
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
I would like to just take this opportunity to reiterate what a great humanitarian Saddam Hussein was and to express my sympathy for his family and chastise the brainwashed Iraqi tribunal that hanged him.
On November 21 2015 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Santafairy, as for the first post you replied to, both WW1 and WW2 were largely sold to the american public as efforts to help free the world from tyrrany. I didn't really mean it as liberating the germans or japanese, but as liberating the countries invaded by them. Particularly in WW1 was the government propaganda towards the american population massive to build support for conscription. And yeah the US didn't actually engage until they were attacked/declared war upon, but when they did, the effort to sell the good vs evil, of saving the world from tyrrany (which in the case of WW2 genuinely has some merit) story was massive.
I agree, but I think you're underestimating the aspect of it that would pass as patriotism at the time, that we would call jingoism today, aspects that aren't explicitly part of the good vs. evil narrative, if you see what I mean.
On November 21 2015 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As for the second post, that post of mine was specifically regarding drone strikes. (Well, any type of 'surgical bombing' that happens to have 'unintended civilian casualities'). I don't believe that these attacks are instrumental towards stopping more incidents like the Paris terror attacks, rather I think they are instrumental in causing more of these types of incidents, because they invariably create hatred, which is pretty much the prime ingredient in any terrorist's mind. And please don't equate this position to me thinking that we should do nothing, because at no point did I say such a thing. I just have little faith in military solutions alone, especially drone strikes or bombing raids, solving this issue at all.
Drone and air strikes were not invented on November 14th, 2015. They're something that needs to happen at some level to kill people, especially when you can't reach them with soldiers. They're obviously not a magic wand. There is no quick fix. But I don't see that you can categorically say they're a mistake? Help me out.
The day after the attacks, France dropped 20 bombs in a region that looks like this.
My point is we're not talking about Rolling Thunder tonnage here. It's not bombing at a Vietnam-level obvious mistake. Saying one SNAFU or another is the west's "fault" (which is victim-blaming and otherwise the same language used by extremists, by the way) may be true in the sense of foreign policy because of our support of conservatism, and it may be true in a meaningless Aristotelian sense of if the west didn't exist, extremists wouldn't be able to hate it. But in the case of surgical drone/air strikes, it strikes me, as it were, that you're overestimating the effect they have, and when you look at other factors I doubt we wouldn't still have the same quagmire today.
Saudi Arabia's also doing airstrikes, right? Syria is doing airstrikes, obviously. Is that all okay because they're brown-skinned countries? Are they not radicalizing people?
It's irrelevant now anyway. You're talking about getting a flu vaccine after you're already bedridden. The circumstances to run your experiment don't exist. ISIS has no peaceful endgame, whether you stop shooting or not, we know they're going to keep shooting.
On November 21 2015 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I even kinda think that drone strikes are very likely to result in more retaliation towards civilian targets specifically because there are no military casualities. If the US is able to conduct warfare without soldiers getting killed, then the US will not feel the domestic pressure to disengage (once again, vietnam-iraq). Basically, if there are no military targets for people fighting against american (or western) involvement in a region, then they are only left with civilian targets. (And please don't equate this to me defending their actions, I'm merely trying to understand so that we can act in a way that makes these types of terrorist attacks less likely to happen. )
I understand you're not an apologist. But this is fundamentally an argument of appeasement.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 24 2015 11:58. Posts 3093
nice post santafairy. You highlight exactly why this is an extremely difficult situation, because indeed, I can't offer a solution. I just.. I'm so afraid of this escalating, so I want us to take an as de-escalationary approach as we can. I understand likening this to appeasement - but even though this word has a dirty, pussified meaning post ww2, is there another way of de-escalating a conflict? The thing is though, the way I feel is basically that, any current IS member is fucked. This is harsh coming from me - because I fundamentally don't believe in free will, I fundamentally don't believe in people deserving anything, good or bad, yet in the case of IS, I kinda feel like joining that organization is a way of handing back in your library card, except for books we're talking value as a human being. I understand that IS needs to be destroyed, and I don't think their members are rehabilitable. But we cannot act in any way that increases their recruitment power.
IS, as fucked as they are, understand enough about how the west operates for them to manage to push exactly the right escalation buttons. It's like, their habitual torturing/burning alive/mangling of people broadcast live on the internet, that made it incredibly hard for any country to 'plant boots on the ground'. The aftermath of the battle of Mogadishu would be absolutely nothing compared to what would happen if IS captured american soldiers. Thus, we have to bomb, but bombs always have civilian casualities. Which is why I state that at least, we cannot 'just' bomb. And we most certainly cannot bomb while at the same time spouting off anti-islamic rhetoric (even if you genuinely fully believe in all of it, just understand that right now is not the right time). This, coupled with certain historical incidences (centures of crusades, followed by a USA-led invasion of afghanistan and Iraq labelled as a crusade against terror, support of Israel which in many ways has been obviously destabilizing and creating a common enemy), stuff that we can't undo, but that makes it easy to paint a picture of the west as an enemy - particularly to the 17 year old mourning his recently bombed brother, is reason why we must tread carefully. But then, at the same time, we can't tread carefully, because as you said, they control land areas containing 8 million people. And while a huge majority of the people residing in those areas are negative towards IS, they're also (from what little we've gotten of information from those regions) basically imprisoned, basically experiencing those that pledge allegiance to IS manage to reattain their freedom - just now with more wealth and women than before as well, and it is a fact that many IS members are more attracted to the bling that comes with the organization than any religious message they are trying to convey. (IS recruitment officers in Europe specifically target young muslim males with no future prospects, no relationships, and a lacking knowledge of Islam. The european muslims who go to Syria to fight rarely ever do so due to religious affiliation, but because they are promised excitement, wealth, and sex, all of which are inattainable to them in Europe. ) So IS, while I believe foreign policies of the west were instrumental in creating their initial support, is probably self-sustainable even without us bringing more fuel for their hatred, which means we have passed the point where nonconfrontation is an option.
But we still have to be so careful.
Like, follow this argument.
It's impossible to really estimate how many active terrorists exist. From quickly googling though, this page claims that it's 184 000. That's certainly a large enough number to cause a whole lot of death and turmoil - individual terrorists have on multiple occasions killed 100+ people. Yet, compared to the number of nearly 1 600 000 000 muslims in the world, it's a really tiny number, slightly more than one in every 10000. No white people generalization can possibly ever be made from a similar degree of support. (And yeah, I know that the numbers of muslims who 'to some degree' support terrorists is far higher (which usually means supporting their goals, not their means, just how like there are many Norwegians who support Breivik's goals - nobody will agree with his means though)). I am not really afraid of 184000 global terrorists. But I am incredibly afraid of what happens if the muslim population is sufficiently radicalized for this number to go from 0.01% to say, 1%? Then we're looking at 16 million instead. And I think rhetoric is a huge factor here. Especially when our hands are somewhat tied in terms of military involvement. Basically, I can see how we need to get involved militarily, and then yeah, bombs and drones will be essential - but we must do so coupled with rhetoric of ridding the region of the perversion that is IS (hey, I also support calling them Daesh, for this very reason), and without espousing any type of generic, anti-muslim sentiments along the way. And this is just.. it's so important.
I also must state that there is a difference between drone strikes targetting IS targets in the middle east and drone strikes in Pakistan though. The latter seems far less warranted (and thus also far more radicalizing).
You also asked about Syria and Saudi-Arabia.I recall reading articles in Norwegian newspapers from early on in the conflict, when it was just a civil war, before any mention of IS was mentioned, where they were interviewing some moderate Syrian who had been engaged in some of the protests. He was warning very specifically about the development; (it was in Norwegian and like 3 years ago, can't find a link) he stated that the brutalization that the syrian population was currently enduring at the hands of Assad's special forces was forever altering them, brutalizing themselves, and he was really afraid of what groups were going to pop up as a response to it. It's not rocket science that hatred spawns hatred - it's fundamentally human behavior which has been true for as long as we have been conscious. So yes, Syria and Saudi-Arabia are no better. But lol, it's not because they are brown skinned. It's because they are not democracies, rather they are countries famed for being brutal, oppressive dictatorships. If we, as the democratic west, feel like we can justify actions by stating that 'look at this brutal oppressive dictatorship, they're doing the same thing', then where does that place us? I'm not even remotely comfortable with being on the same level as them in terms of moral behavior.
Being a democracy comes with a healthy set of benefits. It also comes with a set of responsibilities. Not only because our rulers are supposed to reflect the will of its people. Also because it looks that way to others. I can without problems state that the actions of IS in no way represent the will of muslims worldwide. I can do the same for Assad. The civil war in Syria and other Arab spring countries originated exactly because the population disagreed so much with their regimes (granted, I'm not saying that these revolutions were pushing for increased secularism, although only factions of the revolting groups had islamification in mind). However, when a democratically elected president of the US claims that he needs to invade two Islamic countries, with popular support in his population, in an attempt to wage a crusade against terrorism, it becomes very easy for a terrorist demagogue to argue that the american people themselves are to blame.
A shit storm is coming.
This situation will require a lot of rationality and compromises to be solved and I don't feel like this is what we will get with leaders like Putin and Erdogan
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 24 2015 22:26. Posts 6374
Nuke the turks
ban baal
1
traxamillion United States. Nov 25 2015 00:58. Posts 10468
prejudice is a big part of my life as a poker player. When I go to the casino I am instantly making judgements based on age and race before I have even played 1 hand at a table.
Am I a racist asshole then? Or may there be some value in prejudicial thoughts?
The TSA at airports are more likely to stop Middle Eastern passengers. Sure it may not be completely PC but truth is a Muslim is more likely to take down a plane than a white man from seattle with a wife and kids in private school. Stereotypes exist because they do truthfully characterize the target group in some manner. I am no asshole for acting accordingly.
