I am a big believer in the Anthropogenic Global Warming "project". Huge, mega believer. What is 21 years in the lifetime of a planet? Nothing. Satellite technology is what? So new and untested. But we can stop it. We can stop the Anthropogenic Global Warming "project". Also it is unscientific to deny the Anthropogenic Global Warming "project". Borderline illegal and even racist... I accept the evidence of No No Global Warming...  LOL... <<serious mode off>> Now that's a Fine Outstanding Comment, Young Man. You can go far. I'll put a good word in for you with the Kommisar. <<serious mode on>> I will NOT argue the issues in this thread. I'm sticking to asking the questions in the OP. |
|
|
|
They were killed by Mexican gang members, many of whom come across the border illegally to sell drugs or purchase weapons.
But the PC side is more worried about alleged "racism" than the actual body count, and ease by which the gangsters sneak into the US
You obviously agree with Trump that these many, many Mexican deaths and disappearances are a "good start" and will cut down on the rapists, murderers, etc. coming into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. What right-wingers fail to understand is that the tremendous amounts of money made by drug cartels from narcotic sales in the U.S. will not be given up without a fight. ..... I happened to hear Trump give a talk on this matter, and my impression was that he understands the complexity of the entire problem quite well. My impression is that you do not. However, you are correct that a lot of "right wingers" who think a simple fence would work would line up and support Trump. But that's no reason to think he's got such a viewpoint. |
|
|
|
I simply don't understand the idea behind gun free zones. It will only weed out sane people with guns and give a shooter the piece of mind that they won't be shot at when they begin a massacre.
Well, suppose you and I were strolling down the street and we concealed carry. There's a massacre going on inside a store with a sign on the door - "No Firearms." What are we supposed to do? Break the rules, and the store owner's desires, and go inside and put a bunch of holes in the shooter's body? Someone needs to help me out with this, because I'm having trouble figuring it out. |
|
|
|
Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:
1. Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
1.A. Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?
2. If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?
3. Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
3.A. In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?
4. If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
4.A. How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?
Thoughts/answers to the above?
No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace. As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace. Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing. So do you think the root cause of violence is "us vs. them" (i.e. tribalism, which isn't unique to religion) or something inherent to religion specifically? Yes, tribalism is the root of religion. It's made far worse when the religion's tenets tie it to a certain geographical area - eg "The Holy Lands," Mecca, whatever. Then you've got brainwashed idiots drooling over a piece of fucking dirt. Then you've got problems. Leaving that aside, Islam has for 50 years exported terror. It's not new, it's just that the public has a short memory and really only looks at the last 2 years at any moment in time. Islamic terror seems to have started with Sayyid Qutb, who did diverge from mainstream Sunni with his thirty some pamplets preaching violent Jihad. One example would be the killing of the Jewish athletes at the (IIRC) 1982 Olympics. And a long series of bombings and hijacking of aircraft back them. As just one example, the 1985 movie Back to the Future has a subplot with Arab terrorists who are virtually the same as their stereotype today - indicating this profile predates 1985, of course. Don't believe the propagandists posting here about peace and love, that's just paid shills - possibly with sincere, honest intentions. But you see, the nature of propaganda is "to propagate," which means it is belief systems propagated by naive and gullible believers. They don't really understand what they are doing. |
|
|
|
I simply don't understand the idea behind gun free zones. It will only weed out sane people with guns and give a shooter the piece of mind that they won't be shot at when they begin a massacre.
It is one of the most naive and stupid ideas I have ever seen in my life, even in the UK they don't do that kind of bullshit. It's like this 'safe space' crap that's starting to pop up around universities all they're doing is posting up a sign to reassure idiots. I simply don't understand the idea behind gun free zones. It will only weed out sane people with guns and give a shooter the piece of mind that they won't be shot at when they begin a massacre.
