I thought that the pastors would be happy that people think of god at least some time.  But seriously, does anybody pay attention to what such fringe elements say? Yes, actually they do. |
|
|
|
Another false flag. We don't know about the true identity of the attacker. And from the slogans which he shouted before the attack, I believe that he is also from an Islamic background. And from the article, it is clear that the perpetrator suffered from acute schizophrenia. So it seems that the attack resulted from mental illness, rather than Islamophobia. I'm sorry but what you are stating here is wrong, As a French and since this case was big, it was impossible to miss any information about it, it was clearly an islamophobic attack. Also According to officiel and several organisation (in France), Islamophobia cases has skyrocketed after the Terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo I can list some if you want (there was an increase in antisemite act last year as well but that's another story). The other which I mentioned before is what you are exactly stating above ie Every attack done on a muslim is related to mental issues, but when it's a muslim doing them it's automatically terrorism which stupid. you don't believe that every cases done against any muslim is related to mental issue and excusable and statically it's impossible. I can fix this problem for you. Belief in Islam is a mental illness. (LOL...) if only the solution was as simple as that .... Joking aside, though.... It should be of importance to look at cause and effect. Let's parse it like this. Muslims commit atrocities --> various people kill Muslims No, wait. We can do better than that. Someone/group draws cartoons of Mohammed --> Muslim group commits atrocities --> various people kill Muslims --> in reaction to the absurdity of those killings, a lady decides to have a draw Mohammed cartoon contest --> Muslim wanna be commandos try to kill her Looks like one Muslim terrorist goal is to do things bad enough that they will engender a response, so that the cycles of violence will definitely continue. Well, the history of use of those tactics pretty much defined Arafat's entire career. Create media events about "the evil Jews" but always leave out the historical chain of events and the atrocities that engendered the response. So there's nothing new in this, and it's not limited to lone wolf terrorists. Now, back to the subject of "Islamophobia." As post #1 used the phrase, it was a hijacked term used as an intimidating word, one to shut people up who said anything against Islam. You wouldn't thing there actually might be some things to be said against islam, would you? Of course there are some "Muslim" terrorist that want to use the situation to their advantage like you've mentioned, but that's only one side of the story, the other way around is true, there are people that initiate this kind of situation to their own advantages from politics to the weapon lobbies are just some random sect... As for the Islamophobia term, no this is wrong, You can say whatever you want about Islam I think no muslim will mind you saying you disagree, just keep it civil because people will get offended if you insult and mock them especially when it comes to their strongest believes or things they like being it muslims or not. I've provided example of Islamophic acts (recognised officially as such) being it on scale or just individual act. Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't people that uses as you mentioned to shut other people down but this in case of Islam is marginal especially when you consider the number of Muslim around the world ie Third of world population ( There are other groups that have better tools and organization that fall more in the definition you are portraying) In America, you have young men graduating from high school. Some of these young guys join the military. They do it because they feel that they are supporting America by going out and fighting Middle East insurgents. You also have lots of young graduates who believe that our interference in the Middle East is wrong. They think that it is our involvement over there that is causing much of the strife. They would almost never join the U.S. Military to go and fight in the Middle East. Both of these groups are Americans. They recognize each other as Americans. They might call each other nasty names at times, because of their differences. They might even get into political fist fights once in a while. But they all recognize each other as Americans. ---------- In the Middle east and around the world you have Muslims. Some of the Muslims are militants for their beliefs, just like the young American soldiers. Others are totally against fighting. Some of them get into fights over their beliefs. Yet they are all Muslims, because they say so, just like Americans are Americans. ---------- Now, here is the distinction between the two groups. Warrior Americans and peace loving Americans recognize each other as Americans. Warrior Muslims recognize all Muslims as Muslims, but peace loving Muslims try to say that warrior Muslims are not really Muslims, but that they are simply terrorists using the Muslim name. ---------- I think that there are no peace loving Muslims. I think that they are all warrior Muslims. I think that the ones that talk peace to the extent that they would not recognize warrior Muslims as Muslim... I think those peaceful Muslims are really an advanced infiltration group of Muslims, slipping behind enemy lines, like spies, sent to soften unsuspecting nations up, so that at just the right time, they can call in the warrior Muslims to destroy the unsuspecting nations. There aren't any peaceful Muslims. There are only warrior, conqueror Muslims. And the ones that say that they are peaceful are the biggest warriors of them all, because they are preparing the nations that they infiltrate for conquest through the peace lies that they spread.  This is not a bad analysis, but you are completely wrong. Let us say that for discussion we accept your premise (bolded above). Propaganda efforts by their nature require large numbers of "propagators." These are willing, naive and gullible individuals, but they truly believe what they propagate. This is very different than willful deceit and dishonesty. Next we could consider NOT accepting your premise, and it's consequences for the take on the overall situation.... Then we could consider Kuroman's premises, which are <<short story>> that there are so many things going on continually in large and small amounts that no useful conclusions can be drawn whatsoever. And then there's my point of view. |
|
|
|
The '97% of scientist' thing is utter crap and anyone who has a passing familiarity with various issues, definitions, disputes, etc, and who has familiarized themselves with the 'studies' from whence these figures came knows it.