----
Going back to my bigoted life of White Privilege now, peace guys
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 25 2015 01:39. Posts 3093
well it's like, it does make sense. In a way. Since 2000, there have been like 20ish plane hijackings significant enough to get a wikipedia entry, and at least 15 of them by muslims. Aside from 9/11, most of these actually had no casualities btw.
But then, that's 15 instances in 15 years. I can't find numbers for how many muslim passengers there are, but for 2015, we're looking at a total projected number of more than 3 billion airline passengers. Obviously muslims in general live in poorer regions and will on average be much less likely to use airplanes, so even though they're about a fifth of the world's population, they're not close to a fifth of the airline passengers. But let's just say for the sake of simplicity, and to make sure that I err on the 'right' side, that only one in 300 passengers is muslim. I'm sure it's significantly more - but this gives us an easy number: 10 million per year. Now, going by this number, and by how likely a hijacking is to have a muslim culprit, we'd be looking at muslims being hundreds of times more likely to hijack a plane than what well, other people would be. (I can accept that it's a triple digit number even if we adjust the number of passengers to the real number, it's not really important. I can also accept that there might even be some deterring aspect of the likelihood of being searched or whatever making it less likely for a hijacking to be attempted, but I mean, it's not like it's the threat of a random body search that hinders you from bringing a weapon - the scanners and metal detectors all people are subject to take care of this quite nicely I think?)
But then, that's still 10 million muslims flying without hijacking a plane for each hijacked plane. In what instance is any of us fine with being profiled based on something one out of 10 million white people do? Isn't it conceivable that maybe (no stats here. just ideas), this type of profiling actually does more bad than good, because if you look at 10 million people, and you look at all the latent mental issues likely to be present in such a large group of people, some number of people might actually find this incessant suspicion and distrust so annoying that it combines with their already present problems to function as a further trigger for a personal radicalization process? Imo it's just, this whole profiling part, while it to some degree 'makes sense', is also pushing the us vs them narrative further, and contributing to increased polarization, which is so dangerous in today's globalized world.
Liquid'Drone, is this the same retoric as "more people are killed in traffic than in terrorist events" ?
The first thing some SV politician said after the Paris attacks...
I mean, if the goverment selected 10 people to be drown every year. I can sure say "its not a big problem because the chance you would be selected would be less than getting cancer". And the chance you get stoned, hanged or get your hand cut off in Iraq / Saudi Arabia for some minor incident that might not even be a crime in our country might still be smaller than getting killed in traffic. But it doesnt mean these countries are not cruel or we shouldnt fight it.
:D
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 25 2015 17:44. Posts 3093
Sorry Erling but I don't really understand what you are asking.
If you're asking me if I think that current fear of terrorism is way overblown, then yeah, of course it is. Chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack is absolutely miniscule, not just compared to traffic, it's more comparable to being struck by lightning.. But that doesn't mean that I don't want us to combat it - all I am saying is that any combatting of terrorism must not lead to the creation of more terrorists - and certainly not more than what we kill, because then we will start a circle leading to perpetual war.
And this does not just apply to the actual 'military fight' against terrorism (where it should be obvious to anyone that watching your family perish to bombs is likely to make you hate the party responsible for that. Like, I don't know what the equation for how many terrorists you have to kill for each civilian you kill for us to see a net decrease in terrorist numbers, all I am saying regarding this is that it is perfectly understandable to me that civilian casualities create a backlash, and that thus, even disregarding all humanitarian ideals and the instrinsic value of civilian lives (which I personally find very important), then the fight against terrorism can't be fought stupidly and recklessly.)
It applies just the same to discussions around terrorism. I am hypothesizing that terrorism (in whatever form) spawns from a multitude of reasons. Once again, I don't have an equation for 'which factors contribute which percentage', but I would say it's something like; unfathomable desperation/hopelessness / dehumanizing ideological beliefs / enormous hatred. Basically, you can't become a terrorist if you're a happy guy with good life prospects. You can't become a terrorist if you believe in the sanctity of all human life, and you can't become a terrorist if you're a loving guy surrounded by love. Then, I'm postulating that: Firstly, people are emotionally influenced by their surroundings. If people are subject to hate, they are more likely to become hateful. Secondly, yes, I agree that certain interpretations of Islam (but only certain interpretations, and if you believe all Muslims have the same interpretation, then you are wrong) fits into the dehumanizing ideological beliefs category - but I am also arguing that this is not unique to Muslims. Basically, my argument is that when you have the combination of hopelessness and no life prospects and being surrounded by hatred, it is quite normal for humans to interpret their normative ideology in a way that becomes more dehumanizing and hateful. Everything is interconnected with everything, you can't explain terrorism by merely pointing to Islam, because it should be self evident that it by itself is not a sufficient ingredient. (If it were, not only would we not see non-muslim terrorists (and being Norwegian, we should both know that it's possible to become a terrorist without adhering to any of the tenets of Islam), then the numbers of Islamic terrorists would necessarily be much closer aligned with the number of Muslims worldwide - and as stated, even the worst estimates for amount of active terrorists places us closer to a 1:10000 ratio. )
Now, for all my arguments, this doesn't mean I don't think there can be valid criticism of either Islam or how Europe is handling the refugee crisis. I do believe that if we accept a bunch of refugees, but that they are then unable to contribute to society in any meaningful way or find any life improvement, then you get a situation of hopelessness and no life prospects. I also think that Islam has some elements (as do any religion with an 'Afterlife', because then the Afterlife by default becomes more important than the current one) that are dangerous, particularly with regard to martyrdom. And we do see that in certain Mosques, there are people who try to recruit young muslims who have felt the combined no-prospects-hopelessness-hated by society, and who then present them with a dehumanizing, dangerous interpretation of Islam coupled with prospects for the future, in the form of excitement, wealth and sex (and hey, when I was a nearly-virgin-18 year old, I was dumb enough to believe a lot of idiotic shit in hopes of getting laid). But then it becomes so, so important that we at least do not supply Muslims with the third ingredient - hatred, because then I am postulating that numbers of muslim terrorists will grow significantly.
This is why I think any 'close the borders to muslim immigration' argument is really dangerous, because we already have a large amount of them, and I know that if I were Muslim, this type of argument or political action taken by my country of residence would by me be experienced as hatred. I also think 'deport them', or 'don't allow them to practice their faith', or any more extreme measure would be dehumanizing - and it would make our own society less worthy of protection and admiration.
So we need to have a respectful debate. We need to avoid generalizing arguments, we need to not see people as muslims first and people second. We can't generalize based on the actions of an absolutely tiny minority, and as for the fact that larger minorities (and sometimes majorities) of Muslims hold views that, while very different from 'I personally want to kill people for having a different faith', are still problematic, discriminatory and sometimes dehumanizing themselves, these issues are issues we need to tackle in a humanitarian, calm, reasonable manner. Essentially, and I know that I myself am sometimes at fault here - I am a flawed human like everyone else - we always need to have a de-escalationary approach, both to policy choice and how we debate these issues, because if we do not, then the situation is only bound to become more tense and more dangerous.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 25 2015 17:57. Posts 3093
I actually just read this article right after posting that. It's a pretty succinct breakdown of how I feel, and with more weight behind the words than what I can offer.
Nah, mate. Making arguments based on prejudice is quite smart, keep it up.... It's one thing to be thinking it and being aware of the stereotypes and potential things that can come out of them, its quite another to just act on them blindly like you obviously do - kudos on trying to justify it with arguments that directly strike your beliefs down.
And no that doesn't make you a racist, makes you shallow as i said
Drone, your posts made me think of this funny dialogue from Homeland. + Show Spoiler +
On the most recent episode of season two, the Jewish Berenson declares in the context of searching for Brody’s Al-Qaida contact among hundreds of people that: “We prioritize. First the dark skinned ones” should be watched. When a white colleague objects that this is “straight up racial profiling,” Berenson responds that it is “actual profiling. Most Al-Qaida operatives are going to be Middle Eastern or African.” This is being said while the main Al-Qaida CIA target on the show is a white marine. The African-American Estes and Obama stand-in expectedly offers no protests to the Jewish Berenson. He just says “OK!”
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 03 2015 16:23. Posts 6374
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 03 2015 19:56. Posts 6374
soberstone United States. Dec 04 2015 01:11. Posts 2662
It's fucking ridiculous. You can't say that Islamic Extremism is poisonous horseshit without offending some high-horsed liberal. Well guess what, if the truth offends you, go fuck yourself, its the truth.
Told you we'd have a new thread each month. One the shooters was their co-worker, basically friends with them, invited to parties etc, name was
Syed Farook, I think he was Christian or an Athiest, not sure though. lol
People had a lot of good things to say about him, went to high school then college. You think refugees are a good idea then good luck.
I might be wrong, he might be hindu or hispanic/christian fundamentalist
Last edit: 04/12/2015 01:36
1
soberstone United States. Dec 04 2015 01:58. Posts 2662
So let me get this straight.
There are lots of refugees. Most of them are just innocent peaceful people presumably. Some are Muslim, some are Christian (most are Muslim, but not by any means all).
There are dozens of Muslim 3rd world theocratic countries in the area that share similar values to the refugees - who do not hold American values (freedom, liberty, equality, etc). It doesn't mean they are bad people, but those are not Muslim values. It's a fact. Not up for debate. None of them will accept Christians who do hold American values. They don't really want the Muslims because of the Shiite / Sunni conflict (seems to be a lot of violence with Islam these days, not just through Jihad) but they'd take them if the UN put on enough pressure (but they won't because they are cowards).
So am I a bigot for saying it might be practical for America to take in the Christian refugees and force the Muslim Theocracies to take the Muslims by threatening to give their countries less money (Saudi Arabia for example)? Wouldn't that just make sense? Or are we more into the concept of equality over practicality, even if it inevitably means the failure of assimilation and more terrorism.
Answer me this please. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just asking why my logic is flawed.
And FWIW, this is not our fault, these motherfucking theocratic Sharia governments have been killing and gassing their own long before America intervened. You know, like Sadaam Hussein used mustard gas to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Then we tried to do something about it and everyone got mad. The whole Western Imperialism argument is for indoctrinated sheep.
