Bombing in Belgium Airport, Metro stations

I'm guessing a bunch of lunatic Buddhists are behind this
So sad for Europe

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35869254

Just before 8CET there were two explosions at the main airport in Brussels. First reports say about 17 dead, 35 wounded.

Video of people running in the link:

video: People running for life after multiple blasts at Brussels airport via



Edit: two more reported explosions at subway stations. Public transportation has been shut down.

Live report news: https://www.rt.com/news/336519-explosions-hit-brussels-airport/

But remember, this has NOTHING to do with Islam...

lol no way

So with the uptick in crime, especially violent and sexual crimes.... And then the bombings, shootings, etc..... And all of it being tied to refugees, etc...... Why does Trump get such backlash for calling it out?

Is it because he doesn't sugar coat his words?

Not trolling.... Serious question, and I'm not for or against Trump

On March 22 2016 13:50 chris wrote: So with the uptick in crime, especially violent and sexual crimes.... And then the bombings, shootings, etc..... And all of it being tied to refugees, etc...... Why does Trump get such backlash for calling it out? Is it because he doesn't sugar coat his words? Not trolling.... Serious question, and I'm not for or against Trump

I think Trump gets shit for being a hypocrite, a liar, an asshole, projecting unrealistic views, and the list goes on. You seemingly have simplified the issues with Trump by a slight margin. He is a dangerous individual.

Seems like when they caught the mastermind for the Paris attacks, this was the backlash. Great logic, capture the guy who planned the murder of 100 innocent people, radicals kill another 35 more. Damn it appears Europe is going to change for the worse

On March 22 2016 13:54 Nazgul wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2016 13:50 chris wrote: So with the uptick in crime, especially violent and sexual crimes.... And then the bombings, shootings, etc..... And all of it being tied to refugees, etc...... Why does Trump get such backlash for calling it out? Is it because he doesn't sugar coat his words? Not trolling.... Serious question, and I'm not for or against Trump I think Trump gets shit for being a hypocrite, a liar, an asshole, projecting unrealistic views, and the list goes on. You seemingly have simplified the issues with Trump by a slight margin. He is a dangerous individual.

I'm not defending Trump but in this new normal the world is in, it's pretty naive to think somebody like Bernie Sanders or Hillary will survive the ruthlessness of people he will be dealing with. America has a real shitty list of candidates but what country doesn't? The world has changed so much in 5 years, the likes of Putin, ISIS and the Chinese President are ones who are thriving. Meanwhile Obama, Merkel, Trudeau, are too busy apologizing for these cunts. Trump won't do shit, but he'll at least be respected by those people.

On March 22 2016 14:00 whamm! wrote: Seems like when they caught the mastermind for the Paris attacks, this was the backlash.

Yes they managed to organize a huge terrorist act hitting 2 heavily crowded areas within 3 days :D

This was planned for months surely. Such attacks will probably continue to happen constantly. Let's see what stupidity the EU does next, hopefully they ll get their heads out of their asses

Also an act of terror's main goal is not to kill people. The killing is just its weaponary towards massive fear and stress spread throughout the society they are hitting. Thats their end goal. People living in fear 24/7 knowing they are not safe in public

P.S. Trump is an idiot, even discussing him already gives 10x more attention than he deserves( don't know what his position on ISIS and terrorism is, but I don't even care considering his views on everything else )

On March 22 2016 14:14 Spitfiree wrote: Also an act of terror's main goal is not to kill people. The killing is just its weaponary towards massive fear and stress spread throughout the society they are hitting. Thats their end goal. People living in fear 24/7 knowing they are not safe in public

But that never happens. Nobody gives a fuck within a week's time. You think the people in Paris are still living in fear over the last killing spree? Thats why I think terrorists are just genuine petty assholes. Not once has anything they have ever done accomplished shit. In fact, the only thing they ever successfully accomplish is motivating 1st world nations to bomb the fuck out of them.

Hey Naz,

I agree with you about the bigotry etc. I'm not supporting the Donald here. I'm just saying when he says 'don't take them in, we won't take the refugees because it's dangerous' he's called terrible things (outside of all other topics etc).

I don't understand why everyone is willing to allow themselves to be destroyed in the name of political correctness.

I think it's a terrible situation because so many people are just trying to find safety and lead a stable life....is it not telling that more Muslim countries aren't taking more refugees in?

On March 22 2016 14:07 whamm! wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2016 13:54 Nazgul wrote:   On March 22 2016 13:50 chris wrote: So with the uptick in crime, especially violent and sexual crimes.... And then the bombings, shootings, etc..... And all of it being tied to refugees, etc...... Why does Trump get such backlash for calling it out? Is it because he doesn't sugar coat his words? Not trolling.... Serious question, and I'm not for or against Trump I think Trump gets shit for being a hypocrite, a liar, an asshole, projecting unrealistic views, and the list goes on. You seemingly have simplified the issues with Trump by a slight margin. He is a dangerous individual. I'm not defending Trump but in this new normal the world is in, it's pretty naive to think somebody like Bernie Sanders or Hillary will survive the ruthlessness of people he will be dealing with. America has a real shitty list of candidates but what country doesn't? The world has changed so much in 5 years, the likes of Putin, ISIS and the Chinese President are ones who are thriving. Meanwhile Obama, Merkel, Trudeau, are too busy apologizing for these cunts. Trump won't do shit, but he'll at least be respected by those people.

Your simplistic view of the world is mindblowing.

Actually no its not.

only on LP does this thread turn into a defense of Donald fucking Trump

Condolences to those in Brussels

On March 22 2016 15:37 chris wrote: I don't understand why everyone is willing to allow themselves to be destroyed in the name of political correctness.

This is absurd
The majority of the refugees are innocent people that will suffer even more because of those acts of terror. Thats the biggest problem when it comes to resolving the crisis, cause the majority are innocent, but if you let them in, you are letting savages in with them as well. There is no " correct " path here, there are absolutely legit arguments towards both extremes ( banning all or letting them in ).

Usually I'm against totalitarian measures, but in this case and how the situation keeps developing I really don't see any other way for the short term future

On March 22 2016 14:14 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2016 14:00 whamm! wrote: Seems like when they caught the mastermind for the Paris attacks, this was the backlash. Yes they managed to organize a huge terrorist act hitting 2 heavily crowded areas within 3 days :D This was planned for months surely. Such attacks will probably continue to happen constantly. Let's see what stupidity the EU does next, hopefully they ll get their heads out of their asses Also an act of terror's main goal is not to kill people. The killing is just its weaponary towards massive fear and stress spread throughout the society they are hitting. Thats their end goal. People living in fear 24/7 knowing they are not safe in public P.S. Trump is an idiot, even discussing him already gives 10x more attention than he deserves( don't know what his position on ISIS and terrorism is, but I don't even care considering his views on everything else )

I don't think it's as impossible as you believe. Not that I know whether this was a specific revenge attack, but I imagine what these fuckers do is just make suicide vests and pipe bombs and shit and have them lying around, and then the news came that they caught the asshole from Paris, so these few assholes just put their vests on and went to a random but significant target to blow up. The lower death toll, apparent lack of weapons fire, low number of people involved, suggests this was less organized and more improvised to me.

As for Trump's position on terrorism, I've watched some Trump interviews and it turns out he, like most people, is against it.

This is absurd The majority of the refugees are innocent people that will suffer even more because of those acts of terror. Thats the biggest problem when it comes to resolving the crisis, cause the majority are innocent, but if you let them in, you are letting savages in with them as well. There is no " correct " path here, there are absolutely legit arguments towards both extremes ( banning all or letting them in ). Usually I'm against totalitarian measures, but in this case and how the situation keeps developing I really don't see any other way for the short term future

The majority of the refugees are not refugees and also male of military age. Why would you even let military age men enter they should fight for whatever side they are on. Women and children only.

Donald Trump isn't a racist or a bigot or whatever. He is simply saying whatever he feels will get him elected. Democrats here are the bigots, they pander to people's skin color, wages, gender, and religion because they want their vote, they dont actually give a shit about them. Trump is pandering to people's fears.

That being said, the only thing Trump has said that is really bad is he went waaaay overboard about muslims, which makes it obvious he is unfit for presidency. He does say that stuff just to get attention though.

Trump is much more interesting than it seems people are giving him credit for. His campaign is allowing all the bullshit going on in the u.s. media and all the bullshit that far left groups are about come to the surface. The pc has to stop, its just that trump is not qualified. I hope the long term effect of his presidential run will be positive and help people wake up to the over pc shit.

If you guys want an example of what I am talking about, I will give one. Obama has not said radical islamic terrorism, not even once. He also constantly preaches for u.s. citizens to not be hateful towards american muslims. Statistics show that post 9/11 2001 muslims have not in any way had hate crimes rise against them. Meanwhile hate crime against Jews is steadily much higher.

If moderate Muslims were the overwhelming silent majority, it should be easy to arm them and let deal with this. Truth is, within the Muslim World, not very many pure moderates. Pure common sense.

Not interested in academic moral equivalency and political correctness. Only religion in the world with a problem of this magnitude.

If Obama is a good man (I don't think he is, but its irrelevant), its clear as day his vision of the ideal world is a mirage - shit isn't getting better with US isolationist policy.

Trump may be an asshole, but maybe that's exactly what we need right now. Muslim 'extremists' - who make up a large, large growing minority of the Muslim world - just look at Pew Research - are not interested in peace.

