Like any other supremacist doctrine,every believer is a possible project to be a terrorist.
To make things more clear, terrorist is not just the one explosing himself in in a crowded street. Some others use the Islamic ideology to marry four women or marry children.
Because Islam is more than a simple religion for Muslims, considered as their life guide, they are terrorist.
By the way, am from an Arabic country, I experienced Islam for my whole life.
Exactly Islam is not only a religion but a political system. Christianity had a reformation process and separated the state from religion to a large degree. Islam has not gone thru this process. Until Muslims are willing to abandon the political system aspect of Islam, at least in foreign nations not already under Sharia, then there will continue to be conflict, war, and yes more attacks on Muslims. +1 More like a mafia or a criminal gang. You cannot leave it without some dire consequences. This may indeed be so, but now we have a drift of this thread in a direction of agreeing with the straw man argument initially proposed by the OP. I cannot agree with that, because I know that were I to be boots-on-the-ground fighting Islamic terror, to my right and left would be Muslims, and they would be good. I see your point of view, just can't group them all together in such a fashion. Actually we haven't, at all. Islam does not require participation in a political system. Muslims can honor their religion in their own lives, but they have no right to come to a Western nation and then impose Sharia law, even upon other Muslims within the Western nation. This is why Sharia is incompatible with Western nations. Muslims should be welcomed, Sharia law should be destroyed. You cannot destroy Sharia Law without destroying the Quran and the Hadiths. How can you welcome Muslims and destroy Sharia Law? If you start banning parts of the Quran or Hadiths, you will turn all non-Islamists Muslims into Jihadists and Terrorists. This ideology cannot be reformed. No word in the Quran can be changed. Just talk to any Muslim if you don't believe me. They think that the Quran is the word of God and humans have no right to change it. The only long-term solution is a physical separation of Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims should not be allowed to reside in non-Muslim or secular countries. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road. Western countries made a grave mistake by allowing Muslims to legally immigrate to non-Muslim countries. Islam is the sickest product of the human mind. I don't expect to tell Muslims how to reform their own religion. I do however think it is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED the West takes a HARD UNWAVERING REJECTION of Sharia law with no apologies. How they want to sort it out is their problem, and in the end they won't bother until the West steps up and defends itself domestically. |
|
|
|
Is there any way to reconcile the above that does not involve CNN being propaganda and/or what is essentially state run media similar to what is broadcast in North Korea or China?
It is, and always was, but you guys are realizing it now (I'm not blaming you). Remember the CNNs news justifing the "war on terror" a decade ago, the evil muslims, dictators, the weapons of mass destruction... helping the rebels in Syria, now the same in Venezuela. CNN supports bankers, debt, war... it doesn't matter if the guy in power is a republican or democrat, as long as it does any (or all) of that. Stop justifying your far left leanings by blaming capitalism. You're not fooling anyone. I dare you to show me one, just one CNN news article (not opinion) where anything remotely resembling "the evil muslims" [sic] was published. I am not sure he is doing that, but maybe you have read other posts of theirs I have not which would suggest this. They are correct in the assertion though, and frankly this was part of the plan, to use 9/11 to start a war between the West and Islam, and was even outlined in P.N.A.C. documentation. Early on they sold all of the civil rights stripping legislation such as The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, The John Warner Defense Authorization act of 2007, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan using this "evil Muslim" narrative. I remember distinctly thinking at the time these people were stupid because they were told it was "just for the Muslim terrorists" not to be applied to them. Yeah right. Remember these people are all about controlled opposition, so they abuse all "sides" ideology until the tactics reach fatigue, then they flip to abuse the polar opposite ideology all the while dividing and conquering. |
|
|
|
Pfft, don't you know liberal media is just a conspiracy theory? I mean.. what about that one... whats it called Faux News? Get with the program subject! |
|
|
|
...
Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless....
Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control.
AND...
Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed.