Last edit: 04/12/2015 02:12
1
soberstone United States. Dec 04 2015 03:57. Posts 2662
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 04 2015 07:26. Posts 2226
It's true that when recruiting young people, especially young men, from a sexually repressive culture/religion, that the sadistic promise of killing and raping, we can all imagine, it would be tempting for retarded young people on the verge of psychosis. (While this base sexual appeal can apply to men, I don't see that it applies to the women who willingly - I'll say "willingly" despite that I doubt getting out is an option for either sex - join up with Daesh, although it's possible that base female sexuality might find it partly attractive, just like all the twats who flooded social media saying the Boston Marathon bomber was cute and so on.
But this kind of thing isn't strictly a sexual inadequacy or sexual complex or whatever. That's an aspect of baiting people into it, but that's not how totalitarian machines sustain themselves (though fortunately they don't seem to last forever). Places like the Third Reich, Stalin's USSR, the Khmer regime's Cambodia, Baathist Iraq, the DPRK, they're not fundamentally fueled by sexless young men. It's something else, and it's important to realize that. It's an organism which at its heart is based on hatred, psychopathy, and the lust to grab and hold onto power, as far as I can tell.
I'm not saying this to be rhetorically cheap. I can't imagine much worse evils on this planet. Maybe I spend more time ruminating about stuff like this, but it's been eye-opening recently to see how little perspective people have. The way people are so safely sheltered that they don't, or can't, bother thinking.
That was actually a terrible read, and I can briefly explain why.
Unlike the theologically-trained recruits selected by Al Qaeda, these sign-ups are rarely “Islamic” or devout to begin with. They speak the colloquial French of the suburbs, not Arabic, and don’t come to ISIL by reading the Koran or obsessively praying alongside their Muslim brothers.
Most people in ISIS don't speak French, believe it or not. This article starts out as an honest appraisal of the failure of a class of people, Moslems, to integrate in France specifically, and then absurdly leaps to that alone being the picture of ISIS.
Almost one in four “radicalization alerts” to France’s “Stop Jihadisme” hotline and government channels concern converts, with 62% from “Arab-Muslim families.” Of French fighters for ISIL in Syria and Iraq, almost a quarter are believed to be converts.
Essentially she's trying to claim that French "converts" aren't really part of the religion, and therefore radical converts aren't part of a religious problem. Yet she's also counting 62% of 1 in 4 (about 15.5%, between 1/7 and 1/6) of those people as "converts" despite that they came from "Arab-Muslim families." How can anyone write this? Are you kidding me? If you were born to two Baptist parents, and converted to Baptism when you were 20, do you consider "convert" would be the most appropriate way to describe how you adopted your faith?
Then she admits that most radicals aren't converts anyway (in other words, 3 in 4 radicalization alerts and 3 in 4 French Daesh fighters are about people who ARE NOT converts - i.e., people who were always in the religion), so clearly conversion is not the main problem for France.
“Deradicalization” campaigns are thus unlikely to dissuade them either, “because radicalism is exactly what the terrorists are looking for,” Roy says.
Do I even need to touch this gem of sheer retardation and defeatism?
Let me pose a harmless question. We all know young people to rebel against their parents. Smoke weed, drink, whatever. Have you ever hated your parents so much that you considered joining a terrorist army that controls half a country? Does this woman's thesis adequately explain the growth of Daesh?
Her point basically boils down to "many terrorists have relatives that are terrorists." What an amazing insight. I'm no genealogist, but I hear that blood is thicker than water. Would she not expect relatives to radicalize relatives in the framework of such a personal religion like Islam? And if the author thinks it should be unusual for people to become radicalized with their siblings, wouldn't that be a clue that maybe there's something about radical Islam that's especially fucked up?
On December 04 2015 00:58 soberstone wrote:
So let me get this straight.
There are lots of refugees. Most of them are just innocent peaceful people presumably. Some are Muslim, some are Christian (most are Muslim, but not by any means all).
There are dozens of Muslim 3rd world theocratic countries in the area that share similar values to the refugees - who do not hold American values (freedom, liberty, equality, etc). It doesn't mean they are bad people, but those are not Muslim values. It's a fact. Not up for debate. None of them will accept Christians who do hold American values. They don't really want the Muslims because of the Shiite / Sunni conflict (seems to be a lot of violence with Islam these days, not just through Jihad) but they'd take them if the UN put on enough pressure (but they won't because they are cowards).
So am I a bigot for saying it might be practical for America to take in the Christian refugees and force the Muslim Theocracies to take the Muslims by threatening to give their countries less money (Saudi Arabia for example)? Wouldn't that just make sense? Or are we more into the concept of equality over practicality, even if it inevitably means the failure of assimilation and more terrorism.
Answer me this please. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just asking why my logic is flawed.
And FWIW, this is not our fault, these motherfucking theocratic Sharia governments have been killing and gassing their own long before America intervened. You know, like Sadaam Hussein used mustard gas to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Then we tried to do something about it and everyone got mad. The whole Western Imperialism argument is for indoctrinated sheep.
The region has and is taking most (as in like 95%) of the 4 million + refugees. Germany and Sweden are taking hundreds of thousands together. What the USA would take in is probably a pittance. I haven't looked much. It's common for countries to give people asylum, and that's a good thing, especially with many Muslim countries, where an atheist or homosexual or someone like that, facing serious persecution and threats, if they manage to escape, definitely deserve safety somewhere.
What I have a severe problem with is that people I know apply for visas and get rejected, yet some guy's house burns down in the desert, and the humanitarian answer to that is to give him permanent residency in Germany. That's just not an answer to what's going on in Syria on a large scale. It's an excuse. "Well country x took in some refugees, we've done all we can" and meanwhile Syria is still totally fucked up.
On November 25 2015 16:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And this does not just apply to the actual 'military fight' against terrorism (where it should be obvious to anyone that watching your family perish to bombs is likely to make you hate the party responsible for that. Like, I don't know what the equation for how many terrorists you have to kill for each civilian you kill for us to see a net decrease in terrorist numbers, all I am saying regarding this is that it is perfectly understandable to me that civilian casualities create a backlash, and that thus, even disregarding all humanitarian ideals and the instrinsic value of civilian lives (which I personally find very important), then the fight against terrorism can't be fought stupidly and recklessly.)
I feel like you haven't internalized that these people fight and kill each other as a way of life, completely independent of the west.
On November 25 2015 16:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It applies just the same to discussions around terrorism. I am hypothesizing that terrorism (in whatever form) spawns from a multitude of reasons. Once again, I don't have an equation for 'which factors contribute which percentage', but I would say it's something like; unfathomable desperation/hopelessness / dehumanizing ideological beliefs / enormous hatred. Basically, you can't become a terrorist if you're a happy guy with good life prospects. You can't become a terrorist if you believe in the sanctity of all human life, and you can't become a terrorist if you're a loving guy surrounded by love. Then, I'm postulating that: Firstly, people are emotionally influenced by their surroundings. If people are subject to hate, they are more likely to become hateful. Secondly, yes, I agree that certain interpretations of Islam (but only certain interpretations, and if you believe all Muslims have the same interpretation, then you are wrong) fits into the dehumanizing ideological beliefs category - but I am also arguing that this is not unique to Muslims. Basically, my argument is that when you have the combination of hopelessness and no life prospects and being surrounded by hatred, it is quite normal for humans to interpret their normative ideology in a way that becomes more dehumanizing and hateful. Everything is interconnected with everything, you can't explain terrorism by merely pointing to Islam, because it should be self evident that it by itself is not a sufficient ingredient. (If it were, not only would we not see non-muslim terrorists (and being Norwegian, we should both know that it's possible to become a terrorist without adhering to any of the tenets of Islam), then the numbers of Islamic terrorists would necessarily be much closer aligned with the number of Muslims worldwide - and as stated, even the worst estimates for amount of active terrorists places us closer to a 1:10000 ratio. )
Yes, anybody can become a terrorist. Many ideologies can be co-opted for violence. It's not unique to Islam. It doesn't need to be. It is far and away dominated by Islam, and that's why radical Islam is a problem per se because it has so much of the market share of terrorism.
Please take 5 minutes to flip through this list. Like 95% of it is Islamism, sectarianism, or what have you. It's true that most Muslims aren't terrorists. But there are 7 billion people in the world, and maybe 1.6 billion of those are Muslims. We know they're not all terrorists. But why does ''Allahu Ahbar'' show up at almost all terrorist incidents? Why is Islam nearly always involved with what's on this list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015
Also, where did you get 1:10000? There's 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, right? 160,000 of those are terrorists at the most, is that what you're saying? When Daesh alone claims to have a strength of 200,000?
On November 25 2015 16:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Now, for all my arguments, this doesn't mean I don't think there can be valid criticism of either Islam or how Europe is handling the refugee crisis. I do believe that if we accept a bunch of refugees, but that they are then unable to contribute to society in any meaningful way or find any life improvement, then you get a situation of hopelessness and no life prospects. I also think that Islam has some elements (as do any religion with an 'Afterlife', because then the Afterlife by default becomes more important than the current one) that are dangerous, particularly with regard to martyrdom. And we do see that in certain Mosques, there are people who try to recruit young muslims who have felt the combined no-prospects-hopelessness-hated by society, and who then present them with a dehumanizing, dangerous interpretation of Islam coupled with prospects for the future, in the form of excitement, wealth and sex (and hey, when I was a nearly-virgin-18 year old, I was dumb enough to believe a lot of idiotic shit in hopes of getting laid). But then it becomes so, so important that we at least do not supply Muslims with the third ingredient - hatred, because then I am postulating that numbers of muslim terrorists will grow significantly.
This is why I think any 'close the borders to muslim immigration' argument is really dangerous, because we already have a large amount of them, and I know that if I were Muslim, this type of argument or political action taken by my country of residence would by me be experienced as hatred. I also think 'deport them', or 'don't allow them to practice their faith', or any more extreme measure would be dehumanizing - and it would make our own society less worthy of protection and admiration.