and for those who haven't a passing familiarity with various issues, definitions, disputes, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkUim not a huge fan of his but i like some of his stuff, this being one of the ones i liked. A 33 minute Youtube video is enough to make me physically ill. Sorry, no can do. It's not very hard to debunk the 97% claim rapidly with online resources. This doesn't even rise to the level of "lying with statistics." Lol its not a commitment. I just start watching videos and turn them off as soon as I don't feel like watching any more. I watched about half of this one. All of the information that was delivered in that half was interesting. Don't get me wrong on this because I am not doubting you. It's just that except for certain things......my max attention span for youtube is about 3 minutes. An exception... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiQN3pQ6EwM |
|
|
|
The '97% of scientist' thing is utter crap and anyone who has a passing familiarity with various issues, definitions, disputes, etc, and who has familiarized themselves with the 'studies' from whence these figures came knows it.
and for those who haven't a passing familiarity with various issues, definitions, disputes, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkUim not a huge fan of his but i like some of his stuff, this being one of the ones i liked. A 33 minute Youtube video is enough to make me physically ill. Sorry, no can do. It's not very hard to debunk the 97% claim rapidly with online resources. This doesn't even rise to the level of "lying with statistics." |
|
|
|
Only 2% of the science community deny climate change. This 2% are the fools of the community and/or are sufficiently appease by big oil to continue their flakiness.
The present media, such as it is, give a bigger % of pages to the deniers than the 97% (or the can't-make-up-their-minds) 1%.
Your position would have had more value if you've included a link or article, not just a feeling and numbers from this website: https://www.random.orgYou are always welcome here... But who could deny? Who, I ask? Who could DENY when the news about CLIMATE CHANGE is this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/16/claim-climate-change-more-women/I so want to believe.... The faithful and pious are so devout in their following the Gorian Oracle... |
|
|
|
I'm in the clear at least. My orgasms customarily begin with a couple of hail Satans and round off with a salute to L Ron Hubbard.