Our hardware is compromised, so encryption is meaningless, to some extent yes even on air-gapped systems. Also with Facefuck you never actually exit their system. The same goes for Googlag as well as others. Your first point, from the premise does not the conclusion follow. Who may have hardware access is one of many perps, and they do not share. Your second and third may be true, but that only illustrates that my point is valid. Yet for example if I create the circumstances, as a test...where Anon X attempts to enter FF, and exit, repeatedly...and FF rejects or blocks him... Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough to stop access. It might raise the barrier of entry, but there is still a back door that is available for anyone to use if sufficiently informed, that is the problem with back doors "only for the good guys". As far as the point you are trying to make with your analogy, I do not follow. |
|
|
|
Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see.
I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt.
But privacy will be monetized.
We really need large scale privacy focused tech and there are definitely a few key players that are doing the work. All of these true cypherpunks are making huge strides in taking the internet back into our hands. Whether it be Satoshi or David Chaum mentioned in the article Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless.... Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control. AND... Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed. Our hardware is compromised, so encryption is meaningless, to some extent yes even on air-gapped systems. Also with Facefuck you never actually exit their system. The same goes for Googlag as well as others. |
|
|
|
Whether I worry about it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we acknowledge that all of these institutions we patronize are selling us out and systematically preventing privacy and personal security and not pretend it was just a mistake every time. This was a plan, not a mistake, and when it is a plan you can't trust anything they say or do on its face. |
|
|
|
Like any other supremacist doctrine,every believer is a possible project to be a terrorist.
To make things more clear, terrorist is not just the one explosing himself in in a crowded street. Some others use the Islamic ideology to marry four women or marry children.
Because Islam is more than a simple religion for Muslims, considered as their life guide, they are terrorist.
By the way, am from an Arabic country, I experienced Islam for my whole life.
Exactly Islam is not only a religion but a political system. Christianity had a reformation process and separated the state from religion to a large degree. Islam has not gone thru this process. Until Muslims are willing to abandon the political system aspect of Islam, at least in foreign nations not already under Sharia, then there will continue to be conflict, war, and yes more attacks on Muslims. +1 More like a mafia or a criminal gang. You cannot leave it without some dire consequences. This may indeed be so, but now we have a drift of this thread in a direction of agreeing with the straw man argument initially proposed by the OP. I cannot agree with that, because I know that were I to be boots-on-the-ground fighting Islamic terror, to my right and left would be Muslims, and they would be good. I see your point of view, just can't group them all together in such a fashion. Actually we haven't, at all. Islam does not require participation in a political system. Muslims can honor their religion in their own lives, but they have no right to come to a Western nation and then impose Sharia law, even upon other Muslims within the Western nation. This is why Sharia is incompatible with Western nations. Muslims should be welcomed, Sharia law should be destroyed. |
|
|
|
It is literally about that choice for some people. Kind of you to summarily dismiss the reality of the minority. After all, it is not like we live in a constitutional republic where the rights of the minority are protected by the constitution right? Do you really think this tiny minority of people who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason are more of a threat than the thousands flooding in from our Southern border every month?
I find it interesting a lot of the same people cheering for the loss of individual rights in the name of temporary safety are also cheering for open borders. Of course when you point this out, instantly come the floods of accusations of racism and xenophobia, because of course infectious diseases care what race you are right? At what point does this obsession with taking the rights of others to provide temporary safety end? Is this not setting a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse in the very near future?
I would absolutely say that Antivaxers have the right to do as they wish, if they are willing to agree to deal with any consequences as a result of their choice. Thats not going to happen though. I'm not going to try to compare threats, just because one threat has a higher total amount of damage as a possibility, doesn't mean we should disregard the others. Talking about dangerous precedents, do you know the human rights you lose during a federal isolation order by the CDC? You are imposing that on others by choosing not to get vaccinated. Yes, I understand that not everyone that doesn't get vaccinated will contract all of the diseases, but the possibility is real and not insignificant. Your rights end when they spill over and infringe on others, thats just sort of how human civilization works. You don't get to claim minority rights, when they are harming the majority or anyone else. Yeah, why would you compare threats when you can just let the lesser threat serve as a scapegoat for the more severe threat right? All it will cost is your freedom for some temporary safety. The threat of losing human rights is far more real and significant. I don't know if you have noticed, but this stripping of rights has become a global trend, but as long as they have scary excuses its A-OK right? THESIS - ANTITHESIS - SYNTHESIS |
|
|
|
Considering that Intel are the ones who purposely put it there, I wouldn't put too much stock in their "solutions". |
|
|
|
Feral cats pose a big problem in certain areas, but its hard to say whether thats worse or whether it would be worse having a huge rat/mouse infestation. When I was in the military, our base was FILLED with feral cats. Used to annoy the hell out of me for some reason back then.