So we need to have a respectful debate. We need to avoid generalizing arguments, we need to not see people as muslims first and people second. We can't generalize based on the actions of an absolutely tiny minority, and as for the fact that larger minorities (and sometimes majorities) of Muslims hold views that, while very different from 'I personally want to kill people for having a different faith', are still problematic, discriminatory and sometimes dehumanizing themselves, these issues are issues we need to tackle in a humanitarian, calm, reasonable manner. Essentially, and I know that I myself am sometimes at fault here - I am a flawed human like everyone else - we always need to have a de-escalationary approach, both to policy choice and how we debate these issues, because if we do not, then the situation is only bound to become more tense and more dangerous.
One of your problems is calling for a disconnected, level-headed debate while saying you know what the answer isn't. Dismissing things out of hand because you somehow know they're wrong. Closing borders to Muslim immigration is an extreme proposition, one that will probably never become reality, and if it were a mistake, then we could figure that out easily with an open discussion. And if you're going to talk about decreasing immigration, then talking about stopping immigration is also a part of understanding that.
There's something wrong with the argument I'm seeing a lot:
-"The west" rejecting Muslims/refugees is exactly what "the terrorists" want
-because that would lead to further radicalization and violence
-Therefore you have to accept xyz people into your country, people I just admitted become violent at the drop of a hat, because if you don't accept them, they will kill you even more err, if you don't accept them, the terrorists win, I mean
Very fucking freaky to hear adults rationalize like this.
As to current-est events, it's gotten to be the most predictable shit.
>Shooting happens.
"This is why guns should be illegal! There's like a mass shooting every day omg."
>Guy has radical Islamic ties.
"Omg, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are like 0.000000000000000000001% stop spreading fear that's how they win!"
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
seen a lot of funny social media comments about this latest one. kinda weird people want to inject political agendas into this stuff.
continue to find it odd how ignorant the average person is to general middle eastern history as well. actually broke a rule and had to ask one guy who controlled the territory of Iraq prior to WW1 and of course nobody with very strong opinions on imperialism had the slightest clue.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Dec 04 2015 22:29. Posts 3093
Either way, whether it's 1:10k or 1:5k (and that's worldwide) is largely irrelevant to my overarching argument of not treating individual muslims with suspicion and fear and not allowing this extreme minority to have definition power over what constitutes Islam. Also, I'm not disputing that terrorism is currently way more prevalent in Islam than for any other group, I'm also not disputing that there would/could be war in the Middle East without western involvement, I'm just trying to showcase that how it currently is is not a historical constant, I already posted about why I find this important.
I can kinda get what you're saying about me not wanting a disconnected, level-headed debate while being dismissive, but like, I at least only think I'm being dismissive of the ideas that you yourself find extreme? I also think you might just not understand what the current European political climate is like, it's extremely heated and polarized, and suggestions such as 'close borders to muslim immigration' has significant traction in various european populations. I'm not claiming that my side is innocent. I think it's problematic how leftist debaters have a tendency to assume that disagreement stems from the moral inferiority of the opposition (whereas I also think it's problematic how the right side tends to assume that disagreement comes from the intellectual inferiority of the opposition ), I'm even sure I have been guilty of this in the past and might occasionally still be guilty of it. And also, I do have an agenda, even if I want to have a honest and open debate, I'm more interested in changing the minds of others than I am of changing my own mind - I do think I'm correct about stuff when I voice my opinion).
lol POKER
1
soberstone United States. Dec 05 2015 18:29. Posts 2662
so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs
In my opinion the best Millenial free thinker in the US, yes. And yes he believes in God and Free Will. Does this surprise you? A belief in God is not an indictment nor a boost to ones intellectual resume. The fact that you think this is relevant already tells me a bit about how you believe only Atheists can be ultimately rationale, which is hilarious juvenile non-sense and shows your bias. The best free-thinking Atheist post Christopher Hitchens (who was very good by the way) I've heard is Sam Harris and he's really not a very good philosopher at all.... IMO ofcourse. Ben Shapiro is very open about his bias, who cares? We are all biased, its about intellectual honesty and breaking down the barriers of political correctness and absurd moral platitudes that have no place in reality.
so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs
In my opinion the best Millenial free thinker in the US, yes. And yes he believes in God and Free Will. Does this surprise you? A belief in God is not an indictment nor a boost to ones intellectual resume. The fact that you think this is relevant already tells me a bit about how you believe only Atheists can be ultimately rationale, which is hilarious juvenile non-sense and shows your bias. The best free-thinking Atheist post Christopher Hitchens (who was very good by the way) I've heard is Sam Harris and he's really not a very good philosopher at all.... IMO ofcourse. Ben Shapiro is very open about his bias, who cares? We are all biased, its about intellectual honesty and breaking down the barriers of political correctness and absurd moral platitudes that have no place in reality.
He could be a great thinker, but it's impossible to know from what he says in the link you posted because most of what he says returns to the fact that he's a theist. Allow me to be skeptical of someone's intellectual honesty (or maybe intelligence) when he claims to believe specifically in the Judeo-Christian God. If you are going to believe in something so specific in our times you should at least not take for granted that's it's easy for everyone to arrive to your own conclusions, or that your belief should be a valid starting point for social interaction.
How could a person who self righteously uses both evolution and "soul" in his narrative (assuming he doesn't deny evolution,idk) convince me of having the necessary intellectual honesty to break down the evils that you mention in your post?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs
In my opinion the best Millenial free thinker in the US, yes. And yes he believes in God and Free Will. Does this surprise you? A belief in God is not an indictment nor a boost to ones intellectual resume.
Except that believing in something that we have no logical or empirical evidence of is by definition irrational.
But indeed not all great minds are immune to indoctrination, but make no mistake, it todays society it is a great statistical indicative of intellect
Just yesterday? False flag, it's the government or Christian/Athiests trying to turn people against refugees
because the perp shouted "..this is for mother syria..." it's not even even wednesday yet. Three people stabbed, one almost beheaded but police were able to taze the guy. Seems like the "radicalized" ones are having a spree and still nobody from their group e.g. moderates, muslim countries like malaysia, indonesia, progressive middle east leaders - no huge comments declarations of support to help fight this thing still? no condemnation or pledge to flush out every terrorist or "radicalized" group in their respective areas. White apologists doing all that for them, and we're the idiots - seems reasonable eh?
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 07 2015 19:08. Posts 2226
"we could defeat ISIS easily on the battlefield"
"that's exactly what they want"
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
soberstone United States. Dec 08 2015 04:20. Posts 2662
On December 07 2015 18:08 Santafairy wrote:
"we could defeat ISIS easily on the battlefield"
"that's exactly what they want"
The guy is a disgrace. I am so angry at my country for electing this clown a 2nd time. If we had just left a residual force of troops in Iraq instead of pulling them all out for purely political reasons, ISIS would not exist. This is absolute fact. Noone with any real knowledge of the situation from a military intelligence perspective disputes that.
And the leftist argument is always "so what, you want to occupy everywhere forever?". Well, under these circumstances, as a matter of fact we do, just like Germany and Japan, where we have had a military presence since WWII and who are now completely different governments.
I disagree with Bush's decision to invade Hussein's Iraq, but atleast it was based on military intelligence and bi-partisan support (including Hillary Clinton's, who is just wretched)
But the way Obama has handled the situation from Benghazi on wards is the biggest disgrace. Lies, stifling of speech through political correctness, class and race warfare, violating the Constitution at a record rate, sinking our economy with terrible deals and over-regulation, record debt, making stupid awful deals with fucking Iran (who is barely better than ISIS), and abandoning Israel.
Obama plays the hand he was dealt like Hellen Keller at a high stakes NL table and is taking not just the US, but the world down in a flame of shit. We need new leadership ASAP.
One thing about these figures is I'm pretty sure they're only tallying active battlefield combatants.
It's worth noting that ISIS still has full control of Mosul, a city of around 1.5-2kk people. This includes a police force, medical, etc. all run by ISIS.
Sure some of these people might hate ISIS, but I think it's a bit naive to think that they don't have a fair amount of local supporters.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 08 2015 07:08. Posts 2226
the US Terror Watchlist has 1 million people on it
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
soberstone United States. Dec 09 2015 03:28. Posts 2662
so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs
In my opinion the best Millenial free thinker in the US, yes. And yes he believes in God and Free Will. Does this surprise you? A belief in God is not an indictment nor a boost to ones intellectual resume.
Except that believing in something that we have no logical or empirical evidence of is by definition irrational.
But indeed not all great minds are immune to indoctrination, but make no mistake, it todays society it is a great statistical indicative of intellect
Atheists are inherently more rationale than theists? What a hilarious proposition. I'd love to see your statistical proof of such a claim, which I will then rip apart as a mistake in correlation vs causation since most Atheists come from high-income backgrounds and are therefore more likely to be indoctrinated by Secularist mediums like the media and universities.
Belief OR complete disbelief in God is faith-based. Science does nothing, and will never do anything to explain the starting point of the Universe or Human Life - and no, Evolutionary Theory does nothing to prove how Life started. The primordial ooze argument has been completely debunked as junk science. It's a gaping whole in evolutionary theory, among many holes, read up on your science fellas. I'm not a religious person and I do acknowledge that scientific evidence outright shits on literal biblical interpretations, which are only applicable to religious fundamentalists - who we all believe are stupid (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, doesn't matter).
Ben Shapiro is not a Fundamentalist and knows more about science than you or I have forgotten I'd venture to guess. I just think Atheists are hilarious when they think science somehow disproves God. It doesn't and it can't. Just because Religious Fanatics suck doesn't mean we should look down upon all theists. That is the epitome of intolerance, irrationality, and hypocrisy.