You beat me to it - indeed it does seem that to be with the Godly as viewed from the Hagee world view, one should run fully to the other extreme. However, please understand the Reverend Hagee's proclamation only applies to women. They should invoke the worst demons of the depths of hell while pleasuring themselves and others, or so it would seem. The more virtuous and saintly, the more this must be. Let no curse or cuss word be untouched by the good woman in the throes of passion. |
|
|
|
john hagee is an apostate who worships jews and denies that jesus is the messiah but he is probably correct in this, not taking the lords name in vain is a commandment
Bolded above is in error, plus Hagee's advocacy of using the legal system to meet out punishment for theological offences is certainly more Islamic than Jewish. all his christians united for israel does is praise jews as "chosen people" when the bible is very clear that they are not, here is a 1 minute clip of hagee saying jesus isn't the messiah and the jews did nothing wrong in rejecting him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktH3eknsakYou put me in a difficult position - I can correct the error you have made and seem to be defending Hagee? LOL...let's be in agreement he's a total nutcase. Let's agree to discuss more in depth things that are actually worth distinguishing the finer points of. |
|
|
|
john hagee is an apostate who worships jews and denies that jesus is the messiah but he is probably correct in this, not taking the lords name in vain is a commandment
Bolded above is in error, plus Hagee's advocacy of using the legal system to meet out punishment for theological offences is certainly more Islamic than Jewish. |
|
|
|
Edward Snowden says we should support Apple’s newly stated commitment to privacy rather than a business model driven by personal data collection, whether or not Tim Cook is being genuine. Snowden spoke over video conference during the Challenge.rs conference in Barcelona today. more infos can here : http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/but-bring-the-hammer-if-it-betrays-us/I'am really wondering though ,even if he is on Russia which is basically an ennemy the United States of America, how Snowden is still alive after all he done ? Leaking documents from NSA and stuff  It's not that I want him to die of course, I even support what he is doing but just wondering . Russia is not "an enemy" of the United States. It was an enemy during the Cold War, but it was our ally during two World Wars. It self defined during the Cold War as an enemy by way of advocating world dominion of Communism, and taking actions in that direction. The Cold War ended largely due to increasing and inevitable economic interdependence of Russia with the US, Middle East and Asian countries. If you get your parts and toys from a complex of off shore countries, it's hard to be their enemy. This has nothing to do with local aggressions such as in the Ukraine, of course. No question both the US and Russia are in the midst of tremendous change and that will continue. Snowden has a voice and seems to be trying to use it for good purposes. If he was killed he'd be a martyr to the cause of freedom. That would be counter productive to the powers that be. |
|
|
|
Only 2% of the science community deny climate change. This 2% are the fools of the community and/or are sufficiently appease by big oil to continue their flakiness.
The present media, such as it is, give a bigger % of pages to the deniers than the 97% (or the can't-make-up-their-minds) 1%.
The '97% of scientist' thing is utter crap and anyone who has a passing familiarity with various issues, definitions, disputes, etc, and who has familiarized themselves with the 'studies' from whence these figures came knows it. Now, a fair percentages of 'climate scientists' may be prone to extol something which could be sufficiently contorted to mean something vaguely close to what the politicians and media propagandists try to say it means, but that's very akin to saying that 97% of Christian preachers agree that Christ died for our sins. Basically, if you don't believe that (or claim to) you are transitioning to a new profession. All very true. But pointing out the logical errors in the "Consensus" sound bite (or the "Con" sound bite, if you prefer) doesn't prevent the repetition of the lie. Repeat it long enough, people will believe it. Unfortunately, this is a perversion of science and the scientific method. The implications of that are not good. |
|
|
|
There is no need for this campaign to be led by the same nutcases.
Why will you not allow other nutcases an equal chance to fuck things up?
The only viable option is to launch a ground operation under the command of the United Nations, in Syria and Iraq against the ISIS. Countries such as Russia, the United States, China, India and Germany should provide soldiers for such an operation. The ISIS should be eradicated once and for all. And a sizable contingent of the UN peacekeepers should be maintained in both Iraq and Syria, to make sure that the remnants of the ISIS will never surface again. There's really nothing wrong with stationing ground troops in areas that have some basic instability and more of such expected in the future. The UN "peacekeepers" have had some pretty sordid track records of course, and there are cases where they had guns. But no bullets. |
|
|
|
Texas is using taxpayer resources to crackdown on little girls selling lemonade  Have you ever heard of the Los Zetas drug cartel? They are one of the most brutal drug cartels in Mexico, and recently they have been trying to expand their area of operation to include South Texas. Now, imagine that you are a policeman in the state of Texas. You have to chose between two tasks. Task 1 is to arrest 2 Los Zetas drug smugglers (who might be armed) near the Mexican border. The other task is to arrest two little girls, who are running an illegal lemonade stand. Which one would you select? Might be? |
|
|
|
Why ISIS winning in Iraq? Can someone explain? Iraqi's army was armed and trained by America. So what is the problem? I can understand why ISIS is winning in Syria such that country ruined in civil war. But why Iraq is losing? What is is about ISIS?
