View Full Version : Paris Attack 11/13/2015
That wasn't meant as a joke, yes I was serious....It would take another generation for young Islamic males in the middle east to grow up with more media/internet exposure to western culture before they might adopt a more global liberal view. I'm not saying that is the only thing that can be done, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Even if we have to spend millions on a satellite to get that information to them. I'm not sure why you would be opposed to that plan 2? as it's more in line with the 'hug a refugee' plan that will supposedly show ISIS that we're good people in the west.
I think there is actually something in what you are saying and in my mind it matches up with what Honeykid is saying but I don't think the Middle East is quite the way you think it is. Sure, we see ISIS driving around in trucks wearing rags but they are actually extremely technologically advanced. The internet is their main tool and they are extremely active on social media. The war for the minds of young muslims is so far being won by them thanks to their online presence.
Some hacker groups have recently declared war on ISIS - most notably Anonymous - and from what I have read many in that subculture have said that ISIS is far more skilled in that area than Anonymous.
Western (American) culture has been forced down the throats of the whole world for decades so I'm not sure that there is anything can be done in that regard. My wife is from a communist country where the highest grossing movie was Titanic and they used to watch Friends in English classes :)
Having said that, my feeling for a while has simply been that Islam has grown out of an area that has always been violent, So, it's not the religion - it's the culture. You can see how the west removing dictators from that area has created huge instability. It was only under an iron fist that the various groups stopped fighting each other. So, we remove Saddam and chaos ensues. Terrorism is just an extension of the fighting that was already there. Take Afghanistan - they have been fighting themselves or someone else for centuries. The Taliban were horrendous but they were strong. That was probably the most united Afghanistan has ever been (except when they were fighting the Russians).
So I agree that history and culture are a big part of the problem. What's done is done now but hopefully we in the west will learn more about the places that we decide need regime change.
I have no idea what the answer is in the middle east - we have played our part in taking a historically volatile area and making it worse. The west's concept of democracy good, dictator bad is a very limited view. What's good (for the world) is stability.
Also, what is very important in regards to finding a solution - the Islamic world has to do it, not us. The west imposing what's good for them on an area has not worked. A Christian cannot stop a Muslim from being radicalised. Only another Muslim can do that. What we need to do is help them in any way possible and not make their job harder.
It's called debate. You haven't refuted my claim (that there's something inherently wrong in an ideology that promotes genocide - and maybe that's PART of the reason why so many of its adherents are becoming terrorists) or supported how using a certain term will cause peaceful people (and the prevailing claim is that Islam is peaceful) to become terrorist recruits.
.
Yeah I did and for about the fourth time now you ignore it and go on to criticise Obama ... We are getting nowhere.
Captain Steel
11-18-15, 05:18 PM
Yeah I did and for about the fourth time now you ignore it and go on to criticise Obama ... We are getting nowhere.
Yes we are.
(Your turn!) ;)
Don't you think that the issue is as much with the cultural and political ideaology as it is the religious? If not how do you explain the millions of Muslims who don't suscribe to radical Islam? Also, how do you explain the young people they recruit from Western countries who have no prior ties to the Muslim religion?
You posted this while I was taking far too long to write my last post but it sums up part of what I was trying to say really well.
Your last line is a great point and I think there are a lot of answers to be found there. We had a young "atheist" from a Christian background join ISIS and blow himself up. He was 18. The characteristics were remarkably similar to the muslim kids who join ISIS - isolation, loneliness. The desire of human beings to be part of something is very strong - often stronger than their common sense unfortunately.
linespalsy
11-18-15, 05:25 PM
In response to the whole "why won't Obama tell it like it is" thing:
This article (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-19/why-obama-can-t-call-charlie-hebdo-terrorists-radical-islamists-) was written after the Charlie Hebdo attacks but it still seems relevant. Not sure if it's accurate about everything, but it at least gives a plausible explanation for why Presidents (both Obama and Bush) temper their rhetoric wrt Islam -- one interesting argument it makes is that "war on terror" is itself euphemistic. You may disagree with the wisdom of the choice (I suspect some will just take it as further proof that it's "us" against "them") but keep in mind that both parties tend to agree that maintaining strong relations with client states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt is important (as can be seen by criticisms of the Iran deal on the grounds that it was a betrayal of our clients in the Middle East -- Mainly Israel but I believe Saudi Arabia was also frequently mentioned.)