In most cases this is better for the reasons you stated (keeping rodents in check), but some of these islands have species of animals that do not exist elsewhere, or are extremely endangered. |
|
|
|
The reason for the protection of rare animals is discussed with a detailed explanation of the effects of extinction and the important role of species in ecosystems but not by killing other animals of course we must have a wiser way to do that.
predators will continue to hunt prey this is a natural law
You aren't providing any solutions here, you are just saying you want to have it both ways. |
|
|
|
I'm fine with people doing whatever they want as long as they don't harm others. I'm just uncertain about drug use though coz once these people get addicted and sick they could resort to crime and we'd be paying for them through healthcare and prison.
It's not the drugs that make them turn to crime, and it's not the person who allows other to sell drugs that makes people addicted. [...] If you get addicted to eating pastry, and get overweight and unable to walk due to this addiction, who is to blame? The pastry, the bakers, or you? There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits. Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs. In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.
I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts. The drug dealer doesn't cause anything. The drug dealer is taking advantage of human weakness and suffering sure, but at the end of the day people choose to do this, either the first time or subsequent times. People are responsible for their own choices. The drug war has been more destructive than the drugs themselves would ever be. Ulbrict believe it or not was taking the first steps toward regulation of this distribution by providing more safety for all involved, including incentives for quality control. They railroaded him to send a message that this is their racket, and not to interfere, not because his crimes deserved such a punishment under the law. |
|
|
|
CNN? What's that?  Communist Nincompoop Network. Oh yeah. One of the news networks that was complicit in the recent failed coup to take out an elected US President, Donald Trump? I would not use the word "complicit". I think they were more playing an active role in trying to take down Trump. The Trump reelection campaign recently sent a memo to many MSM outlets asking they do not invite some who were falsely claiming to have seen or otherwise be aware of evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government, or to call these people out on these what are now known to be lies. I don't believe they have followed this request, and are allowing some to continue pushing what are outrageous conspiracy theories that borderline on "flat earth" logic. is a technical formal way of saying active... They are most definitely complicit, which is why they sell the lie with such fervor, because the management of these operations know soon they will be the ones being judged. |
|
|
|
|
Moral according to who? Let me break it down here. Humans created this problem bringing invasive species to these places. You basically have two choices here. Either you can accept the obliteration of rare and endangered species by these invading species, or you can choose to eradicate them. The invasive species still live on, just not in this habitat. Some times life requires tough choices.
|
|
|
|
Like any other supremacist doctrine,every believer is a possible project to be a terrorist.
To make things more clear, terrorist is not just the one explosing himself in in a crowded street. Some others use the Islamic ideology to marry four women or marry children.
Because Islam is more than a simple religion for Muslims, considered as their life guide, they are terrorist.
By the way, am from an Arabic country, I experienced Islam for my whole life.
Exactly Islam is not only a religion but a political system. Christianity had a reformation process and separated the state from religion to a large degree. Islam has not gone thru this process. Until Muslims are willing to abandon the political system aspect of Islam, at least in foreign nations not already under Sharia, then there will continue to be conflict, war, and yes more attacks on Muslims. |
|
|
|
As usual you are only interested in what serves your own narrative, not the truth, logic, or learning new things.
Can you read? Are you able to put words together? What's your point? Minority have no right in democracy is false, they have the right that the majority accept to give them. That's true. And? That's all you want to say? I find it rather amusing you keep asking me questions you should be asking yourself. Also you already conceded that Democracy is mob rule. I am not sure why now suddenly you are pretending the minority has any say in Democracy regardless if it is "direct", "liquid", or "blue neon with sprinkles" or any other horse shit rebranding terms people come up with to repackage the same systems of government to make them appear to be new. |
|
|
|
You just see what you want to see, and no one can change that but you. As long as you are this intellectually dishonest and lazy I am going to treat you as the intellectual poser bottom feeder you are. I don't care what you did in another thread, it is very much on topic and I have no desire to participate in a carefully curated thread that just so happens to segregate critique of your preferred ideology.