If America let's the cancer in, the world is fucked. If we aren't there to clean up the mess, no one is.

Hillary is Hilary, and I hope the majority of a Poker Website understands how absurdly stupid Bernie Sanders is.

I like Ted Cruz too but he doesn't appeal to intolerant secular Elitists, which is a problem in American politics.

I'm out.

On March 22 2016 20:16 Big_Rob_isback wrote: Donald Trump isn't a racist or a bigot or whatever. He is simply saying whatever he feels will get him elected. Democrats here are the bigots, they pander to people's skin color, wages, gender, and religion because they want their vote, they dont actually give a shit about them. Trump is pandering to people's fears. That being said, the only thing Trump has said that is really bad is he went waaaay overboard about muslims, which makes it obvious he is unfit for presidency. He does say that stuff just to get attention though. Trump is much more interesting than it seems people are giving him credit for. His campaign is allowing all the bullshit going on in the u.s. media and all the bullshit that far left groups are about come to the surface. The pc has to stop, its just that trump is not qualified. I hope the long term effect of his presidential run will be positive and help people wake up to the over pc shit. If you guys want an example of what I am talking about, I will give one. Obama has not said radical islamic terrorism, not even once. He also constantly preaches for u.s. citizens to not be hateful towards american muslims. Statistics show that post 9/11 2001 muslims have not in any way had hate crimes rise against them. Meanwhile hate crime against Jews is steadily much higher.

I think Trump's populism is far more dangerous than being overly pc. I'm not giving any moral high ground to the democrats but I think what Trump does could spiral out of control. I don't care who gets elected as long as the whole thing doesn't end in a massive shitstorm (or bloodbath) of Christians vs Muslims or Muslims vs the world or whatever. So I'd rather have a politician who sucks up to people/minorities with bs pc, than have dudes who seem willing to do anything on their ride to power.

On March 22 2016 20:16 Big_Rob_isback wrote: Statistics show that post 9/11 2001 muslims have not in any way had hate crimes rise against them. Meanwhile hate crime against Jews is steadily much higher.

Source?

Googling hate crimes muslim post 911 got me:

On March 22 2016 21:18 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2016 20:16 Big_Rob_isback wrote: Statistics show that post 9/11 2001 muslims have not in any way had hate crimes rise against them. Meanwhile hate crime against Jews is steadily much higher. Source? Googling hate crimes muslim post 911 got me:

Yup. Yet if you listened to the MSM or President Obummer you'd think it was an epidemic. It's all political pandering.

As 2001 shows, hate crimes against Muslims will go up when we let Terror spread, which is just natural human nature - to be angry when nutjobs are killing innocent people people tend to get aggravated and make bad decisions.

Sure this is a terrible thing to have happened. One of many in Europe in recent times. Bad.

However, media magnifies everything 1000-fold. During the Genghis Khan era, not too many centuries ago, every 8th person in the world was killed because of that mongoloid. That's decimation.

I feel safe. popcorn.gif for Trump. Not many believe it can happen, until it may. Ridiculous baboon.

Every second/third month now, if we count Koln.

This is unreal

Trump wont happen. It's a clownfest which will demolish the republicans, well deserved too. The funniest part is about to come @ Summer when his own party tells him to fuck off though considering he wont gather the needed delegates

If Trump loses at the convention then he probably goes third party and the republicans lose 30% of their base for years to come. I think that party leaders will actually unite behind him rather then risk the damage of trump telling his supporters to not vote for the republican party.

There might be a good number of republicans in congress who will see appeasement as the lesser evil

On March 22 2016 16:09 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2016 14:07 whamm! wrote:   On March 22 2016 13:54 Nazgul wrote:   On March 22 2016 13:50 chris wrote: So with the uptick in crime, especially violent and sexual crimes.... And then the bombings, shootings, etc..... And all of it being tied to refugees, etc...... Why does Trump get such backlash for calling it out? Is it because he doesn't sugar coat his words? Not trolling.... Serious question, and I'm not for or against Trump I think Trump gets shit for being a hypocrite, a liar, an asshole, projecting unrealistic views, and the list goes on. You seemingly have simplified the issues with Trump by a slight margin. He is a dangerous individual. I'm not defending Trump but in this new normal the world is in, it's pretty naive to think somebody like Bernie Sanders or Hillary will survive the ruthlessness of people he will be dealing with. America has a real shitty list of candidates but what country doesn't? The world has changed so much in 5 years, the likes of Putin, ISIS and the Chinese President are ones who are thriving. Meanwhile Obama, Merkel, Trudeau, are too busy apologizing for these cunts. Trump won't do shit, but he'll at least be respected by those people. Your simplistic view of the world is mindblowing. Actually no its not.

Well simplicity in the face of obvious danger is more common, unlike your constant scholarly apologetic explanations on how it's the bigot's fault 100% of the time. How stupid can you get? You offer any solutions from Salon.com or Gawker? I think not. Do nothing? I've said it before in the numbers of threads like this one, there will be more attacks whether you bomb them or not, they have been saying this 3 years ago, they will flood Europe and they will do exactly what they are doing right now. You look too deep into things and keep blaming Bush and Obama like I'm a big fan of those fucks, all you gotta to do is listen to them and take their threats seriously. You keep calling me out each time in these threads and all you accomplish is you "sound" progressive.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428146/more-than-few-islamic-extremists

Disturbing stuff. I'd like to hear any liberal make a coherent argument against any of the claims. I'm open minded.

On March 22 2016 22:40 Spitfiree wrote: Trump wont happen. It's a clownfest which will demolish the republicans, well deserved too. The funniest part is about to come @ Summer when his own party tells him to fuck off though considering he wont gather the needed delegates

According to bets Trump has a 30% chance to win.... so Trump very well could happen

#t=254

On March 22 2016 22:59 whamm! wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2016 16:09 uiCk wrote:   On March 22 2016 14:07 whamm! wrote:   On March 22 2016 13:54 Nazgul wrote:   On March 22 2016 13:50 chris wrote: So with the uptick in crime, especially violent and sexual crimes.... And then the bombings, shootings, etc..... And all of it being tied to refugees, etc...... Why does Trump get such backlash for calling it out? Is it because he doesn't sugar coat his words? Not trolling.... Serious question, and I'm not for or against Trump I think Trump gets shit for being a hypocrite, a liar, an asshole, projecting unrealistic views, and the list goes on. You seemingly have simplified the issues with Trump by a slight margin. He is a dangerous individual. I'm not defending Trump but in this new normal the world is in, it's pretty naive to think somebody like Bernie Sanders or Hillary will survive the ruthlessness of people he will be dealing with. America has a real shitty list of candidates but what country doesn't? The world has changed so much in 5 years, the likes of Putin, ISIS and the Chinese President are ones who are thriving. Meanwhile Obama, Merkel, Trudeau, are too busy apologizing for these cunts. Trump won't do shit, but he'll at least be respected by those people. Your simplistic view of the world is mindblowing. Actually no its not. Well simplicity in the face of obvious danger is more common, unlike your constant scholarly apologetic explanations on how it's the bigot's fault 100% of the time. How stupid can you get? You offer any solutions from Salon.com or Gawker? I think not. Do nothing? I've said it before in the numbers of threads like this one, there will be more attacks whether you bomb them or not, they have been saying this 3 years ago, they will flood Europe and they will do exactly what they are doing right now. You look too deep into things and keep blaming Bush and Obama like I'm a big fan of those fucks, all you gotta to do is listen to them and take their threats seriously. You keep calling me out each time in these threads and all you accomplish is you "sound" progressive.

Cool, got any more rehashed opinionated labels?

Btw loved the Trudeau name drop in that earlier post.

Also i dint read opinion pieces in general, my news feed is mostly straight factual news and i skip over whatever opinion is included in the article of interest. You should do the same. And i most definitely dont waste time watching view hungry retards spew there "opinions" on youtube, whatever side of the spectrum.

Could we not fucking discuss Trump?

I dont think that subject needs to be discussed in a forum of this intellect come on, leave that to ignorant rednecks, probably not even dogmeat would support him.

Its a shame that this will only make him stronger because again, the regressive left offers nothing but excuses and ignores an obvious problem.

On March 22 2016 10:35 Baalim wrote: But remember, this has NOTHING to do with Islam...

On March 22 2016 12:37 whamm! wrote: lol no way

It absolutely has nothing to do with that religion. Those fanatic bombers are using it as an excuse, and it does make a bad publicy for the religion (tbh I don't mind since they're all stupid but w/e that's not the point)

On March 22 2016 14:00 whamm! wrote: Seems like when they caught the mastermind for the Paris attacks, this was the backlash. Great logic, capture the guy who planned the murder of 100 innocent people, radicals kill another 35 more. Damn it appears Europe is going to change for the worse

Are you saying great logic with a sarcastic tone ?

Btw Baal is right. Just fucking stop making any parodies of trump, it's actually worse because he's getting more and more attention. Just ignore him pretty, please ?

France is fucked. Germany is fucked. And WW3 is probably not far off. You guys really need to get your shit together over there. If I'm being over-dramatic, watch the 4 minute video and show me how, cause I'd really like to wake-up tomorrow and know that this is all fear-mongering. I'd MUCH rather be wrong.

On March 23 2016 05:15 soberstone wrote: France is fucked. Germany is fucked. And WW3 is probably not far off. You guys really need to get your shit together over there. If I'm being over-dramatic, watch the 4 minute video and show me how, cause I'd really like to wake-up tomorrow and know that this is all fear-mongering. I'd MUCH rather be wrong.