Let me be perfectly clear (one of my favorite introductory lines from politicians)...
In all seriousness, I acknowledge that many of the points I've been arguing with from Sane and others are valid, at least to an extent.
i.e. I don't disagree with many of the varied explanations for the causes of terrorism.
These causes are certainly part of the problem, but like all explanations, don't account for every facet or the entirety of the problem.
I'm saying something similar - I'm putting out an explanation that may addresses part of the problem, perhaps a big part, but certainly cannot be used for every single individual case.
How I account for the millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to radical Islam is they are not radicals (or any of the synonyms: extremists, fundamentalists, orthodox, zealots, etc.) Their focus is not on the political aspect of Islam and / or they don't take their religion, its teachings, its scriptures, the examples set by their prophet to be followed literally. For some, it may be a degree of apathy toward religion or even a degree of ignorance.
I've known some Catholics who know less about what they are supposed to believe and the history of their sect than I do (and I've never been Catholic).
So there are a lot of people (and this goes for a lot of Muslims) who are more concerned with their daily life, their immediate family needs, their careers, and coping with their society in the modern world for whom "religion" is more of a familial obligation, a heritage or community convention, or traditional trapping that they hang onto for the sake of maintaining their status quo.
Yeah, everyone brings different baggage to their religious world view and have varying degrees of faithfulness to their religion. Let me be clear by saying I have many problems with the Muslim religion. It is a religion of works which is in direct conflict with my views ad a Christian. However these terrorists are beyond a shadow of a doubt extremists in every sense of the word. So it only stands to reason they are extremists in their religious ideaology as well. Your correct in saying their are many facets, yet most of the debate here only has been focusing on one. I think the language semantics game that both the right and the left seem hell bent on playing right now is beyond counterproductive. I don't think Isis gives a famn if we are calling them Islamic terrorists or Jihadist terrorists. We need to focus on taking out Isis, which I think we are. It will inevitably take a lot of time. Look how long it took to take out Bin Laden, but we did. We need to keep fighting the good fight, stop the infighting, and realize that when this threat is squashed a new one will arise.
I said I was getting out this morning, and I am. I can't allow my mind to get bogged down in this. I will read responses but I have said my piece.
I think this is the best place to post this interview with Syrian president, it was made few months ago. Its very interesting, he talks about everything, mostly terrorism and how ISIS grew. He was surprisingly very open, he mentioned everyone by name.
http:// https://youtu.be/coXejz5V5Aw
Captain Steel
11-20-15, 11:29 PM
Thanks for that, Kahn. I'll be giving that a look.
In the meantime, prayers for the victims of the hotel attack in Mali where 21 (current count) were murdered by Islamic Terrorists... oops! I mean "Radical Jihadists."
Hillary explained to us yesterday how Islam has absolutely nothing to do with with Islamic Terrorism whatsoever.
I think, to be safe, we should just take the PC line one step further and say that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. That way, after the next Islamic Terror attack, we'll have all the bases covered and not have to worry about driving more peaceful Islamists to Islamic State recruitment or offending Islamic Terrorists by identifying them as a derivative aspect of Islam.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/africa/mali-shooting/index.html
Anyone see the Turkish fans booing the silence? Sort of thing i wont post a link to, sickens me.
England and France are the wests oldest rivals, Englands fans don't have the best reputation, but the deafening silence during that minute and France flags flowing during that friendly almost brought a tear to my eye.
Reminds me of Scotland after 7/7, noone hates the English as much as us but if anyone attacks them they are attacking us. My dad started our street flying Englands flag after that attack.
Captain Steel
11-21-15, 12:31 AM
Anyone see the Turkish fans booing the silence? Sort of thing i wont post a link to, sickens me.