No intelligent atheist will ever make the ridiculous claim that science disproves the existence of god, you cannot prove the non-existence of anything, science cant prove there are no leprechauns or ghosts, however there is no evidence of the existence of any god, ghost or leprechaun, therefore the rational position is to not believe.
And that is when I talk about a broad concept of god, when we talk about specific gods with certain traits those may be disproved, for example, an all-loving, all-powerful god that allows innocent children die in agony by the thousands every day cannot exist, also an omniscient god that grants free-will also cannot exist since perfect knowledge of the future denies the concept of free will etc.
And yes, theism should be looked down upon, the same way we should look down upon Astrology, mediums who speak with the dead an the rest of people who believe with no evidence.
so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs
In my opinion the best Millenial free thinker in the US, yes. And yes he believes in God and Free Will. Does this surprise you? A belief in God is not an indictment nor a boost to ones intellectual resume.
Except that believing in something that we have no logical or empirical evidence of is by definition irrational.
But indeed not all great minds are immune to indoctrination, but make no mistake, it todays society it is a great statistical indicative of intellect
Atheists are inherently more rationale than theists? What a hilarious proposition. I'd love to see your statistical proof of such a claim, which I will then rip apart as a mistake in correlation vs causation since most Atheists come from high-income backgrounds and are therefore more likely to be indoctrinated by Secularist mediums like the media and universities.
Belief OR complete disbelief in God is faith-based. Science does nothing, and will never do anything to explain the starting point of the Universe or Human Life - and no, Evolutionary Theory does nothing to prove how Life started. The primordial ooze argument has been completely debunked as junk science. It's a gaping whole in evolutionary theory, among many holes, read up on your science fellas. I'm not a religious person and I do acknowledge that scientific evidence outright shits on literal biblical interpretations, which are only applicable to religious fundamentalists - who we all believe are stupid (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, doesn't matter).
Ben Shapiro is not a Fundamentalist and knows more about science than you or I have forgotten I'd venture to guess. I just think Atheists are hilarious when they think science somehow disproves God. It doesn't and it can't. Just because Religious Fanatics suck doesn't mean we should look down upon all theists. That is the epitome of intolerance, irrationality, and hypocrisy.
Religion is retarded because you have to comply with all the man made bullshit, rituals and dogmas. It's not about believing in a greater life form capable of creation but rather agreeing to give your power to people that can only tell you a ridicolous baseless story without any kind of reasonable proof. You can believe in whatever you want and that's fine but if you believe in somebody's else story made for the sole purpose of gaining money and power at your expense I have the right to think you aren't very bright.
Last edit: 09/12/2015 06:29
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 11 2015 00:28. Posts 6374
“Hug me I am Muslim” is under arrest for bomb threats on MP
-___-
ban baal
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 11 2015 01:36. Posts 2226
"Our foreign policy is not a political issue. It is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of the future of mankind." Harry Truman
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
religion of peace
we should take the higher moral ground
islamophobia is bad
people are scared of terrorists and are missing out on the peaceful muslims
it's their culture it deserves respect even though we have fought for centuries to not be like them
i've never read the quran but i can say with all certainty that it doesn't speak about conquering the world with force, instructing to lie for this purpose, beheading infidels and raping their women and children
all people are equal regardless of what they think and do (this cracks me up every single time. never gets old really)
i could go on forever, dunno some people are funny aren't they :D
how the fuck could you be so dumb? np reality is coming for you aswell very soon dont worry
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 11 2015 08:34. Posts 6374
On December 11 2015 06:18 VanDerMeyde wrote:
Is that the same guy ?
On December 11 2015 06:57 ClouD87 wrote:
religion of peace
we should take the higher moral ground
islamophobia is bad
people are scared of terrorists and are missing out on the peaceful muslims
it's their culture it deserves respect even though we have fought for centuries to not be like them
i've never read the quran but i can say with all certainty that it doesn't speak about conquering the world with force, instructing to lie for this purpose, beheading infidels and raping their women and children
all people are equal regardless of what they think and do (this cracks me up every single time. never gets old really)
i could go on forever, dunno some people are funny aren't they :D
how the fuck could you be so dumb? np reality is coming for you aswell very soon dont worry
On December 11 2015 06:57 ClouD87 wrote:
religion of peace
we should take the higher moral ground
islamophobia is bad
people are scared of terrorists and are missing out on the peaceful muslims
it's their culture it deserves respect even though we have fought for centuries to not be like them
i've never read the quran but i can say with all certainty that it doesn't speak about conquering the world with force, instructing to lie for this purpose, beheading infidels and raping their women and children
all people are equal regardless of what they think and do (this cracks me up every single time. never gets old really)
i could go on forever, dunno some people are funny aren't they :D
how the fuck could you be so dumb? np reality is coming for you aswell very soon dont worry
who are you talking to?
Nobody in particular, I was reading some forums and watching some youtube videos very late at night and just wrote a silly post that reflects my feelings towards people who think islam is not a serious issue.
1
YoMeR United States. Dec 12 2015 20:35. Posts 12435
"we could defeat ISIS easily on the battlefield"
"that's exactly what they want"
The guy is a disgrace. I am so angry at my country for electing this clown a 2nd time. If we had just left a residual force of troops in Iraq instead of pulling them all out for purely political reasons, ISIS would not exist. This is absolute fact. Noone with any real knowledge of the situation from a military intelligence perspective disputes that.
And the leftist argument is always "so what, you want to occupy everywhere forever?". Well, under these circumstances, as a matter of fact we do, just like Germany and Japan, where we have had a military presence since WWII and who are now completely different governments.
I disagree with Bush's decision to invade Hussein's Iraq, but atleast it was based on military intelligence and bi-partisan support (including Hillary Clinton's, who is just wretched)
But the way Obama has handled the situation from Benghazi on wards is the biggest disgrace. Lies, stifling of speech through political correctness, class and race warfare, violating the Constitution at a record rate, sinking our economy with terrible deals and over-regulation, record debt, making stupid awful deals with fucking Iran (who is barely better than ISIS), and abandoning Israel.
Obama plays the hand he was dealt like Hellen Keller at a high stakes NL table and is taking not just the US, but the world down in a flame of shit. We need new leadership ASAP.
yea fuck obama. let's get donald trump in on this action. He'll have the answers!
eZ Life.
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 13 2015 15:47. Posts 6374
"we could defeat ISIS easily on the battlefield"
"that's exactly what they want"
The guy is a disgrace. I am so angry at my country for electing this clown a 2nd time. If we had just left a residual force of troops in Iraq instead of pulling them all out for purely political reasons, ISIS would not exist. This is absolute fact. Noone with any real knowledge of the situation from a military intelligence perspective disputes that.
And the leftist argument is always "so what, you want to occupy everywhere forever?". Well, under these circumstances, as a matter of fact we do, just like Germany and Japan, where we have had a military presence since WWII and who are now completely different governments.
I disagree with Bush's decision to invade Hussein's Iraq, but atleast it was based on military intelligence and bi-partisan support (including Hillary Clinton's, who is just wretched)
But the way Obama has handled the situation from Benghazi on wards is the biggest disgrace. Lies, stifling of speech through political correctness, class and race warfare, violating the Constitution at a record rate, sinking our economy with terrible deals and over-regulation, record debt, making stupid awful deals with fucking Iran (who is barely better than ISIS), and abandoning Israel.
Obama plays the hand he was dealt like Hellen Keller at a high stakes NL table and is taking not just the US, but the world down in a flame of shit. We need new leadership ASAP.
yea fuck obama. let's get donald trump in on this action. He'll have the answers!
Hard to believe Trump actually says these things lol
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 13 2015 19:18. Posts 2226
what's hard to believe is that almost every douchebag in late night "comedy" now listens to the network and producers going "yeah you know what tv needs? another guy preaching politics into the camera behind a desk, that'll be hilarious"
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On December 13 2015 18:18 Santafairy wrote:
what's hard to believe is that almost every douchebag in late night "comedy" now listens to the network and producers going "yeah you know what tv needs? another guy preaching politics into the camera behind a desk, that'll be hilarious"
wonder if this is somewhat of a John Oliver effect considering his show's ratings hit the roof and they might capitalize on his 3 months break
and actually as i've mentioned this i just remembered i watched his last episode yesterday and dogmeat you should too to seewhats up with refugees to terrorism/crime ratio ( if i remember correctly you were all for banning migrants )
edit: since i doubt you ll download and watch it - since 9/11 in the USA - 800, 000 migrants from such regions have come out of which only 3 were arrested due to terrorism activities concern
yet in the EU we have this propaganda where its like every 3rd migrant/refugee is a terrorist
Last edit: 14/12/2015 02:47
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 14 2015 13:09. Posts 6374
On December 14 2015 01:22 Spitfiree wrote:
yet in the EU we have this propaganda where its like every 3rd migrant/refugee is a terrorist
id like see to that, thou all i can see are deep stories about the pilgrimage of these poor souls
i cant fathom how you can be so oblivious to millions of ppl without identity breaking laws, crossing borders ilegally, destroying property, using violence. over 200k refugees got lost before registration in germany. 200k unknowns, possibly terrorists, murderers, rapists, criminals, infected with various diseases (20% hiv, 20% hepatitis, etc) and i m not even talking about the impossibility of intergating 1M ppl a year (80% males), while they werent even capable of integrating 2nd and 3rd generation offsprings of LEGAL immingrants from 60s. or that they are carrying their idiotic mediaval culture. im terrified by governments not enforcing laws.
your 3 out of 800k argument is laughable, do you think they have resources to monitor that many ppl? secret services are officialy operating with 5% radicals, 3% capable of commiting violent acts. but i guess you know better. even if its 0.1%, no sane person can justify letting them in. they should be concentrated in camps on the border
the vast majority of muslims supports sharia (obv since its one of the key elements of islam), this is confirmed by various pools. and 95+% of ppl from afghanistan and pakistan think stoning women is right. i d love them as fellow citizens, are you retarded?
lol still the terrorists argument, really? the terrorist incidents aren't nearly as scary as the constant violence that muslims are increasingly bringing to europe. my gf lives near a mosque she's afraid as fuck to get out of home alone to not get raped, tell me if this is normal to you spitfiree
Dogmeat If you d download and watch the video you ll be amazed what resources they have.