It partially is fear mongering when its generalizing the word "radical Muslim".

There are less than 1M Jihadist in the world, these are people who want to wage war against the west and impose Islam in the entire planet (ISI, AlQuaeda etc).

There are indeed about 600M ISLAMISTS, which support Sharia law in Islamic countries and have barbaric beliefs like death penalty for apostacy, homosexuality etc, these people are fucked up but they dont pursue armed conflict against the west.

So no, there wont be a 3rd world war, there isnt simply military oposition to NATO besides Russia and China that do antagonize NATO from time to time but they are not going to declare war under any circumstance, so that would leave you with what, Pakistan?

On March 23 2016 05:15 soberstone wrote: I'd MUCH rather be wrong.

you are
now live happily

a potential 3rd world war wouldn't be a clash between NATO/Russia/China ( even though USA s being quite annoying when it comes to the sea territory south of China, even though media tries to propaganda China as the " antagonist " .... and Putin showed that he s probably the smartest geopolitician in the world considering his actions past years, basically exploiting every situation to its maximum and withdrawing when its time. so no way he gets into a big military conflict) would much more likely be a shit storm in the Mid-east with NATO's involvements and proxy terrorist acts in Central/West Europe - which is already happening so ...
I really feel like the civillized world is safe from the threat of complete demolishment such as the one during WW2, however the threat for arabs is very much real.

P.S. a bit off topic, if anyone is aware of this and just a theoretical question, what happens if one NATO country declares war to another? Is it true that there is nothing written on the subject in their agreements ?

i read on a news update from a day ago that "the Islamic state had taken responsibility" for these bombings? i'm not sure what that means...

On March 23 2016 12:48 fira wrote: i read on a news update from a day ago that "the Islamic state had taken responsibility" for these bombings? i'm not sure what that means...

Short for ISIS

what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war?

On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war?

Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable.

What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem.

This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free.

On March 23 2016 05:15 soberstone wrote: France is fucked. Germany is fucked. And WW3 is probably not far off. You guys really need to get your shit together over there. If I'm being over-dramatic, watch the 4 minute video and show me how, cause I'd really like to wake-up tomorrow and know that this is all fear-mongering. I'd MUCH rather be wrong.

lol this dude is a nut. you should look into him.

one of many examples:

If you pay tuition, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If you pay taxes, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If your child majors in English, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. Tell Billy to major in math.

http://townhall.com/columnists/bensha...ant_gay_english_on_the_rise/page/full

This article is actually hilarious i strongly recommend it to everyone

This is what should be supported and grown abroad.
#t=10

Baalim's response was a quality counter-argument which I can respect. Ultimately I think you are just minimizing the issue though. 1 million people that are full-blown Jihadists is nothing to sneeze at IMO.

Passiveace's was the typical non-sense attacking the messenger with no coherent argument. Did you even read the article? You don't have a problem with a taxpayers funding a course called "How to be Gay" at the University of Michigan? SMH.... I agree with one thing you said, people should read the article... I don't personally want to pay taxes so impressionable kids can go take a course who's goal is to:

"This course will examine the general topic of the role that initiation plays in the formation of gay male identity ... In particular, we will examine a number of cultural artifacts and activities that seem to play a prominent role in learning how to be gay: (including) camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, taste, style and political activism."

This DOESN'T bother you? Good God....Explain WHY he's a nut with facts or substantive commentary. I challenge you. Is anything he says in the article factually incorrect? Sounds like you read the last paragraph and that's it, because you make no substantive points whatsoever.

I'm sure this somehow makes me homophobic.

Whamm - Good video.

roflllllll

more propaganda for bigots

On March 24 2016 03:09 whamm! wrote: more propaganda for bigots

I love Milo. Guess I'm a bigot. I wear it like a badge of honor. Means nothing these days except that you hold everyone to the same standard regardless of race/sex/creed etc. Ironically that's what liberalism used to be about. Now there's a hierarchy of privilege which is inherently bigoted and fosters a feeling of victimization which ultimately harms minority groups the most. Milo has balls, probably gonna get murked by some Bill Ayers fueled moveon.org bleeding heart intolerant regressive pretty soon.

On March 23 2016 20:19 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war? Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable. What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem. This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free.

Yes because armed conflict has showed that it helps combat terrorist cells and their numbers do not incrase at all... right?....

Obviously declaring open war on any country that the CIA deems that has helped in some form a terrorist cell is a terrible idea that instead of reducing terrorism will make it worse exponentially, even Milo mentions that the west should not occupy many of their countries because that fuels the hatred that moves terrorism.

It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself

On March 24 2016 07:42 Baalim wrote: It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself

sad, and suffering of hundreds of thousands, but true and it wont happen

quite sure USA d rather stomp on a country than to stop destabilizing the region

On March 24 2016 07:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 23 2016 20:19 soberstone wrote:   On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war? Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable. What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem. This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free. Yes because armed conflict has showed that it helps combat terrorist cells and their numbers do not incrase at all... right?.... Obviously declaring open war on any country that the CIA deems that has helped in some form a terrorist cell is a terrible idea that instead of reducing terrorism will make it worse exponentially, even Milo mentions that the west should not occupy many of their countries because that fuels the hatred that moves terrorism. It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself

Um. Actually yes. I happen to take ISIS at their word that they want us dead unless we convert. That doesn't mean stop bombing. It means convert or die. I don't buy the Leftwing rhetoric that us defending ourselves helps recruitment. I think it's BS. You don't fan the flame when you attack it. You kill it. They don't use reality to recruit. They use their success to recruit disenfranchised youth, not moral equivalencies. How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush? Because we are doing relatively nothing to them right now. Is the 'containment' strategy working? If so, we have a vastly different definition of 'working'.

There will be more attacks in the coming weeks.

On March 24 2016 20:06 soberstone wrote: How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush?

How do you explain the situation in Syria, cause thats their exponential growth you're talking about.
How was it that there were no such threats while Khadaffi and Hussein were in power ? Why were arabs even in Africa destabilized ? They were doing atrocious stuff yes, so are Saudi Arabia and Israel, morals have no power in such games. Why were those 2 leaders demolished? Why was Syria demolished ?

Questions that should be asked are not how and why ISIS is what it is today, since that is more than obvious when you observe the short past of the arabic world and the politics revolving around it and the money flow going directly into ISIS.
It blows my mind people still think ISIS's main goal is to spread islam and blah blah. Are you that stupid, honestly? Have you not learned anything from our history as a species ? Its always the same - spread propaganda about a moral system while the system itself runs and its goals are something entirely else. Do you think baboons are running that organization ?
I'm not diminishing the threat the civilized world faces, but then again if you don't understand that the text above might as well have been read by a 5yo.

Go vote for Trump or something

I'm Jewish and completely agree with all of this. Guess it makes me a self-hating Jew.

On March 24 2016 22:08 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On March 24 2016 20:06 soberstone wrote: How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush? How do you explain the situation in Syria, cause thats their exponential growth you're talking about. How was it that there were no such threats while Khadaffi and Hussein were in power ? Why were arabs even in Africa destabilized ? They were doing atrocious stuff yes, so are Saudi Arabia and Israel, morals have no power in such games. Why were those 2 leaders demolished? Why was Syria demolished ? Questions that should be asked are not how and why ISIS is what it is today, since that is more than obvious when you observe the short past of the arabic world and the politics revolving around it and the money flow going directly into ISIS. It blows my mind people still think ISIS's main goal is to spread islam and blah blah. Are you that stupid, honestly? Have you not learned anything from our history as a species ? Its always the same - spread propaganda about a moral system while the system itself runs and its goals are something entirely else. Do you think baboons are running that organization ? I'm not diminishing the threat the civilized world faces, but then again if you don't understand that the text above might as well have been read by a 5yo. Go vote for Trump or something

Already explained it dummy. Stupid war. Even stupider hasty retreat that left a power vacuum. Both were wrong. Maybe try and read the argument the other side has made, since I already answered this question. You seem to think that all wars are evil and unbridled passivism is the answer. You also answered my question with a question, typical libtard with no concrete answers.

LOL? And yes, I understand the argument you are making about how ISIS isn't at its core Muslim but just evil which manifests as a power-seeking entity which is simply using the Quaran and Islam as a front. Cool argument bro, you sound like the ultimate retard. Point is it's WITHIN MUSLIM CULTURE. That's where the problem LIES. You can't wrap your head around the fact that people like me understand your super 'nuanced' argument but you don't understand ours. Point is, you are so obsessed with political correctness, not alienating specific groups, etc, that you are willing to give giant sectors of the population a pass every single time there is a problem so long as they are ultimately considered a minority group. That in itself is bigoted, dangerous, and stupid. If the problem lies in the Jewish community, call it out. If it lies in the white community, call it out. Right now, the bane of civilized society lies within a certain semi-large sector of the Muslim community and the Progressives that bend over backwards to enable it. Get over it.

Not a Trump supporter. Keep painting with the broad brush you hate so much.

Go vote for Bernie Sanders or something. You obviously buy the non-sense that all rich people stole their money from poor people and all we need is love and redistribution.

Now if you are willing to put the name-calling and character attacks aside, so am I.