Don't be silly, the gun free zones work perfectly fine like 99.9% of the time. They just weren't doing it right this time. Next time it'll be better. Yes! Now they'll post TWO signs! That will show those crazy gun owners! I do wonder, if in a public spaces and public buildings you had two areas, equal in all respects but (1) a Gun Free Zone and (2) Concealed Carry Welcome.... ....which would people use, and why? |
|
|
|
Donald Trump was unfortunately proven right on another one of his top issues Thursday: "gun free zones" at military bases. Indications that Thursday's shooting at two military bases in Chattanooga, Tenn., occurred at or near "gun free zones." In an interview with the website AmmoLand.com, Trump decried the zones on military bases, suggesting that they left highly-trained gun operators without a weapon to fire at attackers, with the exception of military police. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-would-end-gun-free-zones-on-military-bases/article/2567907You are Islamophooob! Why you spread hate! All love and peace! Read the Koran you will see! <<sarcasm 120%>> |
|
|
|
What else is there to add... No! Evil Jew Plot! This is not Real Mohammed! This is not Islam religion of peace and love! Evil Jew plot with CIA dress like Islam to make Islam look bad! All Bush fault! But don't draw cartoon of this Mohammed he still name Mohammed! All Jew Fault and they did 911 we all know that! <<sarcasm>> The bullshit levels on international forums targeted by Islamic sock puppets and paid disinformation agents is fucking ridiculous. |
|
|
|
I am CERTAIN the authorities were wrong in assuming it was "A case of Domestic Terrorism." Just the fact that the shooter was Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez means NOTHING. He could not be an Islamic Terrorist because there ARE NONE. NO! NOWHERE! All Islam Peace and LOVE! This is Jew PLOT! <<sarcasm and critical of resident Muslims blind to issues with their religion that result in innocent people dying>> |
|
|
|
This beady eyed, intensely glaring right wing fanatical knuckle dragging brainy dude hiding unfairly in a lowbrow skull has xray eyes that pierce laser sharp through fabrications, lies, misrepresentations, and other leftylibbyloserlies. He obviously has severe mental problems. |
|
|
|
Most Americans are religious too, and unfortunately we're a very violent culture. It's an ugly combination. I'm truly sorry about the bombings america does, it shames me deeply. If I was in charge we'd dismantle all the bombs. In light of all this violence, wouldn't you agree that "hate is good it make us feel alive", is a stupid, shitty, childish thing to say? In truth it hurts to hate, just as it hurts to be hated. It feels good to love, just as it feels good to be loved. Of course, as soon as you dismantled the bombs, violent-prone aggressors would come in and cut your head off, or force you to submit to their relgion. Seems like I heard you didn't like religion.... |
|
|
|
He's making a valid point on a reframing of the argument to suit the point he wishes to make. The fundamental question was and is:
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
My original point was, and still is, that there is no moral superiority in forcing castration on a man instead of killing him. My point disclaims the moral superiority you claimed in your original post. And my point is YOU'VE GOT THE BENEFIT OF A COMPUTER to project whatever your point of view is, and if Turing had been in Islamic country, you would be, effectively, totally shut up because you'd have no computer. Turing had NOTHING to do with SJW or gay rights or any crap like that. Think advances in pure math. |
|
|
|
I find Islam to be a kind and peaceful religion. I know that my Muslim friends pray that one day DAESH will convert to Islam and stop worshiping the devil.  But why don't you call the assholes by their correct name? ISIS, not DAESH. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?" It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man. You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view. My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today. Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did. You and spendulus are not muslims. I am not a muslim. A simple idea: why don't you ask directly that question to the muslims in this thread. Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law. Why not let the people with the necessary experience answer? Could be yes. Could be no. Ask away. Asking about a hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and further your premise is incorrect. "Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law." He wasn't accepted as openly gay under British law - he was forced into chemical castration - so why would also not being accepted as openly gay under sharia law have any relevance? We can accept that he would have not been accepted in as openly gay in an Islamic society and it doesn't affect my point at all. My point is he wasn't accepted by British society, all attempts in this thread to gain some moral superiority over Islam for only castrating the man notwithstanding. There are no bragging rights to be had over how much more civilized you are for forcing someone to be castrated, instead of murdering them. One society can be more barbaric and yet neither have any moral standing whatsoever on the matter. You are making a valid point, as a muslim. Are you speaking as a shiite or a sunni? He's making a valid point on a reframing of the argument to suit the point he wishes to make. The fundamental question was and is: Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today? I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations. |
|
|
|
Well, what did cause him to want to kill people indiscriminantly? It does seem by contrast, that someone such as a serial rapist/murderer is more rational. However before shrugging off such a personal as "crazy" two things should be considered. 1. Is there collaborating evidence in his life that he was crazy? Relationships or lack of, jobs or lack of, other things he said or did? The question is not did he repeatedly say he was going to kill people, but whether he said crazy stuff. For example, "I am Napoleon." 2. Was he on anti-psychotic drugs? In short, one might question whether the "violent Muslim virus" is particularly capable of infecting those on anti-psychotic drugs, or those who are clinically psychotic, or clinically depressed. Worth considering... |
|
|
|
Watched some Charlie Rose
It looks like the negotiations made sense since they were close enough to building the nuclear weapon that if they did not interfere they would either need to allow Iran to have the arms or declare a war against a nuclear power.