Agree with you ClouD about violence however your gf either lives in a ghetto or is super naive. Are you telling me muslims are waiting for women to rape and beat in front of mosques as a default ? Funny I've been pretty much all around Europe, but nah fuck that I've been to Istanbul and the asian part of Turkey and yet even there nothing like that would be common. As a default muslims are obviously more violent however you wont beat radicalism with radicalism which is what dogmeat suggests
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 14 2015 19:32. Posts 2226
On December 13 2015 19:35 lebowski wrote:
yeah, let's not listen to what Trump's saying, let's focus on those who make fun of him, they're more important
what's funny is that i didn't mention trump :D i'm talking about the jon stewartification of television. every chump on tv now sits at a desk telling everyone how to be oh so progressive. on every issue and every non-issue. or did you think that video was funny? or... did you think it was educational? because i don't think it's good comedy or good politics
but i agree, let's listen to trump, not lazy comics reaching for material every week parroting the same garbage. trump says illegal immigration is bad, i think that's pretty uncontroversial but to each his own. you shouldn't ridicule the state of politics in the USA if you can't see how the media is culpable for people being unable to think like adults
on topic it seems like nothing more than foolish optimism to think if you just let people into your country from a violent and backwards place that they'll as a group suddenly be more well behaved than they were back home, let alone more well behaved than the locals. that seems to me like just maybe it should be an important factor in whether they deserve to be there in the first place
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Dec 14 2015 19:44. Posts 3093
Come on now. You know people aren't going after Trump for saying 'illegal immigration is bad'.
In fact, you yourself, in this very thread, 10 days ago, stated that 'Closing borders to Muslim immigration is an extreme proposition, one that will probably never become reality'. But then that is pretty much exactly what trump proposed to do, less than a week after you described it as extreme. That you now characterize trump's platform as 'saying illegal immigration is bad' (when there are virtually no people who state the opposite, that illegal immigration is good) seems disingenious coming from you. (I mean that as a compliment, because I think you're too smart to accidentally think that is the part of his platform people criticize. )
lol POKER
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 14 2015 20:06. Posts 2226
we've seen for weeks people and the media calling him racist, he hates latinos, and so forth
progressives go after anyything they can foment outrage about
and now people are calling him hitler, like i'm supposed to be worked up that a leading political candidate said something outrageous, something that i indeed think would probably not actually happen, 11 months before election day?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 14 2015 20:08. Posts 6374
On December 14 2015 18:03 Spitfiree wrote:
Dogmeat If you d download and watch the video you ll be amazed what resources they have.
Agree with you ClouD about violence however your gf either lives in a ghetto or is super naive. Are you telling me muslims are waiting for women to rape and beat in front of mosques as a default ? Funny I've been pretty much all around Europe, but nah fuck that I've been to Istanbul and the asian part of Turkey and yet even there nothing like that would be common. As a default muslims are obviously more violent however you wont beat radicalism with radicalism which is what dogmeat suggests
how many muslims live in us? 10M? 50M? you are funny
also love how you havent adressed any of my points, stick to raging in hh section
ban baal
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Dec 14 2015 20:33. Posts 3093
On December 14 2015 19:06 Santafairy wrote:
we've seen for weeks people and the media calling him racist, he hates latinos, and so forth
progressives go after anyything they can foment outrage about
and now people are calling him hitler, like i'm supposed to be worked up that a leading political candidate said something outrageous, something that i indeed think would probably not actually happen, 11 months before election day?
I don't like the labelling of political opponents, and I hate that we (and as someone who identifies as the political left, I honestly think we have been more guilty of this than the right) tend to equate political beliefs with morality. (The right on the other hand, imo equally stupidly, equates political stance with intelligence - but that's besides the point. ) I think these natural inclinations of people on both sides of the debate are huge detractors from what could be a fruitful debate - but when leftists turn it into an issue of morality and rightists turn it into an issue of intelligence, they just cement already established views because it's much harder to change your opinion when your original opinion derived from 'I was a selfish immoral/amoral jerk' or 'I was stupid' rather than 'I just didn't know enough about the issue'.
So honestly, I'm not fully disagreeing with what you are saying here. But I think you're wrong specifically about Trump. Trump was never attacked for 'disliking illegal immigrants' - he was initially attacked for describing mexicans as rapists, for stating that mexico sends their rapists to the US, and for stating that he would build a giant wall which he would make Mexico pay for. And while I think the Hitler comparison is off by a couple magnitudes (Hitler is not notorious for branding the Jews, he's notorious for attempting to exterminate them), you yourself described the very policy recommendation of his that has received most criticism as extreme - just that this was before he actually made the suggestion.
On December 13 2015 19:35 lebowski wrote:
yeah, let's not listen to what Trump's saying, let's focus on those who make fun of him, they're more important
what's funny is that i didn't mention trump :D i'm talking about the jon stewartification of television. every chump on tv now sits at a desk telling everyone how to be oh so progressive. on every issue and every non-issue. or did you think that video was funny? or... did you think it was educational? because i don't think it's good comedy or good politics
but i agree, let's listen to trump, not lazy comics reaching for material every week parroting the same garbage. trump says illegal immigration is bad, i think that's pretty uncontroversial but to each his own. you shouldn't ridicule the state of politics in the USA if you can't see how the media is culpable for people being unable to think like adults
Drone covered most things I'd comment on this post. Trump is funny in a bad way and tbh he's making Colbert's job way too easy.
I'm not even talking about the specific vid I linked earlier, I could probably make a compilation of cringe worthy statements just from seeing a bunch of vids this morning.
I guess commenting on Trump's persona or the way he markets himself isn't really on topic though, I just couldn't resist after I saw that photo of him with the gun
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
On December 14 2015 18:03 Spitfiree wrote:
Dogmeat If you d download and watch the video you ll be amazed what resources they have.
Agree with you ClouD about violence however your gf either lives in a ghetto or is super naive. Are you telling me muslims are waiting for women to rape and beat in front of mosques as a default ? Funny I've been pretty much all around Europe, but nah fuck that I've been to Istanbul and the asian part of Turkey and yet even there nothing like that would be common. As a default muslims are obviously more violent however you wont beat radicalism with radicalism which is what dogmeat suggests
how many muslims live in us? 10M? 50M? you are funny
also love how you havent adressed any of my points, stick to raging in hh section
I wont address them because you fail to realize why the situation is the way it is. You care to "fix" problems in the same ways those problems have originally occurred. Whats the point in that ? So you can spend some part of your life better so a even larger problem establishes itself in the future ? How naive ... if you want to change something you change the roots and fundamentals not the present results.How naive that thinking on top of international politics in the Mid-East combined with your suggestions to basically throw all muslims outs of the EU will result into a better, more civillized and secure life for europeans.
Well actually you are absolutely right, this will indeed happen, but for how long? Do you think it will last long enough to be worth it ? I'm guessing you wouldn't care less if it was better for 20 years for example and will be fine w that which is the exact kind of thinking that leads to such major crisis
In a way it could relate to the socialism's way of thinking and failing to recognize reality leading to everything dropping down on their heads. Short term solutions are usually the worse than no solutions at all
Last edit: 14/12/2015 23:14
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 15 2015 07:40. Posts 6374
by your logic we cant punish shoplifting b/c it has roots in deeper social background. the immigration laws should be enforced, period.
and yeah, i think europe without islam would be great, sustainable indefinitely, their culture doesnt produce anything and isnt a thread outside of europe. do i think islam is retarded? yes, but unlike you i dont think i m some sort of moral authority having the right to change the way these ppl are living.
20% tops are from syria, the rest is from afghanistan, africa etc. afghanistan has one of the highest birth rate in the world. that surely isnt smart, they should "change the roots and fundamentals not the present results", but by no means we have any obligation to take care of these ppl
you want to save the whole world, yet you call me naive?
On December 14 2015 22:09 Spitfiree wrote: Short term solutions are usually the worse than no solutions at all
yes letting millions in every year would be better than closing borders. wtf am i even reading. you havent adressed any of my points b/c you dont have any answers. your only option is to pretend how knowledgeable and moral you are. just like when baals trying to talk about bible
ban baal
Last edit: 15/12/2015 08:12
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 15 2015 07:44. Posts 6374
First of all closing borders wont accomplish anything. Borders are something imaginary fixed by international contracts, its not like the refugees wont just move through. Its not like they ll stop there and say " oooh look we shouldn't pass that " . Eastern european countries dont have the resources to stop the refugees nor will they do any time soon so there s nothing anyone can do so far about it. Western europe does NOT have any borders anywhere. So what are you suggesting exactly ? Building a fence and putting patrols everywhere ? There s a reason the EU is part of NATO and inner security is a huge part of it. Not to mention how Turkey can just flood Europe with 5x the amount of refugees if they stop giving a fuck. Europe does not have the means to react adequately in the situation and there s nothing they can do. Do you think Hollande said they ll continue taking refugees even after the attacks on Paris because he has such beliefs and not because he knows he cant stop it at this point ?
And yes I'd rather have them change their ways of life to something better rather than be the oppressor. Those refugees didn't randomly decide to zerg rush Europe, nor are they so violent towards the west cause of something as stupid as Sharia law, sure some of them are, majority have just had enough of them and their families and friends being tortured for no apparent reason. Why are the refugees not radicalized towards any other region in the world can you answer that ?
An actual good short term solution would be to make another nation as military powerful as Israel in the region so they wouldn't stomp on anyone when they wish and people would regain a part of their liberty. Of course there s no leading nation that would allow such " atrocity "
P.S. lol at saying you dont think you re a moral authority but supporting their oppression, pick a side you cant be both
Partially letting them in isn't doing so great either, so your ultimate solution is just say fuck it and leave the gates open because planet earth was designed that way?