Please answer my question with an answer:

How do you explain the spread of ISIS given that our foreign policy over the past 8 years has been one of military retreat and isolationism? Is it a delayed result of Bush's policy? If so, if I concede that (for the sake of debate) - than at what point and how many attacks would you advocate military action? Should we wait until they drop a bomb? Somewhere in between? Please outline a substantive answer, as I am perfectly willing to do for any question you have for me so long as it is not rhetorical in nature.

86 more dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram. #blamebush

Edit: Just incase anyone is wondering, this means Islamic State West Africa province.

On March 25 2016 00:52 soberstone wrote: 86 more dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram. #blamebush Edit: Just incase anyone is wondering, this means Islamic State West Africa province.

colonialism backfires on us again

On March 25 2016 00:57 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 25 2016 00:52 soberstone wrote: 86 more dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram. #blamebush Edit: Just incase anyone is wondering, this means Islamic State West Africa province. colonialism backfires on us again

It's only been 75 years.... lets keep blaming Colonialism.

That's pretty much akin to blaming Jim Crow for the crackhead on the corner who happens to be black. It's loosely related, but it's also a stupid place to place primary blame. Is there no room for choice and personal responsibility here? If so, Jim Crow was just a function of slavery which is just a function of black men in Africa selling other black men to white men. And on and on we go. Your logic isn't logical.

Pretty soon this stuff won't be big news. Western terrorism does seem to be accelerating though. Was like, 9/11, then 7/7, then Madrid all spaced apart a few years. Now I more or less expect a terrorist attack to happen in Europe or NA bi-monthly to quarterly. Maybe I'm a cynic.

Agreed with Nolan.

The only reason WW3 seems so close is because of idiots who view over 1 billion people as "a problem"

Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris.

On March 25 2016 05:20 capaneo wrote: The only reason WW3 seems so close is because of idiots who view over 1 billion people as "a problem"

you mean the idiots who think 5.5 billion people are kafir, right?

--- Nuked ---

--- Nuked ---

--- Nuked ---

On March 25 2016 05:20 capaneo wrote: The only reason WW3 seems so close is because of idiots who view over 1 billion people as "a problem"

Yah because those assholes in Brussel really had it coming right?

Fucking pricks were so mean to refugees. They took em in. Gave them welfare. How hateful. It's no wonder some Jihadists wanted to blow themselves up in their airport and kill civilians. Makes TOTAL sense!

Oh yah, and coloniolism and Bush and Trump and racism and bigotry and white people and money and climate change because CNN and my college professor with big glasses and big words told me so.

On March 25 2016 05:22 capaneo wrote: Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris.

Why do you hate Sam Harris so much?

FWIW, I don't particularly like him either. IMO Sam Harris is like the poor man's Christopher Hitchens. But atleast in his misplaced premise that religion is the source of all problems he identifies radical Islam as the worst right now. It's a start. Sam Harris just can't wrap his mind around the fact that Stalin, a Leftist atheist, was the single most murderous figure in modern history. Ended up being worse than Hitler, who secretly despised religion himself and used it for political gain. Probably what ISIS leaders are doing now. Only problem is all their retarded followers are willing to die for the trash. Anyway, kinda shits all over the great secular theory that if we just stopped believing it God, everything would be dandy.

But ironically our fearless President Barack Hussein Obama wants to do the wave with Raul Castro while ISIS grows. You want to talk about a real piece of shit, Barack is the epitome of some guy who uses big words but is just a lost little man. Leftists are the worst because you have to put up with their sanctimonious bullshit. Atleast with ISIS you know where they stand.

On March 24 2016 20:06 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 24 2016 07:42 Baalim wrote:   On March 23 2016 20:19 soberstone wrote:   On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war? Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable. What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem. This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free. Yes because armed conflict has showed that it helps combat terrorist cells and their numbers do not incrase at all... right?.... Obviously declaring open war on any country that the CIA deems that has helped in some form a terrorist cell is a terrible idea that instead of reducing terrorism will make it worse exponentially, even Milo mentions that the west should not occupy many of their countries because that fuels the hatred that moves terrorism. It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself Um. Actually yes. I happen to take ISIS at their word that they want us dead unless we convert. That doesn't mean stop bombing. It means convert or die. I don't buy the Leftwing rhetoric that us defending ourselves helps recruitment. I think it's BS. You don't fan the flame when you attack it. You kill it. They don't use reality to recruit. They use their success to recruit disenfranchised youth, not moral equivalencies. How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush? Because we are doing relatively nothing to them right now. Is the 'containment' strategy working? If so, we have a vastly different definition of 'working'. There will be more attacks in the coming weeks.

I also believe then when ISIS say convert or die, however bombing countries across the globe is not a defense, its a preemptive attack, and if you dont "buy" the left rhetoric how about reading statistics, Al-Qaeda has more members than ever, so does ISIS, terrorism is stronger than it was 15 years ago despise an extremely agressive foreign policy of occupation and invasion of two countries and constant drone bombing on the entire region. If after 15 years of attacks and terrorism growing isnt evidence enough that it is not working you are being an idiot.

Apparently you believe Obama had a peaceful foreign policy, well let me correct you, Obama actually increased the drone strikes in the region, thousands of soldiers are in the area, there has been constant intervention in Lybia and Siria etc.

So no, the US currently doesnt have a defense or peaceful foreign policy in the middle east, you would have to withdraw all troops from the region and stop drone strikes

On March 25 2016 05:22 capaneo wrote: Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris.

I disagree with Harris on a few things specially about foreign policy but to say he is worse than somebody who beheads "kaffirs" is absolutely idiotic, so even if you use that comparison as hyperbole you shouldn't, it makes you lose credibility

--- Nuked ---

On March 24 2016 22:41 soberstone wrote: Please answer my question with an answer: How do you explain the spread of ISIS given that our foreign policy over the past 8 years has been one of military retreat and isolationism? Is it a delayed result of Bush's policy? If so, if I concede that (for the sake of debate) - than at what point and how many attacks would you advocate military action? Should we wait until they drop a bomb? Somewhere in between? Please outline a substantive answer, as I am perfectly willing to do for any question you have for me so long as it is not rhetorical in nature.

You are so clueless aren't you ?
Thats the natural development of things in such countries after a country like yours invades it and destroys people's lives. The thing is you were wrecking that region for so long that retreat was not an option at the time being. Of course you haven't had an adequate president since ages so no wonder decision that were made terrible.
Who s talking about political correctness wow. You keep bringing it up. I don't really care about it. I just get tilted when people defend with passion the perspectives given to them by the media. What I'm trying to say is the one to blame here mostly is the USA and then NATO countries etc. etc. Since we were the terrorists for those countries such as ISIS is for us now. Whats the right thing to do? There isn't one, most likely a lot of people will have to die for the crisis to be resolved. But giving heated arguments that they must be stomped because this and that media bullshit reason is ridiculous and inaccurate. You have 30ish dead in Belgium and don't know how many in France, while thats something that happens probably close to a daily or weekly basis there.

What I'm trying to say is. Nobody gives a fuck about the normal people - not here in Europe, not in the USA, neither in Arab countries. It's all politics. It's all about money and power - you can be convinced in that. If the USA/Europe wanted to stop ISIS they would first tell Erdogan to stop fucking buying their petrol for example wouldn't they? Or the USA could just send 10 out of their probably close to 200 000 armed drones in the region and bomb the shit out the refineries or whatever structure is used for its collection. It's not like they have a shield against missiles and the main finances come from the oil so there? Another thing is Saudi Arabia and Turkey could stop selling them weapons, but that wont happen too will it? Don't believe me ? Simple logistics, there is no other way for them to get weapons.
You see the same countries that are allegedly against iSIS are the ones allowing it to run and the ones financing it. So no this isn't about a bunch of " EVIL " ( rofl did you really use that word ) people trying to reign terror. It's about geopolitics and money and fear being spread into simpletons

On March 25 2016 05:20 capaneo wrote: The only reason WW3 seems so close is because of idiots who view over 1 billion people as "a problem"

So muslims should have a special right to commit terror attacks without any critical questions beeing asked ? Just because they are so many of them ?

On March 25 2016 05:20 capaneo wrote: The only reason WW3 seems so close is because of idiots who view over 1 billion people as "a problem"

Dunno man, this comment has a strong button mash feel to it.

http://www.weaselzippers.us/198368-po...kistan-say-raping-boys-is-acceptable/

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/...-bill-in-pakistan-say-its-un-islamic/

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/06...s-in-case-it-inflamed-racial-tension/

bacha bazi

this shit is rampant all over muslim society; afghans, saudis, shit even india it don't matter. And the immigrants are spreading that shit into civilized areas like the UK were many horrible scandals have recently been covered up.

I know this shit is not talked about but that just further goes to show how much these nation rebuilding efforts are bullshit and these last 15 years of "war" were just some straight weak half-measures (maybe the only thing spitfire is right about is the geopolitical aspect of the whole thing wherein the people at the top perpetuate this shit for money and power)

All this different but equal talk is trash and i've generally held pretty tolerant, liberal views. Do what you do as long as you aren't hurting others. But when half your society is considered subhuman (women) and the other quarter+ are fucking prebuscent boys and openly bragging about it... that is some backwards savage shit that has got to go.

And then you add on top that they wanna kill non believers and basically turn the planet into some giant caliphate. With the most powerful motivation possible behind it (religious fanaticism) that is quite dangerous. Analagous to living next door to a repeat sex offender; fuck it inviting them into your home to crash on the couch after getting out of prison with your children in the room next door.