they will lose to the world eventually. It is only a matter of time. I like your optimism. But real question is how many innocent poeple have to die before that happens? Millions? If this world campaign is going to be led by the same nutcases that created the mess in the first place one thing is for absolutely 100% sure: We´ll end up with an even worse mess. There is no need for this campaign to be led by the same nutcases. Why will you not allow other nutcases an equal chance to fuck things up? |
|
|
|
Another false flag. We don't know about the true identity of the attacker. And from the slogans which he shouted before the attack, I believe that he is also from an Islamic background. And from the article, it is clear that the perpetrator suffered from acute schizophrenia. So it seems that the attack resulted from mental illness, rather than Islamophobia. I'm sorry but what you are stating here is wrong, As a French and since this case was big, it was impossible to miss any information about it, it was clearly an islamophobic attack. Also According to officiel and several organisation (in France), Islamophobia cases has skyrocketed after the Terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo I can list some if you want (there was an increase in antisemite act last year as well but that's another story). The other which I mentioned before is what you are exactly stating above ie Every attack done on a muslim is related to mental issues, but when it's a muslim doing them it's automatically terrorism which stupid. you don't believe that every cases done against any muslim is related to mental issue and excusable and statically it's impossible. Muslims are at war with non-muslims. Where there is such group pride and group identity, there is collective retribution. You made your bed. Now sleep in it. Wasn't aware of Indonesia or Turkey declaring war on us. Or most of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Maybe you want to stop with the stupid generalizations? That's what happens when you have such collective pride and cohesion. I do not expect a fool like you to understand what that means. Gotta love these fckers with their high horse bullsht LOL Talk when you have any idea of what you are addressing. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut. I'm using a keyboard not my mouth. And it seems it's you who has no idea of what you're addressing. You said a lot but completely failed to explain how your position makes any sense. Just took the opportunity to repeat yourself and insult me. That, my friend, is called Trolling. |
|
|
|
Another false flag. We don't know about the true identity of the attacker. And from the slogans which he shouted before the attack, I believe that he is also from an Islamic background. And from the article, it is clear that the perpetrator suffered from acute schizophrenia. So it seems that the attack resulted from mental illness, rather than Islamophobia. I'm sorry but what you are stating here is wrong, As a French and since this case was big, it was impossible to miss any information about it, it was clearly an islamophobic attack. Also According to officiel and several organisation (in France), Islamophobia cases has skyrocketed after the Terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo I can list some if you want (there was an increase in antisemite act last year as well but that's another story). The other which I mentioned before is what you are exactly stating above ie Every attack done on a muslim is related to mental issues, but when it's a muslim doing them it's automatically terrorism which stupid. you don't believe that every cases done against any muslim is related to mental issue and excusable and statically it's impossible. I can fix this problem for you. Belief in Islam is a mental illness. (LOL...) if only the solution was as simple as that .... Joking aside, though.... It should be of importance to look at cause and effect. Let's parse it like this. Muslims commit atrocities --> various people kill Muslims No, wait. We can do better than that. Someone/group draws cartoons of Mohammed --> Muslim group commits atrocities --> various people kill Muslims --> in reaction to the absurdity of those killings, a lady decides to have a draw Mohammed cartoon contest --> Muslim wanna be commandos try to kill her Looks like one Muslim terrorist goal is to do things bad enough that they will engender a response, so that the cycles of violence will definitely continue. Well, the history of use of those tactics pretty much defined Arafat's entire career. Create media events about "the evil Jews" but always leave out the historical chain of events and the atrocities that engendered the response. So there's nothing new in this, and it's not limited to lone wolf terrorists. Now, back to the subject of "Islamophobia." As post #1 used the phrase, it was a hijacked term used as an intimidating word, one to shut people up who said anything against Islam. You wouldn't thing there actually might be some things to be said against islam, would you? |
|
|
|
What a relief. Everything will be absolutely scorching by the year 2100 but until then we´ll enjoy a brief respite of a few decades of cooling. Maybe a mini ice age if we´re really lucky?