Its less costly and more effective than another war.
What you just said made zero sense. Maybe because Rose made zero sense? |
|
|
|
Neomarxist doesnt mean leftists, as ideology has nothing to do with working class and poor anymore. Only minorities and transnational capital interests are counted. Exactly, these fuckers have hijacked the true left and now it's all to do with managing what people can and can't say about others, it's not even really about equality anymore it's all about control. It's like how religious nutcases have gone and hijacked the Republican party.Except they didn't and have not hijacked the republican party. It's owned by neo-progressives as far as I can tell, with a stubborn minority since 2010 of Tea Party conservatives. Those are mostly fiscal conservatives, with a sizeable fraction of religious conservatives. None of this comes anywhere close to "religious nutcases hijacking the Repubs" obviously. What does happen is that a subgroup of a party for their support and such is "owed some favors," and expects some payback. That happens with every party everywhere though. Agree with you about the hijacking of the true left. As I recall in 2008-2009 "libertarians" were often found in the "liberal community" and except for the minority that voted Libertarian, they were democrat. But they had to be shoved out of the new Totalitarian Left, so now today Libertarians are uber-Conservatives. Well, welcome to the Republican party, Libertarians. LOL.. |
|
|
|
Anyone that follows the 5 pillars is a muslim. About everything else, there is no agreement and no central authority, so say muslim is peace or terror are both true.
+1 But many disagree with this, and say Islam a religion of peace. |
|
|
|
This post and poll are racist, I am not going to either comment or poll which motivate hatred thoughts and make a divide among the peaceful humanity and also intrigue violence among them.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious racism of this post. No reasonable person denies that the crimes of 7/7 were committed by Muslims, but this fact suggests a lie and disguises a larger truth. People need to keep in mind the waves of Islamophobia that have been rampant in the years after the 9/11 attacks. Muslims in the West have been subject to terrible discrimination, ranging from the quiet discrimination of nasty looks to the outspoken discrimination of criticism of their religion. In that context it's natural that some peaceful Muslims are inclined to protest the West. This is not to excuse the violence of the 7/7 protests, but we should always focus on the real problem: racist right-wingers who think their right to criticize Islam is more important than the right of Muslims to live in a world free from criticism.Why? Why is it racist? What race is involved? This statement.... their right to criticize Islam is more important than the right of Muslims to live in a world free from criticism....is fascinating. Can you tell us more about these two conflicting "rights" that you perceive to exist? Who or what other groups have the right to not be criticized? Do I? I am criticizing you right now. Should I not have that right? Should you not have the right to criticize this very post? Who, exactly, adjudicates these "rights?" |
|
|
|
You exist, therefore you are subjected to tyranny.
Exactly. If I remember correctly on the other thread in which we were discussing Liberland, it was stated that so called "countries" are going to have a lot of problems. You're surrounded by exponentially bigger neighbors that have much power than you. As you can clearly see from this example, they are going to harass you. Unless you can manage to magically create a huge army, you can't even resist it. It's unfortunate that Croatian officials are wasting time with Liberland when there are other, more important issues at hand within the country itself. Fucking liberty into oblivion is government's raison d'ętre. Nothing is more important to it. Actually, I would take a differing point of view. A tiny country can certainly exist if it offers things that a percentage of people in it's huge neighbors want. Gambling, free trade, etc are examples. It has to be a sort of mutual agreement to exist, of course, but it is not impossible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