First obvious move is to do like the japanese and close borders entirely and not to view looking down on Islam as racist/xenophobic/strange/inferior/illogical. It is clearly all of those things. You cannot even import the Arabic Koran into japan. Kind of a problem here in the states as so many already live here and i'm not saying we can deport citizens even if they do believe in dangerous trash but we can at least stem the tide and hope the ones that remain continue to integrate into society and give up some of the more barbaric core beliefs.


and how can the limited military actions of the last few years really be considered war? War is some winner take all shit. Would the Roman's in Obama's position have taken the same actions? Alexander the Great? Even many of the warring parties in WW1 and WW2 would have taken all. Honestly they would probably drop the Hydrogen Bombs in one of the few situations we could actually do so without guaranteeing mutual annihilation (Islamic countries don't have it except pakistan which doesn't have the rockets to get them here - I'm sure the US wouldn't wanna risk Israel but we could preempt that action and still get it done- not that i advocate that I don't). At the very least after occupying Iraq and Afghanistan they would have taken over as the ruling parties; taken the resources (oil - poppy fields - pomegranates) and land for themselves. Probably enslave the people, ban the Koran and the religion entirely. If facing a continuing threat from a zealous population they would do what they had to quell it and the death count would be quite high. Not advocating any of this; just don't like calling it a war when we went in and headhunted a few dudes for reasons actually quite counter to our self defense, then left without putting ourselves in any better of a situation than we were before (again except haliburton and co who continue to reap the rewards of instability in the region despite the human toll). So it wasn't a war in the terms of what the Islamic people would do if the roles and power situations were reversed. IF reversed I have no doubt they would instantly turn those desserts into glass without losing a head; then suck the oil out of the shattered earth. From a purely objective basis on what is best for humanity in the long run the deaths of even 100s of millions of Muslims would be preferable to the entire planet descending into an Islamic hellhole over the next few centuries (a scenario in which many more "non believers" would die than even exist Muslims today).

Obviously it doesn't need to go anywhere near there though. Let them do them in their currently controlled territories and try to convert their society slowly through humane non-violent efforts slowly if possible. In the end if they force it though someone has clearly gotta go.

i mean closing borders to muslims. not all immigrants.

Religion is stupid because of shit like this.

Love, your neighborhood atheist.

On March 26 2016 06:38 traxamillion wrote: http://www.weaselzippers.us/198368-po...kistan-say-raping-boys-is-acceptable/ https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/...-bill-in-pakistan-say-its-un-islamic/ http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/06...s-in-case-it-inflamed-racial-tension/ bacha bazi this shit is rampant all over muslim society; afghans, saudis, shit even india it don't matter. And the immigrants are spreading that shit into civilized areas like the UK were many horrible scandals have recently been covered up. I know this shit is not talked about but that just further goes to show how much these nation rebuilding efforts are bullshit and these last 15 years of "war" were just some straight weak half-measures (maybe the only thing spitfire is right about is the geopolitical aspect of the whole thing wherein the people at the top perpetuate this shit for money and power) All this different but equal talk is trash and i've generally held pretty tolerant, liberal views. Do what you do as long as you aren't hurting others. But when half your society is considered subhuman (women) and the other quarter+ are fucking prebuscent boys and openly bragging about it... that is some backwards savage shit that has got to go. And then you add on top that they wanna kill non believers and basically turn the planet into some giant caliphate. With the most powerful motivation possible behind it (religious fanaticism) that is quite dangerous. Analagous to living next door to a repeat sex offender; fuck it inviting them into your home to crash on the couch after getting out of prison with your children in the room next door. First obvious move is to do like the japanese and close borders entirely and not to view looking down on Islam as racist/xenophobic/strange/inferior/illogical. It is clearly all of those things. You cannot even import the Arabic Koran into japan. Kind of a problem here in the states as so many already live here and i'm not saying we can deport citizens even if they do believe in dangerous trash but we can at least stem the tide and hope the ones that remain continue to integrate into society and give up some of the more barbaric core beliefs. and how can the limited military actions of the last few years really be considered war? War is some winner take all shit. Would the Roman's in Obama's position have taken the same actions? Alexander the Great? Even many of the warring parties in WW1 and WW2 would have taken all. Honestly they would probably drop the Hydrogen Bombs in one of the few situations we could actually do so without guaranteeing mutual annihilation (Islamic countries don't have it except pakistan which doesn't have the rockets to get them here - I'm sure the US wouldn't wanna risk Israel but we could preempt that action and still get it done- not that i advocate that I don't). At the very least after occupying Iraq and Afghanistan they would have taken over as the ruling parties; taken the resources (oil - poppy fields - pomegranates) and land for themselves. Probably enslave the people, ban the Koran and the religion entirely. If facing a continuing threat from a zealous population they would do what they had to quell it and the death count would be quite high. Not advocating any of this; just don't like calling it a war when we went in and headhunted a few dudes for reasons actually quite counter to our self defense, then left without putting ourselves in any better of a situation than we were before (again except haliburton and co who continue to reap the rewards of instability in the region despite the human toll). So it wasn't a war in the terms of what the Islamic people would do if the roles and power situations were reversed. IF reversed I have no doubt they would instantly turn those desserts into glass without losing a head; then suck the oil out of the shattered earth. From a purely objective basis on what is best for humanity in the long run the deaths of even 100s of millions of Muslims would be preferable to the entire planet descending into an Islamic hellhole over the next few centuries (a scenario in which many more "non believers" would die than even exist Muslims today). Obviously it doesn't need to go anywhere near there though. Let them do them in their currently controlled territories and try to convert their society slowly through humane non-violent efforts slowly if possible. In the end if they force it though someone has clearly gotta go.

That last article you put is insane. People were afraid of reporting hundreds of children being raped for years - even their own parents - because otherwise they would be labeled as racist? Not even going into the muslim debate, how can you allow a person (and especially a children) to suffer so much in front of you and not do anything about it? What is this madness how can you stay silent in front of any innocent person being physically and mentally tortured in front of you without doing anything about it. If this PC thinking makes people become human trash then they deserve less respect than the rapists themselves.

Even the police were afraid to take action against the "rape rings" or what they were called in U.K. Because they would be labelled "racist" if they did. Its totally crazy and outrageous

Government institutions failing their citizens on something basic and sadistic, now thats a first

On March 26 2016 09:07 JonnyCosMo wrote: Religion is stupid because of shit like this. Love, your neighborhood atheist.

Oversimplifications like this are just stupid. Don't blame religion, blame people. Stalin? Murdered more than anyone. Atheist. Didn't love his neighbor.

These days the Church does far, far more good than bad (even Catholicism which I admit I kinda have a personal bias against because that particular church is uber corrupt and I think the concept of a Pope is just sooooo dumb - sorry Catholics) regardless of how bad some of the shit in the bible sounds at face value. Because the Church modernized.

Islam just needs to modernize big time, which means people need to stop being policed into being politically correct and not acknowledging that it has a massive problem with radical fundamentalism.

Anyone or any country who believes in a Caliphate, Theocratic rule, Jihad, etc needs to be shunned. Not complicated. On a tangent, would be a lot easier for the US to stop buying oil from these shitbags if we dug up what was under our own feet instead of worrying about nonsense Climate Change (another stupid politically motivated phenomenon and yes I know that carbon emissions are up... perfectly faithful that science will take care of this in due time and if not too bad because China ain't stopping).

IF that's not possible, I don't claim to know, would probably need to ask an objective moderate Muslim scholar, than Islam will end up going bye bye after a lot of people die. I have faith for Muslim moderates that they can take over and modernize their religion.

BTW good rant Cam. I do think Muslims in the US have assimilated well because they've come over so slowly and learned how much better our societies are. Definetely shouldn't be taking in refugees right now though. Due to our shitbag leadership, radicalization is too high right now and we can't properly vet the refugees.

You are all wrong. SCIENTOLOGY is the ONE TRUE WAY

On March 26 2016 17:07 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2016 09:07 JonnyCosMo wrote: Religion is stupid because of shit like this. Love, your neighborhood atheist. Oversimplifications like this are just stupid. Don't blame religion, blame people. Stalin? Murdered more than anyone. Atheist. Didn't love his neighbor. These days the Church does far, far more good than bad (even Catholicism which I admit I kinda have a personal bias against because that particular church is uber corrupt and I think the concept of a Pope is just sooooo dumb - sorry Catholics) regardless of how bad some of the shit in the bible sounds at face value. Because the Church modernized. Islam just needs to modernize big time, which means people need to stop being policed into being politically correct and not acknowledging that it has a massive problem with radical fundamentalism. Anyone or any country who believes in a Caliphate, Theocratic rule, Jihad, etc needs to be shunned. Not complicated. On a tangent, would be a lot easier for the US to stop buying oil from these shitbags if we dug up what was under our own feet instead of worrying about nonsense Climate Change (another stupid politically motivated phenomenon and yes I know that carbon emissions are up... perfectly faithful that science will take care of this in due time and if not too bad because China ain't stopping). IF that's not possible, I don't claim to know, would probably need to ask an objective moderate Muslim scholar, than Islam will end up going bye bye after a lot of people die. I have faith for Muslim moderates that they can take over and modernize their religion.

Of course religion is partially responsible lol they are killing themselves screaming "god is great" and you still refuse to hold these stupid beliefs responsible?