First of all, these guys were totally wrong in their forecasts previously, so there is zero reason to believe them now. They have pretty much zero capability to estimate planetary energy balance, it's effect on regional climate, let alone an ability to forecast that into the future. However, solar astronomers have warned of the possibility of a "little ice age", and I must mention that is not a trivial thing in this day and age. That would be a disaster of AGW-hysterical proportions. Think of the effect of "a year with no summer" on crop yields. In the past, declining sunspot activity has led to a mini ice age, and that's what we are seeing with the sun now. There is another possibility, which is that not a mini, but a real ice age looms. This is why it is really somewhat dangerous when political hacks parse the arguments into "mini ice age then it's scorching." Real ice ages are based on orbital precession cycles, and each lasts about half of one cycle. Guess what? We are right now, right about half way through one.... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/its-snowing-and-it-really-feels-like-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age-london-mayor-boris-johnson/ |
|
|
|
The so called "Kingdom" of North Sudan is not a sovereign nation, and unlike Liberland, it does not control any territory on its own. And there are multiple micronations which are claiming sovereignty over the Bir Tawil region. "The Kingdom of North Sudan" is just one of those micronations, which exists only on webpages. Maybe micronations, which exist only on webpages, are a thing of the future. |
|
|
|
.... there's the deniers, and those in denial. LOL +1 |
|
|
|
Well, I can tell that you don't fully grasp the matter. So let me help out. Assume that you were actually one of the Authoritarian Perverted Nutcase Liberal Controllers. The first thing you want to do is control the language, so of course you intend to exercise your right to deem such comments Denial - in those cases where it suits you.
Such is the glory of powerfreakness.
Well, I can tell that you don't fully grasp the matter. So let me help out. You are an idiot. Such is the glory of stupidity. Climate Change is both real and accelerating. funny how im extrapolating valuable (bitcoin's) opinions from people's view in this climate thread. there's the deniers, and those in denial. Allrighty then, I have to help out here. The video does indeed present an idiot. This is good, he will find many devout and pious acolytes who bask in the radiance of his idiocy. But we need to get serious. SO....To start, you need to understand how and why Climate Change is different than Global Warming. First of all, Al Gore owned Global Warming, and he got rather boring, so it was necessary to distance. Second, it just plain stopped warming, but we'd invested all this time and energy into milking the sheeple. Hey, you want to just let that go to waste? Shit, no. So we came up with this Climate Change stuff for the chumps. Now, here's where it gets a little bit tricky. Warming was easy to spot, you just beat the chumps the good old hockey stick. Climate Change is more vague, see? So here's how you get it across to them all. Everything BAD that happens from climate, that's something BAD that THEY caused - or the evil frackers, Exxon and those fucking fundamentalist wacko guys. Everything GOOD that happens from the climate, that's something we praise as the results of our hard work on taxing the chumps for climate control cons, or you know, just stay silent about it because we can take off for Jamaica in our jets when it's nice out anyway. So that's basically it - the GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY. Oh, it looks like I left out one part. What's the UGLY? That's the Deniers, see. They're the ones that don't buy off on our payouts. |
|
|
|
Another false flag. We don't know about the true identity of the attacker. And from the slogans which he shouted before the attack, I believe that he is also from an Islamic background. And from the article, it is clear that the perpetrator suffered from acute schizophrenia. So it seems that the attack resulted from mental illness, rather than Islamophobia. I'm sorry but what you are stating here is wrong, As a French and since this case was big, it was impossible to miss any information about it, it was clearly an islamophobic attack. Also According to officiel and several organisation (in France), Islamophobia cases has skyrocketed after the Terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo I can list some if you want (there was an increase in antisemite act last year as well but that's another story). The other which I mentioned before is what you are exactly stating above ie Every attack done on a muslim is related to mental issues, but when it's a muslim doing them it's automatically terrorism which stupid. you don't believe that every cases done against any muslim is related to mental issue and excusable and statically it's impossible. I can fix this problem for you. Belief in Islam is a mental illness. (LOL...) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