If the state does not use force of law to take inheritance, then the inheritance tax is not taking from inheritance, thus taking inheritance? You see your gap in logic here? Of course not, you only see your preferred reality. Fuck causality and economics, I GOTS TO HAS MUH COMMUNISM!
Oh, look, more personnal attacks. Funny how the deeper we go, the more personnal attacks and yelling at semantics you do. Never seen any scientist or honest person yelling for semantics. That's the base of a debate: define what you're discussing. Also got a yes or no question for you. Are those 2 situations identical: A father passes away and his 1M$ house is inheritated by his 3 children 1/ The state comes in and take the house as inheritance is abolished. The children have nothing. 2/ The state says "hey sorry for your loss you can keep the house of course but you owe the state 200k$ as inheritance taxation, you got about a year or 6 months to pay it". The children either pay those 200k$ and keep the house or sell the house and keep the 800k$ Are those 2 situations identical? Yes or no question. You can add some personnal attacks as you seem to love them. You already said that I was a fat lazy stupid dumb man without any logic or knowledge in laws, economics, psychology or history. Might add that I am ugly too, you haven't said that one yet. Lol, the deeper we go. The only thing we are going deeper is into your horse shit. There is no requirement for the situations to be identical for them to lose the house. Your implication that these things need to be equal for this to be a removal of inheritance is asinine and simply restating your earlier premise just from another direction. There is no logical or logistical difference between your two arguments, only semantics. The result is the same, the children do not inherit the land of their ancestors. This is the most common result. In the end they will usually lose the house. Furthermore this disproportionately strips the inheritance of the LESS wealthy of the class who would inherit, further creating even more of a rift between the haves and the have-nots. In the end another business is destroyed and centralized into corporate profits. Still waiting for you to touch on any of the other planks too, and again I don't give a shit about your other thread so don't bother. ...Oh, and you're ugly. |
|
|
|
There is video footage of "the Nigerian brothers" buying the cord and the hot sauce at a local shop. He also paid them via a check (lol). They apparently planned to stage the event in front of a CCTV camera, but it turns out it was facing the other way. The interesting thing is this was one of the earlier proofs thais was staged, because in interviews he made strange comments about "how was I supposed to know the camera was facing the other way" etc. Everyone thought "I think he doth protest too much" and the investigation changed course after they tracked the "attackers" and discovered their true identities. This is definitely a very interesting case and one that's left me confused as to what the hell actually happened from the start. The police seemed adamant that this was a hoax and then they went and essentially let him go and Smollet is continuing to protest his innocence. Has any evidence actually been released to corroborate either side? The attack allegedly took place in a public spot outside a Subway sandwich shop. Was there any CCTV from this? Id' assume there would be multiple angles from both city and private cameras. I don't get why he'd be so dumb as to plan this out in such a public space when it would be obvious the police would investigate it in detail.
Either way this looks like something that Trump isn't going to let go so I'm sure the truth will come out eventually.
|
|
|
|
Sorry but building a nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a choice between bodily autonomy and freedom of movement. They are purposely building a very dangerous precedent to desensitize people to these kinds of actions.
I dont see why not. Its not about whether its a choice or not, its a matter of public risk. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on others. The argument can be made that people that could become carriers for dangerous infectious diseases are a risk to others. You don't have to be vaccinated, you can just move elsewhere. I can't build a reactor where I'm at, but I could move somewhere where I could potentially obtain a permit to do so. Whats your take on lepers? It is literally about that choice for some people. Kind of you to summarily dismiss the reality of the minority. After all, it is not like we live in a constitutional republic where the rights of the minority are protected by the constitution right? Do you really think this tiny minority of people who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason are more of a threat than the thousands flooding in from our Southern border every month? I find it interesting a lot of the same people cheering for the loss of individual rights in the name of temporary safety are also cheering for open borders. Of course when you point this out, instantly come the floods of accusations of racism and xenophobia, because of course infectious diseases care what race you are right? At what point does this obsession with taking the rights of others to provide temporary safety end? Is this not setting a dangerous precedent ripe for abuse in the very near future? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