England and France are the wests oldest rivals, Englands fans don't have the best reputation, but the deafening silence during that minute and France flags flowing during that friendly almost brought a tear to my eye.
Reminds me of Scotland after 7/7, noone hates the English as much as us but if anyone attacks them they are attacking us. My dad started our street flying Englands flag after that attack.
Yes.
Now, although this was in Turkey, there wasn't a person there who did not understand what a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris attack was supposed to be, or what it represents. In addition to the crowd booing & whistling, instead of observing the moment out of respect for the dead, thousands started a chant of "Allahu Akbar!"
Now, there wasn't a person there who does not know that that exclamation is now the Islamic Terrorist war cry shouted during the slaughter of infidels.
Turkey is a modern & developed Islamic nation and regarded as relatively moderate as far as it's Muslim population is concerned - yet thousands of average Muslims at a sports event used the moment of silence to do a victory scream for another successful attack by Islamic Terrorists.
People don't seem to realize or don't want to face that "moderate" support for Islamic Terrorism (whether overt or covert) is far more prevalent and wide spread than anyone wants to admit. Thousands of "moderate" Muslims in America and the West directly or indirectly support Islamic Terrorist groups or are members of such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood - which has been declared as a terrorist organization by several nations.
On the news today they had interviews with "moderate" French Muslims openly supporting the Paris massacre as a legitimate strike back at infidel oppression - the "oppression" being strikes against ISIS, (failing to acknowledge that nations are striking the Islamic State because ISIS is committing genocide, practicing human trafficking, sex slavery, rape, child molestation, kidnapping, hostage taking for ransom, torture, decapitations, crucifixions, drownings, burning people alive and chopping off limbs of innocent people including children in the name of their religion).
People also fail to remember that on 9/11/2001, Muslims all over the world, including neighborhoods full of "moderate" Muslims throughout the United States, celebrated and danced in the streets when the towers fell and as the body counts increased.
Meanwhile, Turkey arrested 8 ISIS Terrorists posing as refugees heading to Germany!
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/18/suspected-isis-refugees-arrested-istanbul-transit-germany/
"Allahu Akbar" are also the first words heard in The Exorcist, signifying a call to prayer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpw-GbEpjR4
Thanks for that, Kahn. I'll be giving that a look.
Glad to hear that, if only more people did the same...
Something being brought up Captain, is that there was an attack in Ankara the month before that killed over 100 and there was no "moments of silence" for that.
Even if that was the case it is still disgusting behaviour.
That attack - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34498497
honeykid
11-21-15, 10:03 AM
All lives are not equal, especially in the news, which is something else which is used by the terrorists to recruit. This is nothing new. It doesn't just extend to 'foreigners' or things which happen in far flung places, either.
Captain Steel
11-21-15, 02:15 PM
Something being brought up Captain, is that there was an attack in Ankara the month before that killed over 100 and there was no "moments of silence" for that.
Even if that was the case it is still disgusting behaviour.
That attack - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34498497
So true, Camo.
I not sure why something like this doesn't get the same level of coverage. I was aware of it, but it was only a spot on the news unlike the Paris coverage. The horror is that the bombing in Ankara targeted victims at a peace rally.
There's so much unrest between sects in the Middle East - and I think that's part of the reason ISIS still exists.
As said before, many strategists believe various forces (either certain single nations or allied Arab forces) in the Middle East could have put ISIS down at any time if they really wanted to. Many nations who could aid in the terror group's elimination sit back because, in addition to ISIS being a threat to them, they are killing their enemies as well.
Last year, Turkey sat and watched from tanks as ISIS slaughtered Kurds because Turkey hates the Kurds. In Syria where a civil war rages, it's more like a three-way conflict where ISIS is the enemy, but at the same time they are also the enemy of the enemy and thus an effective weapon all depending on which way they're aimed at the moment.
Part of the reason that terrorism in the Middle East or Muslim on Muslim violence doesn't get as much coverage may be due to so much on-going sectarian violence in the region, and it's been going on for millennia.