Also you are daft if you think Catolicism vatican corruption and pedophiles is currently more harmful to the world than Islam, it is so obviously not true I dont think I really need to even go much into it.

They won't stop bombing even if you:

a) leave them alone in the middle east
b) apologize or speak in their behalf
c) Pretend to understand their struggle and be one with them

All religion is retarded but this one wins the award for the past 10 years straight

On March 27 2016 03:33 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2016 17:07 soberstone wrote:   On March 26 2016 09:07 JonnyCosMo wrote: Religion is stupid because of shit like this. Love, your neighborhood atheist. Oversimplifications like this are just stupid. Don't blame religion, blame people. Stalin? Murdered more than anyone. Atheist. Didn't love his neighbor. These days the Church does far, far more good than bad (even Catholicism which I admit I kinda have a personal bias against because that particular church is uber corrupt and I think the concept of a Pope is just sooooo dumb - sorry Catholics) regardless of how bad some of the shit in the bible sounds at face value. Because the Church modernized. Islam just needs to modernize big time, which means people need to stop being policed into being politically correct and not acknowledging that it has a massive problem with radical fundamentalism. Anyone or any country who believes in a Caliphate, Theocratic rule, Jihad, etc needs to be shunned. Not complicated. On a tangent, would be a lot easier for the US to stop buying oil from these shitbags if we dug up what was under our own feet instead of worrying about nonsense Climate Change (another stupid politically motivated phenomenon and yes I know that carbon emissions are up... perfectly faithful that science will take care of this in due time and if not too bad because China ain't stopping). IF that's not possible, I don't claim to know, would probably need to ask an objective moderate Muslim scholar, than Islam will end up going bye bye after a lot of people die. I have faith for Muslim moderates that they can take over and modernize their religion. Of course religion is partially responsible lol they are killing themselves screaming "god is great" and you still refuse to hold these stupid beliefs responsible? Also you are daft if you think Catolicism vatican corruption and pedophiles is currently more harmful to the world than Islam, it is so obviously not true I dont think I really need to even go much into it.

Incase you haven't noticed I'm the guy who thinks Islamism/Radical Islam is, currently, a huge problem that needs to be pointed out and shit all over. Christianity and Judaism have some pretty dark histories (Judaism not so much in modern history) but today they are causing much more good than evil because they have modernized, don't try and violently convert people, and do a shitload of Charity.

I'm also not willing to go so far as to say religion is the core problem, and used Stalin as an example. The Nazis also hated religion, Hitler was only a Catholic for political purposes to rise up the ranks.

I think you mistake me for someone else here, I am NOT defending Islam. I hate people who cry bigot over facts and truth.

On March 27 2016 05:24 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 03:33 Baalim wrote:   On March 26 2016 17:07 soberstone wrote:   On March 26 2016 09:07 JonnyCosMo wrote: Religion is stupid because of shit like this. Love, your neighborhood atheist. Oversimplifications like this are just stupid. Don't blame religion, blame people. Stalin? Murdered more than anyone. Atheist. Didn't love his neighbor. These days the Church does far, far more good than bad (even Catholicism which I admit I kinda have a personal bias against because that particular church is uber corrupt and I think the concept of a Pope is just sooooo dumb - sorry Catholics) regardless of how bad some of the shit in the bible sounds at face value. Because the Church modernized. Islam just needs to modernize big time, which means people need to stop being policed into being politically correct and not acknowledging that it has a massive problem with radical fundamentalism. Anyone or any country who believes in a Caliphate, Theocratic rule, Jihad, etc needs to be shunned. Not complicated. On a tangent, would be a lot easier for the US to stop buying oil from these shitbags if we dug up what was under our own feet instead of worrying about nonsense Climate Change (another stupid politically motivated phenomenon and yes I know that carbon emissions are up... perfectly faithful that science will take care of this in due time and if not too bad because China ain't stopping). IF that's not possible, I don't claim to know, would probably need to ask an objective moderate Muslim scholar, than Islam will end up going bye bye after a lot of people die. I have faith for Muslim moderates that they can take over and modernize their religion. Of course religion is partially responsible lol they are killing themselves screaming "god is great" and you still refuse to hold these stupid beliefs responsible? Also you are daft if you think Catolicism vatican corruption and pedophiles is currently more harmful to the world than Islam, it is so obviously not true I dont think I really need to even go much into it. Incase you haven't noticed I'm the guy who thinks Islamism/Radical Islam is, currently, a huge problem that needs to be pointed out and shit all over. Christianity and Judaism have some pretty dark histories but today they are causing much more good than evil because they have modernized, don't try and violently convert people, and do a shitload of Charity. I'm also not willing to go so far as to say religion is the core problem, and used Stalin as an example. The Nazis also hated religion, Hitler was only a Catholic for political purposes to rise up the ranks. I think you mistake me for someone else here, I am NOT defending Islam. I hate people who cry bigot over facts and truth.

yeah I got confused I think, anyway no christianity and other religions obviously not do more good than harm but lets not discuss that in this unrelated thread

On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east

how would you know?

I think it is all related. I'm not sure how you can say, Mormons for instance, who are almost literally are all about charitable missions, peace, etc. are doing more harm than good. Why? Because a small portion of them believe in Polygamy? Give me a break.

I do worry about all religions getting lumped in unfairly with Islam's current issues so I do think its pertinent, but I am glad we can agree on the core subject.

In my own personal experience, as a guy who was raised Jewish (not hardcore at all) but who is an Agnostic, I've found that most Religious Christians are nice people who believe in family, charity, good morals, don't push their religion down my throat, while I've found that Atheists are young people who think they have it all figured out but are really quite Militant about their beliefs and are pretty miserable people because once you've ruled out any purpose to living at all and are "sure" God/some higher power (same shit) doesn't exist, it's kinda tough to be happy. I feel bad for them. They end up, again in my experience, worshiping something anyway - whether its environmentalism, veganism, democratic socialism, or some other such nonsense.

On March 25 2016 07:37 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 25 2016 05:22 capaneo wrote: Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris. I disagree with Harris on a few things specially about foreign policy but to say he is worse than somebody who beheads "kaffirs" is absolutely idiotic, so even if you use that comparison as hyperbole you shouldn't, it makes you lose credibility

Because beheading people and going "all-in" at-least requires balls. Which he doesn't have. He likes it when people like Ben Carson would hint that they would do similar things. He likes to preemptively nuke the muslims. But he just says shit. He is like those terrorists only "train" and brainwash suicide bombers but never do anything themselves.

lol capaneo u are really crazy

On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know?

Well Belgium...Philippines...we don't even have a proper army lol
They will bomb and terrorize when they can. We even kicked out the U.S. bases 10 years now. Yet they will look for reasons to bomb shit for practice
They've been pretty excited announcing that there are ISIS cells in the PH now, warnings of shit going down etc. Didn't even give any demands, just gonna fuck us up when we drop the ball. Maybe for being a Catholic country? Take a guess

On March 27 2016 08:32 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 25 2016 07:37 Baalim wrote:   On March 25 2016 05:22 capaneo wrote: Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris. I disagree with Harris on a few things specially about foreign policy but to say he is worse than somebody who beheads "kaffirs" is absolutely idiotic, so even if you use that comparison as hyperbole you shouldn't, it makes you lose credibility Because beheading people and going "all-in" at-least requires balls. Which he doesn't have. He likes it when people like Ben Carson would hint that they would do similar things. He likes to preemptively nuke the muslims. But he just says shit. He is like those terrorists only "train" and brainwash suicide bombers but never do anything themselves.

^^ Oh that's such a Sam Harris thing to say

Just in 44 dead in pakistan suicide bombing
Near the childrens rides in a park, christians celebrating
Easter sunday.

On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know?

What were we doing in the Middle East on September 10th, 2001?

On March 27 2016 16:33 whamm! wrote: Just in 44 dead in pakistan suicide bombing Near the childrens rides in a park, christians celebrating Easter sunday.

I don't get it. These seem unrelated

On March 27 2016 08:32 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 25 2016 07:37 Baalim wrote:   On March 25 2016 05:22 capaneo wrote: Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris. I disagree with Harris on a few things specially about foreign policy but to say he is worse than somebody who beheads "kaffirs" is absolutely idiotic, so even if you use that comparison as hyperbole you shouldn't, it makes you lose credibility Because beheading people and going "all-in" at-least requires balls. Which he doesn't have. He likes it when people like Ben Carson would hint that they would do similar things. He likes to preemptively nuke the muslims. But he just says shit. He is like those terrorists only "train" and brainwash suicide bombers but never do anything themselves.

No he never advocated to preemtive nuke muslims for fucks sake, this opinion is incredibly retarded, so people who behead are better at him because they have more balls? To me you have zero credibility regarding this issue because of opinions like this, it shows you are clearly not objective and rational

On March 27 2016 08:32 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 25 2016 07:37 Baalim wrote:   On March 25 2016 05:22 capaneo wrote: Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris. I disagree with Harris on a few things specially about foreign policy but to say he is worse than somebody who beheads "kaffirs" is absolutely idiotic, so even if you use that comparison as hyperbole you shouldn't, it makes you lose credibility Because beheading people and going "all-in" at-least requires balls. Which he doesn't have. He likes it when people like Ben Carson would hint that they would do similar things. He likes to preemptively nuke the muslims. But he just says shit. He is like those terrorists only "train" and brainwash suicide bombers but never do anything themselves.

holy ****. man. wow. capaneo, you can't seriously think that. i think you dislike Sam for some obscure reason, which is OK, and now you are rationalizing your opinion - ill give you the benefit of the doubt here

This Muslim shopkeeper in Scotland wanted tolerance and wrote a heartfelt message of peace to Christians
- after a couple of hours he was stabbed to death in front of a lot witnesses. Smh.
If this kind of behavior gets a death sentence, no wonder the moderates don't say shit
https://www.rt.com/uk/337257-scottish-muslim-shopkeeper-killed/

If you had a trip planned to the destination Brussels (or Paris), would you still go or cancel?

