First, the suppression of speech does transgress human rights. Second, the not-even-thinly-veiled attempt at slandering all homosexuals as gay pedophiles reveals you as yet another hate-filled homophobe.

Possibly. BADecker is on some thing about how all you have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court by telling them to define certain magic words and then you COMMON LAW VICTORY WIN or something wholly ridiculous. (While I am intentionally making it sound dumb, ask him for the official logic of it, and then you'll see my intentional misrepresentation isn't actually more absurd, and has the added benefit of humor, whereas the people who believe they have discovered a magic 'get out of jail free card' are entirely serious.)

When you post garabage about your common law fantasy, you look even sillier than when you're trying to keep all your religious nonsense straight.

And the Americans supported Bin Laden in the 80's against the Soviets, etc. etc. These short-sighted objectives always have a way of biting you in the ass. I'm for the school of thought that holds to not arming violent groups of people in the first place. I don't know that Israel is doing that for certain, but I know the US still is. Very recent history has shown this to be a big mistake, but we never learn from it.

The US has been 'out of money' since 1835. Hasn't stopped the war machine.

'ISIS expands as recruitment rate outperforms casualty rate.' Somehow I think they're looking for a little more than such a superficial and obvious explanation. And I highly doubt their recruitment:attrition ratio is 10:1.

Disinformation? As in you are claiming these things are not happening? Or you are just drawing conclusions based on the information presented and disagreeing with those? Because the things you posted don't seem to counter the OP, just spin it a different way.

Because love and hate are verbs, and good and bad are adjectives. It's not an analogy because good and bad are judgments, not actions. The first example doesn't relate to the second because the first example you're saying 'Islam can't do these things, therefore Mein Kampf can't be these things.' It doesn't follow.

I'm not talking about his sentence in regards to the attempted murder charge (which he has yet to be sentenced for in Maryland), but the idea that he is a sympathetic hero and the unfortunate victim of an out of control government. His attempted murder charge completely contradicts the martyr status people here are trying to thrust upon him. He's not a hero, he's a hypocrite who sold out his non-violent ideology when he solicited the murder of several individuals. My entire point has been he is not the rallying cry some in this thread want him to be, because he sought to use violence against people who were inconvenient to him; not that his prison sentences for 'non-violent' crimes are appropriate because he solicited murder.

For context, here are my previous short posts:



His attempted murder charge remains wholly relevant.

I don't follow how the first example proves the second and third examples impossible. If we assert Islam can't love or hate because it is inanimate and those are emotions people have, that has no bearing on a value judgement of written works. The analogy is not analogous.

Assuming every Arab is an enemy of Israel and out for its destruction is not an honest depiction of the situation. ISIS isn't capable of amassing a million fighters. When there were entire nations that wanted to destroy Israel (and tried) they weren't able to amass a million soldiers.

That's why the attempted murder charge is important to me. Even if we could all agree that in a "free society" none of his drug dealing and money laundering actions should be illegal, there is nothing that can justify murder.

I thought I had read somewhere that he was charged with attempted murder, so the information in this article wasn't gelling with that. Thanks for reconciling it. It's a serious charge, and one that can't be excused with the community's rush to turn him into a martyr. Pick better heroes, because this guy is not a rallying cry.

I don't particularly care about Silk Road as a black market. The money laundering is a larger issue, but even this one I can get past. But the murder for hire charge is where I draw the line. I would like to see him serve an appropriately long prison term for attempted murder. It's not excusable.

Edit: I see now they never ended up charging him with the attempted murder charge.

Exactly, Jews don't control squat in America compared to the military-industrial complex. The MIC runs the show. War is a profitable business, and business is booming (pun intended, not ashamed).

Yes, it's just evolved into 88 pages of FUN because internet.

Nothing you said contradicted anything I said. In fact it reinforces it.  "We, as humans, tend to repeat things that makes us feel good. This is within our nature."  That's exactly my point: our nature is selfish. Instead of assigning a value to that and using it as a claim of superiority (e.g. I don't act out of a desire for salvation, so I must be a better person), just recognize it's the same for everyone. We all act to fulfill our own desires.

That article you posted is about how ridiculous the idea is that ISIS could acquire nuclear weapons, not the likelihood of it. It starts with a claim by ISIS in their propaganda magazine that they could do it, then goes through increasingly unlikely circumstances that would need to be true in order for it to work.


The claim is not credible.

I am by no means defending religion, but it would be fair to say that nobody acts unselfishly. Take for instance an athiest who donates money to charity. He is not doing so for religious reasons, so you cannot say he is only seeking to make god happy so he can have rewards in the afterlife, because the athiest doesn't believe in that. So you might say his actions have to be selfless. But I don't believe they are. Why would an athiest donate to charity? Because it makes him feel good or because it lets him believe he is helping people who very much need it, and this makes him feel good or lets him believe he is a good person. Yes, his actions are good and they help people who are not him, but I would still tell you that the primary motivation to his actions are about himself, which is selfish. They are about himself before they are about anybody else. This does not make his actions bad, of course. Selfish actions can be good actions; it's not a mutually exclusive situation. So whether you are religious or not, all your actions are selfish if we're being honest about it, and that's ok! But athiests don't get to claim the moral high ground because religious folks only act to for the promise of eternal rewards, which makes them selfish. Athiests act selfishly too, the rewards for them are just different.

I can't imagine Pakistan would want to live in an area of such destabilization. ISIS would never have enough money to make living with the fallout of a nuclear detonation (both literal and figurative) worth it for nations in that area.

Also, do you have any sources?