No my solution is to continue letting them in but with better process, since you wont stop them, you ll just lose resources and preach hate towards yourself if you do what dogmeat suggests. Matter of a fact if you stop someone it ll be the ones that are worth saving since criminals wont give 2 fucks and will find a way to migrate anyway
There s no real " solution " though nor will we find it in this forum
Last edit: 15/12/2015 17:37
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 15 2015 20:22. Posts 2226
On December 14 2015 19:06 Santafairy wrote:
we've seen for weeks people and the media calling him racist, he hates latinos, and so forth
progressives go after anyything they can foment outrage about
and now people are calling him hitler, like i'm supposed to be worked up that a leading political candidate said something outrageous, something that i indeed think would probably not actually happen, 11 months before election day?
I don't like the labelling of political opponents, and I hate that we (and as someone who identifies as the political left, I honestly think we have been more guilty of this than the right) tend to equate political beliefs with morality. (The right on the other hand, imo equally stupidly, equates political stance with intelligence - but that's besides the point. ) I think these natural inclinations of people on both sides of the debate are huge detractors from what could be a fruitful debate - but when leftists turn it into an issue of morality and rightists turn it into an issue of intelligence, they just cement already established views because it's much harder to change your opinion when your original opinion derived from 'I was a selfish immoral/amoral jerk' or 'I was stupid' rather than 'I just didn't know enough about the issue'.
congratulations on being part of the left. luckily, i'm not a part of anything so i can plainly see that what you're talking about is not. the right doesn't ultimately consider the left unintelligent for being pro-choice, nor does the left consider the right immoral for rejecting climate change. this is something you've just made up in your head to try to explain why people don't agree. this isn't correlated to the political spectrum. people just have trouble admitting if they're wrong. or rather, it's hard to convince people they're wrong, and that's a good thing because if you weren't wrong and someone convinced you that you were wrong, you would be something of a pushover, you would be easily susceptible to bullshit, pseudoscience, scams, etc.
i'm not labeling opponents, if that was an accusation. "progressives" is a concept, it means a group of people, it doesn't mean they're exclusively progressives, and it doesn't mean i necessarily disagree with them on everything. it's simply true that it's a progressive tactic that you can try to discredit someone by calling them a sexist, racist (it's happened in this thread of course), bigot, or whatever. normally there's no cost associated with maligning someone in this way... that is, if it works then the person you're attacking isn't credible anymore, and if it doesn't work then you didn't lose anything. it's just that in the case of trump, people aren't buying it
On December 14 2015 19:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So honestly, I'm not fully disagreeing with what you are saying here. But I think you're wrong specifically about Trump. Trump was never attacked for 'disliking illegal immigrants' - he was initially attacked for describing mexicans as rapists, for stating that mexico sends their rapists to the US, and for stating that he would build a giant wall which he would make Mexico pay for.
trump brought up illegal immigration at the start of the campaign, and the MSM thought they could easily brush it off with smoke and mirrors bullshit calling him racist because he's a political outsider. it's textbook progressivism.
On December 14 2015 19:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:And while I think the Hitler comparison is off by a couple magnitudes (Hitler is not notorious for branding the Jews, he's notorious for attempting to exterminate them), you yourself described the very policy recommendation of his that has received most criticism as extreme - just that this was before he actually made the suggestion.
yes, i said closing borders to muslims or refugees is an extreme measure (we were talking about europe at that time, but whatever). extreme, as in drastic, do you see? not extreme as in extremist, not extreme as in "inherently bad," but "extreme" as in there's ultimately not much more you could do beyond not letting people into the country apart from actually kick people out of it, "extreme" as in it's so unlikely to happen, whether it would be good or bad, that i'm basically wasting time even explaining this
On December 13 2015 19:35 lebowski wrote:
yeah, let's not listen to what Trump's saying, let's focus on those who make fun of him, they're more important
what's funny is that i didn't mention trump :D i'm talking about the jon stewartification of television. every chump on tv now sits at a desk telling everyone how to be oh so progressive. on every issue and every non-issue. or did you think that video was funny? or... did you think it was educational? because i don't think it's good comedy or good politics
but i agree, let's listen to trump, not lazy comics reaching for material every week parroting the same garbage. trump says illegal immigration is bad, i think that's pretty uncontroversial but to each his own. you shouldn't ridicule the state of politics in the USA if you can't see how the media is culpable for people being unable to think like adults
Drone covered most things I'd comment on this post. Trump is funny in a bad way and tbh he's making Colbert's job way too easy.
I'm not even talking about the specific vid I linked earlier, I could probably make a compilation of cringe worthy statements just from seeing a bunch of vids this morning.
I guess commenting on Trump's persona or the way he markets himself isn't really on topic though, I just couldn't resist after I saw that photo of him with the gun
once again, i wasn't talking about trump, and i don't care about the vid you linked. whatever drone said wasn't in reference to my point. i'm asking a simple question:
is this funny? is this educational? a guy lecturing into the camera from a desk about some issue or other? it looks like garbage to me
and the new media meme is that trump "isn't funny anymore" so.
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
First of all closing borders wont accomplish anything. Borders are something imaginary fixed by international contracts, its not like the refugees wont just move through. Its not like they ll stop there and say " oooh look we shouldn't pass that " .
"closing borders" isn't something that you just say you're doing, it's something that you actually do. it's not like when michael scott goes "i declare bankruptcy," you stop letting people into the country if you don't want them
people know borders are not doors that you literally close. but borders are not imaginary any more than countries are imaginary.
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
Eastern european countries dont have the resources to stop the refugees nor will they do any time soon so there s nothing anyone can do so far about it. Western europe does NOT have any borders anywhere. So what are you suggesting exactly ? Building a fence and putting patrols everywhere ?
so you believe europe is powerless to keep refugees out, but also perfectly capable of handling the refugees who come in.
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
the EU is part of NATO
lol welp
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:Not to mention how Turkey can just flood Europe with 5x the amount of refugees if they stop giving a fuck.
that'd be good though, right? because borders are imaginary and everyone has a right to live in europe and denying refugees access to berlin is what the terrorists want!!!!!!!!!!!!
that wouldn't be a colossal mistake for all parties involved or anything
wait, are you saying one county, turkey, has the ability to hold 1 million refugees and control where they go, but the entire continent of europe is powerless to stop tens of thousands or a hundred thousand?
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
Europe does not have the means to react adequately in the situation and there s nothing they can do. Do you think Hollande said they ll continue taking refugees even after the attacks on Paris because he has such beliefs and not because he knows he cant stop it at this point ?
France has like 500 refugees. Hollande was saying they are continuing with their plan to accept 30,000 refugees over 2 years. This is a drop in the bucket of 4+ million refugees of the war in Syria/Iraq. I'm pretty sure it's a political ideal, because the same dialogue is happening in the USA, which is on a continent on the other side of the world separated by an ocean, and could easily say no to the couple of ten thousand refugees it's talking about.
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
And yes I'd rather have them change their ways of life to something better rather than be the oppressor. Those refugees didn't randomly decide to zerg rush Europe, nor are they so violent towards the west cause of something as stupid as Sharia law, sure some of them are, majority have just had enough of them and their families and friends being tortured for no apparent reason. Why are the refugees not radicalized towards any other region in the world can you answer that ?
are you seriously saying refugees are radicals now? are you even trying to be consistent?
i have a question, why are the refugees not migrating towards any other region in the world? besides the middle east and europe? lot of refugees swarming into hong kong? hong kong is rich, why not? borders are just imaginary. lot of refugees swarming into nigeria? why not? maybe nigeria is shit but germany is paradise?
what if radicalism was not a vector? why do you think geographical direction is a necessary parameter of radicalism? why did isis kill japanese civilians? why is there sectarian violence? because they're radicalized towards the west... ? lol
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
An actual good short term solution would be to make another nation as military powerful as Israel in the region so they wouldn't stomp on anyone when they wish and people would regain a part of their liberty. Of course there s no leading nation that would allow such " atrocity "
speechless.
speechless that you think making a country is a short-term solution
speechless that you didn't notice what US-led coalitions have been doing this whole time
speechless that you think militaries come out of thin air
speechless that you think 1 jewish state surrounded by 20 muslim ones is unbalanced in favor of the jewish state
speechless that you think another muslim country needs nuclear weapons
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
P.S. lol at saying you dont think you re a moral authority but supporting their oppression, pick a side you cant be both
excuse me Spitfiree, are there beggars where you live? homeless people? do you ever give them money, like spare change? that's nice of you
but that's just a temporary solution, don't you think? you're making the problem worse than if you didn't do anything at all. why don't you let homeless people move in and live with you instead? your apartment is something imaginary, fixed by housing contracts. you need to let homeless people in your house or you're supporting their oppression
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
speechless that any good international relations professor will tell you exactly the same about a Mid-East arab country ( Iran for example ) lacking nuclear weapon is what makes the region unstable
and no Europe cant stop the refugees at this point
and lol at most of your quotes and responses, are you even trying ?
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
the EU is part of NATO
lol welp
speechless.
speechless that you think making a country is a short-term solution
you re a joke
speechless that you think 1 jewish state surrounded by 20 muslim ones is unbalanced in favor of the jewish state
are you for real to be writing this as if its something rhetorical and untrue ? wont bother
as i've said you re a joke
after all 20> 1 for sure ! thats how military power works
after all 20 arabic countries > 1 USA too so i guess bye bye usa as well :D
hilarious
but then again Iran might use its nuclear weapon then right? cuz they re savages and shit
and in the west we re super secure, bankers would never force wars where hundreds die daily, we re so much more civilized, oh wait
No idea who half of those guys are... but John Olivier is funny and very educational
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 16 2015 20:48. Posts 6374
On December 15 2015 11:30 Spitfiree wrote:
First of all closing borders wont accomplish anything. Borders are something imaginary fixed by international contracts, its not like the refugees wont just move through. Its not like they ll stop there and say &amp;quot; oooh look we shouldn't pass that &amp;quot; . Eastern european countries dont have the resources to stop the refugees nor will they do any time soon so there s nothing anyone can do so far about it. Western europe does NOT have any borders anywhere. So what are you suggesting exactly ? Building a fence and putting patrols everywhere ? There s a reason the EU is part of NATO and inner security is a huge part of it. Not to mention how Turkey can just flood Europe with 5x the amount of refugees if they stop giving a fuck. Europe does not have the means to react adequately in the situation and there s nothing they can do. Do you think Hollande said they ll continue taking refugees even after the attacks on Paris because he has such beliefs and not because he knows he cant stop it at this point ?