On March 28 2016 05:25 cariadon wrote: If you had a trip planned to the destination Brussels (or Paris), would you still go or cancel?

lightning never strikes the same place twice, just look at the WTC

On March 28 2016 05:01 whamm! wrote: This Muslim shopkeeper in Scotland wanted tolerance and wrote a heartfelt message of peace to Christians - after a couple of hours he was stabbed to death in front of a lot witnesses. Smh. If this kind of behavior gets a death sentence, no wonder the moderates don't say shit https://www.rt.com/uk/337257-scottish-muslim-shopkeeper-killed/

Yea to be clear this is Muslim on Muslim violence

On March 27 2016 21:29 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know? What were we doing in the Middle East on September 10th, 2001?

1981 - the US shoots down Lybian jets in the Gulf of Sidra refusing to acknolwdge the area as Lybian waters.

1982 - US deploys forces in the Sinai Peninsula

1982 the US sends 800 marines in Lebanon

1983 the US sends 1200 more soldiers in Lebanon

1986 the US fires missiles against Lybian soldiers

1986 the USnaval forces bomb Tripoly claiming terrorist there attacked Germany

1987 the US attacks two Iranian oil plataform

1988 US attacks Iranian forces as reprisal for deplying mines in the persian gulf

1989 US destroys two Lybian fighters jets again over the mediterranean sea, the american pilots claimed the Lybian pilots demonstrated hostile intentions

1990 - Bush declares operation Desert Shield, deploying troops in Saudy Arabia precursor to the Gulf War.

1996 Operation Desert Strike, american forces strike Iraq to protect the Kurdish population

1998 Operation Desert Fox, american conduct major bombings for 3 days on important Iraqui targets

1998 Operation Infinite Reach, americans deploy cruise missiles to target suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan

2000 special forces deployed in Nigeria for training purposes

2001-2014 War in Afghanistan

2003-2011 War in Iraq

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And that list is only acknowledged attacks, it isnt counting all the coups orchestrated by american intelligence and CIA missions and I didnt mention all the attacks post 2001 because that list is fucking endless>


The US government has pretty much waged constant war against different targets for the past 200 years, I never thought there were people who actually believed you had a peaceful foreign policy... it appears to me those people exist, hi there!

On March 27 2016 05:30 soberstone wrote: I think it is all related. I'm not sure how you can say, Mormons for instance.

of all the religions you could have chosen you picked the latter day saints... come on.

On March 28 2016 07:58 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 05:30 soberstone wrote: I think it is all related. I'm not sure how you can say, Mormons for instance. of all the religions you could have chosen you picked the latter day saints... come on.

sick argument

You believe some petty charity somehow makes up for deluding 15 million people in a ridiculous cult formed by a conman spreading racism, taking 10% of their income, coerced marriage etc.

By spreading ignorance and perpetuating stupidity you are doing mankind a huge disservice.

On March 26 2016 16:24 VanDerMeyde wrote: Even the police were afraid to take action against the "rape rings" or what they were called in U.K. Because they would be labelled "racist" if they did. Its totally crazy and outrageous

Most people haven't heard of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_sex_gang

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 21:29 Santafairy wrote:   On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know? What were we doing in the Middle East on September 10th, 2001? 1981 - the US shoots down Lybian jets in the Gulf of Sidra refusing to acknolwdge the area as Lybian waters. 1982 - US deploys forces in the Sinai Peninsula 1982 the US sends 800 marines in Lebanon 1983 the US sends 1200 more soldiers in Lebanon 1986 the US fires missiles against Lybian soldiers 1986 the USnaval forces bomb Tripoly claiming terrorist there attacked Germany 1987 the US attacks two Iranian oil plataform 1988 US attacks Iranian forces as reprisal for deplying mines in the persian gulf 1989 US destroys two Lybian fighters jets again over the mediterranean sea, the american pilots claimed the Lybian pilots demonstrated hostile intentions

Lebanon was in a civil war in the 80s (for over a decade). Other than that teaching you that, I'm going to skip responding to this portion because it's not relevant to anything, unless you want to come back and make an actual point.

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1990 - Bush declares operation Desert Shield, deploying troops in Saudy Arabia precursor to the Gulf War.

The Saudi government, a US ally, asked for a troop presence because they didn't want to get attacked like Iran and Kuwait.

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1996 Operation Desert Strike, american forces strike Iraq to protect the Kurdish population

Do you think maintaining no-fly zones in Iraq and protecting the Kurds was a mistake? Or do you think genocide in Iraq is better than US imperialism?

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1998 Operation Desert Fox, american conduct major bombings for 3 days on important Iraqui targets

Violating nonproliferation is a breach of international law.

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1998 Operation Infinite Reach, americans deploy cruise missiles to target suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan

Wouldn't want to bomb terrorist camps, now, would we? The peaceful jihadis just want to be left alone to play paintball.

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 2000 special forces deployed in Nigeria for training purposes

I'm talking to someone who doesn't even know where the Middle East is.

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 2001-2014 War in Afghanistan 2003-2011 War in Iraq --------------------------------------------------------------------- And that list is only acknowledged attacks, it isnt counting all the coups orchestrated by american intelligence and CIA missions and I didnt mention all the attacks post 2001 because that list is fucking endless>

You really didn't understand the question at all, did you.

On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: The US government has pretty much waged constant war against different targets for the past 200 years, I never thought there were people who actually believed you had a peaceful foreign policy... it appears to me those people exist, hi there!

...Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable.

On March 28 2016 17:48 Santafairy wrote: ..Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable.

SOUUULREEEEAAAD :D

It's people like you that make Edward Bernays fascinating to me, the guy was pure evil yet his works and their application are amazing.

p.s. don't forget to squeeze that ass when the americans penetrate you

On March 28 2016 18:16 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2016 17:48 Santafairy wrote: ..Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable. SOUUULREEEEAAAD :D It's people like you that make Edward Bernays fascinating to me, the guy was pure evil yet his works and their application are amazing. p.s. don't forget to squeeze that ass when the americans penetrate you

On March 28 2016 17:48 Santafairy wrote: ...Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable.

At no point I stated if those acts were justified or not, I was asked about the presence of the US in muslim countries before 9/11 (thats why I mentioned Nigeria) because apparently somebody believed that prior 9/11 the US had a non-intervention and peaceful foreign policy.

but yeah of course all these clear arguments stem from my irrational anti-Americanism because its hip.

Cliffs on their international politics are:

You're playing their game , they are happy.
Saddam was "worshipped" by american presidents, before he got tired of Israel's politics in the region, so he started doing the same stuff. USA told him to stop, he didn't. His image was turned from a major friend to the nation to the biggest evil on the planet -> Gulf War.

Thats pretty standard though, its the policy that follows that is of extreme importance and the USA obv failed on that one.

On March 28 2016 17:48 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 21:29 Santafairy wrote:   On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know? What were we doing in the Middle East on September 10th, 2001? 1981 - the US shoots down Lybian jets in the Gulf of Sidra refusing to acknolwdge the area as Lybian waters. 1982 - US deploys forces in the Sinai Peninsula 1982 the US sends 800 marines in Lebanon 1983 the US sends 1200 more soldiers in Lebanon 1986 the US fires missiles against Lybian soldiers 1986 the USnaval forces bomb Tripoly claiming terrorist there attacked Germany 1987 the US attacks two Iranian oil plataform 1988 US attacks Iranian forces as reprisal for deplying mines in the persian gulf 1989 US destroys two Lybian fighters jets again over the mediterranean sea, the american pilots claimed the Lybian pilots demonstrated hostile intentions Lebanon was in a civil war in the 80s (for over a decade). Other than that teaching you that, I'm going to skip responding to this portion because it's not relevant to anything, unless you want to come back and make an actual point.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1990 - Bush declares operation Desert Shield, deploying troops in Saudy Arabia precursor to the Gulf War. The Saudi government, a US ally, asked for a troop presence because they didn't want to get attacked like Iran and Kuwait.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1996 Operation Desert Strike, american forces strike Iraq to protect the Kurdish population Do you think maintaining no-fly zones in Iraq and protecting the Kurds was a mistake? Or do you think genocide in Iraq is better than US imperialism?   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1998 Operation Desert Fox, american conduct major bombings for 3 days on important Iraqui targets Violating nonproliferation is a breach of international law.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1998 Operation Infinite Reach, americans deploy cruise missiles to target suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan Wouldn't want to bomb terrorist camps, now, would we? The peaceful jihadis just want to be left alone to play paintball.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 2000 special forces deployed in Nigeria for training purposes I'm talking to someone who doesn't even know where the Middle East is.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 2001-2014 War in Afghanistan 2003-2011 War in Iraq --------------------------------------------------------------------- And that list is only acknowledged attacks, it isnt counting all the coups orchestrated by american intelligence and CIA missions and I didnt mention all the attacks post 2001 because that list is fucking endless> You really didn't understand the question at all, did you.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: The US government has pretty much waged constant war against different targets for the past 200 years, I never thought there were people who actually believed you had a peaceful foreign policy... it appears to me those people exist, hi there! ...Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable.