Terror has become so commonplace in a region where the culture adheres to a nihilist, cult ideology that says the divine goal in life is to destroy anyone who believes differently that the continuous violence garners less media attention than in places where the primary value systems respect life and where terrorism is less common.
A similar situation exists in Israel due to the Palestinian conflict - terror attacks by Jihsdists are so common and have been going on for decades, that, unless they're huge or lead into a larger conflict, they're barely a blip on the radar.
It's a sad state.
honeykid
11-21-15, 02:32 PM
it doesn't get covered in the same way because it doesn't sell. It's as simple as that.
Captain Steel
11-21-15, 02:39 PM
it doesn't get covered in the same way because it doesn't sell. It's as simple as that.
This is true too, as Westerners are the largest consumers of media (and the products of its sponsors).
MovieBuffering
11-21-15, 11:47 PM
I think it's very hard for non-religious people to understand the minds of religious people. Let me just talk about the whole suicide thing. From their perspective, sure it's better to die and go to heaven then to live on the Earth.
Is that you PC principal?
http://104.130.52.68/sites/default/files/southpark.jpg
I believe all religion is nutty don't worry. Causes otherwise rational people to think irrationally. And for people born in radical Islam they have no chance to escape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2tT_3dsgKA
Captain Steel
11-22-15, 03:07 PM
What's interesting is everything discussed here seems to show up on the news a few days later (such as the questions of where did France get ISIS target coordinates in Syria and why were there known targets to give France to strike that had not already been struck? And will France's retaliation turn out to be little more than posturing as has been shown by other countries supposedly out to avenge their people by "destroying" ISIS?).
On this morning's news, there were simultaneous discussions on at least two networks about media coverage (re: Paris, France vs. other areas that have suffered recent Islamic Terror attacks) - which was a topic of discussion here over the last few posts.
Citizen Rules
11-22-15, 03:42 PM
What's interesting is everything discussed here seems to show up on the news a few days later... With that in mind, maybe what I will say next will come to fruition and be covered by the news.
After the defeat of Saddam Husein's Iraqi forces there was talk that Iraq would be divided up into three countries, one part for the Kurds, one part for the Shiites and one part for the Sunnis. The Bush administration rejected that plan...the general reason that was floated was: all the ethic/religious groups in Iraq should live together in a one country democracy.
The probable reasons Iraq wasn't divided into three sections was:
Turkey did not want a Kurdish homeland being established.
The U.S. didn't want the Shiites to control the oil field region of Iraq.
The U.S. didn't trust that the Sunni's might harbor loyalty to Saddam Hussein and so couldn't be trusted with their own country.
So Iraq wasn't divided into three sections, which caused civil war to break out, allowing extremist elements to grow such as ISIS.
My plan C: send UN forces lead by the U.S. back into Iraq to stabilizes it. Then divide the country up into to three sections for the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Then the U.S. backs the Kurds and Sunnis with money and weapons as long as they agree to fight ISIS and other radically Islamic elements.
honeykid
11-22-15, 04:26 PM
The US are doing nothing in terms of forces on the ground (which is what is needed to do what you're talking about) until Obama has left office. Should the next President have promised to not do it either, then it almost certainly won't happen in the four years after that either.
Also, you won't get anything done within the UN unless Russia is onboard and, frankly, once they are you don't really need the UN to do it.
I don't know, but from what little I do know/have heard about all this the Kurds won't/don't have any interest in fighting anyone outside of the land they want for themselves. That being the case, the best course of action for that plan would probably be to help/facilitate those factions/tribes/sections/whatever already on the ground fighting ISIS. However, not only do you have the 'problem' of what happens afterwards but it also almost certainly means using Syria's army, which, in turn, means making some kind of deal with Assad, which may well have to happen to get Russia on board, and he was the reason we were going to bomb in the first place.
Captain Steel
11-22-15, 04:47 PM
My opinion is worry about Assad later (hard to do, I know, since our "leader" already drew a line in the sand that he had no intention of backing up - you never draw lines against anyone unless you are prepared to fight at the moment you draw the line - this is common sense playground politics). Ally with anyone willing to take out ISIS now and worry about Assad later.