And yes I'd rather have them change their ways of life to something better rather than be the oppressor. Those refugees didn't randomly decide to zerg rush Europe, nor are they so violent towards the west cause of something as stupid as Sharia law, sure some of them are, majority have just had enough of them and their families and friends being tortured for no apparent reason. Why are the refugees not radicalized towards any other region in the world can you answer that ?
An actual good short term solution would be to make another nation as military powerful as Israel in the region so they wouldn't stomp on anyone when they wish and people would regain a part of their liberty. Of course there s no leading nation that would allow such &amp;quot; atrocity &amp;quot;
P.S. lol at saying you dont think you re a moral authority but supporting their oppression, pick a side you cant be both
obv closing borders for ILEGAL immigrants means building a fence
your logic:
they have resources to monitor millions of ppl, securing inner security, handing out welfare checks to +Xmillions per year.... yet unable to build a fcking fence LMAO
On December 15 2015 19:22 Santafairy wrote:
wait, are you saying one county, turkey, has the ability to hold 1 million refugees and control where they go, but the entire continent of europe is powerless to stop tens of thousands or a hundred thousand?
briliant :D
and please tell me how am i the oppressor? i want to build a wall and let ragheads do w/e they wanna do.
also love how you ignore 1400 years of jihad, 1000+ years of sectarian violence, muslim violence in SE asia, africa or any part of the world for that matter and just focus on western foreing policy in last few decades. ignorance surely is a bliss
you don't even bother to read cant really have any meaningful communication like that ... whatever makes you sleep at night, my point wont matter, neither will yours in the end and this thread has become a joke considering there are just random quotes taken out of context used to something completely unrelated ... so yeah good luck viewing the world in black and white
You stupid moron, since the first post Ive been saying that Islam is barbaric, violent and a big contributor for terrorism, and exactly as the guy on 40:00 says I also think foreign policy is a contributor for this
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 17/12/2015 03:52
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 17 2015 06:17. Posts 6374
sorry baal but you consistently come off a guy who thinks the current situation is 95% foreign policies fault
You guys still yelling at each other nonsensically, not getting anywhere?
Sweet!
Good debate.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 17 2015 08:22. Posts 2226
On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
speechless
sounds a lot like what i just said but np
On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
that any good international relations professor
so we're going with "good" meaning agrees with you i bet
On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
will tell you exactly the same about a Mid-East arab country ( Iran for example ) lacking nuclear weapon is what makes the region unstable
now this is news to me
remembering that geopolitics doesn't admit to the same rigor as the scientific parts of academia like the sciences, i would really like to know more about people who are putting forth this idea. if they're leftists it would be fascinating to see people now switching to argue for nuclear proliferation in the name of cultural diversity
does this apply to any region? the korean peninsula is more stable with nuclear weapons? or is it less stable because there's now a nuclear imbalance, or wait it's not an imbalance because china was the only one with nuclear weapons before. can we help africa or south america become more stable by encouraging nuclear proliferation? or does this only apply to the middle east?
why didn't you bring this up before in the thread if you knew how to fix the middle east? i don't remember you talking about nuclear weapons. in fact, i was the first one to mention them because you just brought up israel completely out of left field. like the civil wars in syria, iraq, yemen, regime change in libya, iran-iraq war, kurdish independence problem, sectarian violence everywhere, all of these are israel's fault for making the region unstable? i don't know if i'm strawmanning you but i'm really suspicious of the sudden blame of israel
what do we do, do we just roll a 20 sided die to figure out who to give nuclear weapons to? or do we want to encourage a nuclear arms race in the region? because i doubt any country could do it before Iran, so basically you're saying let Iran specifically have nuclear weapons? and this will help reach peace in Syria? these are countries where any jackass with an ak47 can join a paramilitary group. i'm not trying to poke fun but unless this argument gets fleshed out, i seriously do not see the connection to nuclear weapons
i imagine if you had a 4 year old kid who wanted cookies, then the family situation would ostensibly be more stable if you gave him a cookie jar, yet most parents probably wouldn't do that, and those are cookies, let alone a weapon that can vaporize a city, and no, i'm not trolling, nuclear weapons are not some theoretical panacea that you can introduce to cure political instability in a region, they're real, physical bombs that can cause armageddon
i don't think there's any merit to saying you can just make one of these countries stronger militarily. iran, saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, these countries have modern militaries, they just don't want to fucking fight for any long term goal
On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
and no Europe cant stop the refugees at this point
On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
and lol at most of your quotes and responses, are you even trying ?
if you think i took something out of context, please explain how i mischaracterized you. because i think i've been sincere, although not charitable, in representing your position. if there's something specific that i've misunderstood you about, i would like to know about that in case i'm wrong about something, or if i still disagree, so i can find the real reason i think you're wrong. otherwise you should just say you want to agree to disagree, which is fine, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion you don't want to change your mind about, just be honest about that instead of saying i took something out of context but not telling me what or how
On December 15 2015 20:16 Spitfiree wrote:
are you for real to be writing this as if its something rhetorical and untrue ? wont bother
as i've said you re a joke
after all 20> 1 for sure ! thats how military power works
after all 20 arabic countries > 1 USA too so i guess bye bye usa as well :D
hilarious
try thinner grasps might work better
israel is a country of 8 million people, the usa 300+ million
i consider it lucky for israel that all the surrounding muslim countries failed to destroy them in the multiple wars they've fought as coalitions.
On December 15 2015 20:22 Spitfiree wrote:
but then again Iran might use its nuclear weapon then right?
how are you being facetious about this?
a huge risk of nuclear proliferation is 1) the weapons being used 2) the weapons being lost 3) the weapons being lost and falling into the hands of someone who uses them 4) mutiny and the weapons being used 5) nuclear accidents 6) the weapons being in the hands of someone who can use them as a shield to commit crimes against humanity behind
On December 15 2015 20:22 Spitfiree wrote:
cuz they re savages and shit
what's your problem?
would you feel more safe, and more optimistic about the future of humanity, or less safe, if every country on Earth had a nuclear arsenal? i think most people who worked on the manhattan project ended up in favor of nonproliferation. oppenheimer got mccarthy'd over it, if you remember.
On December 15 2015 20:22 Spitfiree wrote:
and in the west we re super secure, bankers would never force wars where hundreds die daily, we re so much more civilized, oh wait
I assume you're talking about the war in Iraq, but I wish you could see what a non sequitur it is to say that the USA making one mistake or another in Iraq is a reason to let a completely different country have nuclear weapons. and we've gone in something of a circle now, because when the war in iraq was brought up earlier, i remember explaining that the baathist regime actually did have a history of using WMDs
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Big_Rob_isback United States. Dec 17 2015 09:28. Posts 211
I took a political science class in 2006 where we were "taught" that nuclear weapons makes the world safer from world wars. Because there hasn't been a war between two superpowers who own them since (or something of that nature).
On December 17 2015 05:17 dogmeat wrote:
sorry baal but you consistently come off a guy who thinks the current situation is 95% foreign policies fault
do they wear rags? i dont see a problem here -_-
No I dont, in this thread Ive said over and over that the liberals are absolutely wrong in excusing Islam, if I ever came off like that to you is because you have your head so far up your ass that you dont listen.
Obviously ragheads is a pejorative and bigoted term, and you trying to justify it as it wasnt is transparent and pathetic.
You must think you share ideology with Harris or Hitchens but in reality your understanding of the situation is as basic as your average redneck
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 17 2015 10:54. Posts 6374
i m not trying to justify it lol. you should realise ppl using "pejorative and bigoted" terms dont necessarily base their opinions on prejudice.
and wow, you are so smart and educated, i bow to you. thou you should put some time into studying bible before you embarass yourself again next time
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 17 2015 11:13. Posts 6374
On November 14 2015 07:16 Baalim wrote:
Of course Islam is barbaric, backwards and the worst religion in the modern world but what has radicalized most people against the west has been the US foreign policy for the last few decades.
all your post are in this spirit, the west 'radicalized' them, made ourselves a target, completely ignoring 1400years of jihad against the western civilization mostly
On December 17 2015 05:17 dogmeat wrote:
sorry baal but you consistently come off a guy who thinks the current situation is 95% foreign policies fault
do they wear rags? i dont see a problem here -_-
my point was that you at least to me come off as someone who puts wat too much weight on the influence of western interventions, doest matter if its 95:5 or 70:30. and i hope you can see why.
have you ever thought about the same situation happeing x years later even without any western intervention? how do you explain rising fundamentalism in asia, turkey or even 19th century SA? ever thought about radicalization over time being natural for ideologies like islam?
btw hatered against west is completely natural, in their minds, one religion - islam - should reign the world, but thats simply not happening, they made 0 progress for ccenturies while they see the west flourishing
ban baal
Last edit: 17/12/2015 12:15
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Dec 21 2015 21:26. Posts 6374
Korea (South). Nov 16 2015 15:53. Posts 6817
This also works because they instilled a deep sentment of nationalism into their people, and to be able to do that properly they had to make the vast majority of population dumber and more susceptible to manipulation. USA is pretty awesome they just do stuff right.
Spitfiree looks really really dumb in this thread.
) And thus you've established the principle that religions can evolve - which is obviously relevant to Islam. If it's not static, it's possible to influence it, and then it what direction do we influence it?