Iranian's elected a prime minister in 1953 called Mossadeq. He came on and basically started to protect the interest of Iranian people, American's company didn't like it and they over threw the government. This lead to massive take over of all the populist movements inside Iran by religious figures (which were also against Mossadeq) and that eventually lead to the revolution in 79. USA was one of the first countries who actually recognized the new government of Iran with Khomeini in charge. Now it is that same government (and literally some of the same people in 53) who are trying to protect themselves from Americans because they have seen first hand what the American government does and they know American don't give a shit about anything other than the business interest of American companies. The story in Iraq and Afghanistan is very very similar. If you don't understand or acknowledge that dynamic and just blame stuff on religion of Islam, you are a fucking ignorant idiot. There are Muslims in eastern China who don't give a shit about the jews or America one way or the other because they have never been affected by them. So that alone should tell you that "Islam" has nothing to do with the violence.

Also most ignorant Americans don't know this, but in 1988 an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people was literally shot down by an American navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The people responsible on the boat were literally given a fucking medal after their term. But I guess it is Islam that is fueling the hatred.

@Cap

No way for this question to not come off snarky, but if Islam isn't the driving force behind pretty much every Sunni message board online referring to Iranians as 'rafida' and go on all day about how shia do nothing but sit around insulting Aisha all day than what is. Even guys like Nakshawani seem to admit that anti-shia sentiment is 'mainstream' in Islam.

Isn't the #1 terrorism victim by body count in Pakistan the Shia?

On March 30 2016 03:36 capaneo wrote: Iranian's elected a prime minister in 1953 called Mossadeq. He came on and basically started to protect the interest of Iranian people, American's company didn't like it and they over threw the government. This lead to massive take over of all the populist movements inside Iran by religious figures (which were also against Mossadeq) and that eventually lead to the revolution in 79. USA was one of the first countries who actually recognized the new government of Iran with Khomeini in charge. Now it is that same government (and literally some of the same people in 53) who are trying to protect themselves from Americans because they have seen first hand what the American government does and they know American don't give a shit about anything other than the business interest of American companies. The story in Iraq and Afghanistan is very very similar. If you don't understand or acknowledge that dynamic and just blame stuff on religion of Islam, you are a fucking ignorant idiot. There are Muslims in eastern China who don't give a shit about the jews or America one way or the other because they have never been affected by them. So that alone should tell you that "Islam" has nothing to do with the violence. Also most ignorant Americans don't know this, but in 1988 an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people was literally shot down by an American navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The people responsible on the boat were literally given a fucking medal after their term. But I guess it is Islam that is fueling the hatred.

Stop hating on America only because its hip bruh!


BTW I cant get over your stupid rationalization of Harris being worse than ISIS, come on... you know you went full retard there.

On March 31 2016 01:40 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2016 03:36 capaneo wrote: Iranian's elected a prime minister in 1953 called Mossadeq. He came on and basically started to protect the interest of Iranian people, American's company didn't like it and they over threw the government. This lead to massive take over of all the populist movements inside Iran by religious figures (which were also against Mossadeq) and that eventually lead to the revolution in 79. USA was one of the first countries who actually recognized the new government of Iran with Khomeini in charge. Now it is that same government (and literally some of the same people in 53) who are trying to protect themselves from Americans because they have seen first hand what the American government does and they know American don't give a shit about anything other than the business interest of American companies. The story in Iraq and Afghanistan is very very similar. If you don't understand or acknowledge that dynamic and just blame stuff on religion of Islam, you are a fucking ignorant idiot. There are Muslims in eastern China who don't give a shit about the jews or America one way or the other because they have never been affected by them. So that alone should tell you that "Islam" has nothing to do with the violence. Also most ignorant Americans don't know this, but in 1988 an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people was literally shot down by an American navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The people responsible on the boat were literally given a fucking medal after their term. But I guess it is Islam that is fueling the hatred. Stop hating on America only because its hip bruh! BTW I cant get over your stupid rationalization of Harris being worse than ISIS, come on... you know you went full retard there.

lol, I dont hate America. I actually really like most stuff about America. But there are some retarded stuff with them as well. Gun control is one of them, this is another one.

PS: I said I have more respect for terrorist who blow themselves up than Harris. I also have more respect for them than their instructors. Harris is the definition of pseudo-intellectual. I understand why some unemployed orphan growing up in a warzone becomes a terrorist. But people like Sam Harris are just pure evil who don't have the balls to even say what they mean. They just "imply" stuff.

On March 31 2016 01:04 nolan wrote: @Cap No way for this question to not come off snarky, but if Islam isn't the driving force behind pretty much every Sunni message board online referring to Iranians as 'rafida' and go on all day about how shia do nothing but sit around insulting Aisha all day than what is. Even guys like Nakshawani seem to admit that anti-shia sentiment is 'mainstream' in Islam. Isn't the #1 terrorism victim by body count in Pakistan the Shia?

The problem is the framing of it. You can't call it "Islam". The Shia themselves say they are Islam. The grandmother in Canada also calls it Islam. Problem is fundamentalism and extremism. And that is in many concepts. So if you say fundamentalist Muslims are a problem that we have to deal with? I say absolutely yes. But there is a big difference between framing it that way or just say Islam is a problem.

For example in Russia extreme nationalism is a problem. So if you say the far right nationalist Russians are a problem that we have to deal with, i say yes. But people like Sam Harris would frame is as Russians are crazy, or Russian culture is a problem. And that framing only leads to bigotry and hatred and nothing good comes out of it. It just directs anger and hate towards a certain race, culture instead of an actual problem.

On March 31 2016 06:38 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 31 2016 01:40 Baalim wrote:   On March 30 2016 03:36 capaneo wrote: Iranian's elected a prime minister in 1953 called Mossadeq. He came on and basically started to protect the interest of Iranian people, American's company didn't like it and they over threw the government. This lead to massive take over of all the populist movements inside Iran by religious figures (which were also against Mossadeq) and that eventually lead to the revolution in 79. USA was one of the first countries who actually recognized the new government of Iran with Khomeini in charge. Now it is that same government (and literally some of the same people in 53) who are trying to protect themselves from Americans because they have seen first hand what the American government does and they know American don't give a shit about anything other than the business interest of American companies. The story in Iraq and Afghanistan is very very similar. If you don't understand or acknowledge that dynamic and just blame stuff on religion of Islam, you are a fucking ignorant idiot. There are Muslims in eastern China who don't give a shit about the jews or America one way or the other because they have never been affected by them. So that alone should tell you that "Islam" has nothing to do with the violence. Also most ignorant Americans don't know this, but in 1988 an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people was literally shot down by an American navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The people responsible on the boat were literally given a fucking medal after their term. But I guess it is Islam that is fueling the hatred. Stop hating on America only because its hip bruh! BTW I cant get over your stupid rationalization of Harris being worse than ISIS, come on... you know you went full retard there. lol, I dont hate America. I actually really like most stuff about America. But there are some retarded stuff with them as well. Gun control is one of them, this is another one. PS: I said I have more respect for terrorist who blow themselves up than Harris. I also have more respect for them than their instructors. Harris is the definition of pseudo-intellectual. I understand why some unemployed orphan growing up in a warzone becomes a terrorist. But people like Sam Harris are just pure evil who don't have the balls to even say what they mean. They just "imply" stuff.

I was being sarcastic because I was told that thing when I argued against the US foreign policy... how can such a thing fly over your head -_-

You respect ignorant mass murderers more than pseudo intellectuals? are you fucked up, regardless of what Harris said he is leaps above any murderer.

And I challenged your claim that Harris has said that we should send a preemptive nuclear strike, please post your source or GTFO. (In before you post a vid from Cenk Yugur and get you ass kicked)

On March 31 2016 06:47 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 31 2016 01:04 nolan wrote: @Cap No way for this question to not come off snarky, but if Islam isn't the driving force behind pretty much every Sunni message board online referring to Iranians as 'rafida' and go on all day about how shia do nothing but sit around insulting Aisha all day than what is. Even guys like Nakshawani seem to admit that anti-shia sentiment is 'mainstream' in Islam. Isn't the #1 terrorism victim by body count in Pakistan the Shia? The problem is the framing of it. You can't call it "Islam". The Shia themselves say they are Islam. The grandmother in Canada also calls it Islam. Problem is fundamentalism and extremism. And that is in many concepts. So if you say fundamentalist Muslims are a problem that we have to deal with? I say absolutely yes. But there is a big difference between framing it that way or just say Islam is a problem. For example in Russia extreme nationalism is a problem. So if you say the far right nationalist Russians are a problem that we have to deal with, i say yes. But people like Sam Harris would frame is as Russians are crazy, or Russian culture is a problem. And that framing only leads to bigotry and hatred and nothing good comes out of it. It just directs anger and hate towards a certain race, culture instead of an actual problem.

This has been discussed before, read the thread or gtfo man.

Over 50% of muslims are Islamists, which means they are in favor of death penalty for apostacy, homosexuality, favour sharia law in muslims countries and would like a Caliphate, so yeah >1% actually belong to terrorist cells, but hundreds of millions would still qualify to barbaric and insane.