We basically did the same thing during WWII - we allied with Stalin (knowing exactly what he was) to defeat the Nazis because they were the more immediate threat.
honeykid
11-22-15, 04:59 PM
Well, the US allied with Stalin not knowing exactly what he was/would be, but I get your point.
I guess this depends on which you think is the worse; the threat to us or what they're doing. ISIS is nothing compared to Assad, but they're more of a threat to us.
I guess this depends on which you think is the worse; the threat to us or what they're doing. ISIS is nothing compared to Assad, but they're more of a threat to us.
What do you mean ISIS is nothing compared to Assad? You mean in military power?
Guys, I created a thread about Syrian Civil War so we can move our discussion about Assad, ISIS, USA, NATO, Russian intervention, refugees and other topics there.
http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1414754#post1414754
Captain Steel
11-23-15, 10:29 PM
Funny how, a couple posts ago, I said everything here turns up on the news a few days later.
Several posts back I talked about how some small pockets of Muslims in America celebrated the 9/11 attacks. Today the HUGE news story is Trump saying he remembered thousands of Muslims celebrating & he witnessed it in Jersey City, NJ. And now hordes of "progressive" thinkers are saying he's lying, this never happened, and that it's an urban myth.
What complicates it a slight bit is that, after the towers fell, there was news coverage of Muslims celebrating in the Middle East. Now some of these reports & this footage has been contested with people saying they were filmed celebrating something else for the cameras and the footage was later used to try to say they were celebrating the terror attack. That may be true in some instances.
But the question is about Muslims in America celebrating the attack.
Trump critics are saying there's no documentation or videos of any such events. I remember seeing videos of the reports from both the Middle East AND from the U.S. being aired at the time. I live in NJ, and I specifically remember the city of Paterson being cited. There were also articles about it in the newspapers the week after the attacks.
Today on a radio show, people were calling in to say they witnessed the jubilation by American Muslims over the 9/11 attacks.
Among the callers were police officers, emergency workers and a school teacher. They all said they personally witnessed Muslims celebrating in the streets. When one of the callers was questioned by a host as to why no one filmed any of these celebrations, the person responded that people did not have video apps on their cell phones in 2001.
But others are saying this is a trumped up (excuse the pun) urban myth created by bigots to fan the flames of Islamophobia.
So, is it Islamophobia or do we now have PC Selective Memory?
Christie says he doesn't remember this at all. He is from NJ and is right wing. I vividly remember these videos from other countries being shown but none from here, I was living on Long Island at the time. I think Trump is a perspective-aphob.
Captain Steel
11-23-15, 11:06 PM
Christie says he doesn't remember this at all. He is from NJ and is right wing. I vividly remember these videos from other countries being shown but none from here, I was living on Long Island at the time. I think Trump is a perspective-aphob.
I can't say I specifically remember videos from here, but I do remember the reports (specifically ones on local news) and newspaper reports. There were lots of eye-witness reports, and based on the radio today, apparently there are still many in the tri-state area who not only claim to remember this happening, but claim to have witnessed it first hand.
Maybe Christie doesn't remember seeing celebrations, but I'm not sure how he can say he doesn't remember the reports. Whether the celebrations actually occurred or not, there were eyewitness accounts and news networks & newspapers that reported these accounts. I remember watching them, reading them and listening to them on the radio.
This is the same media that Trump is now claiming has a pro-Islam agenda? I can't keep up anymore. They want us to think all Muslims are pro terrorism, now they want us to think all Muslims are great. That wiley media, hard to keep up with which agenda they are pushing at the moment. Thankfully Trump doesn't have one so he can let us know what's up.
All the fact checkers I have seen have said his claim is false and the right wing politicians that I actually care what they have to say are saying the same. I'm going to need more than some call ins to the Limbaugh show to sway me.
Captain Steel
11-23-15, 11:24 PM
I just went looking - I am, by far, not the greatest Internet researcher out there, but I found this...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/
If nothing else, it does prove that newspapers were indeed reporting the "alleged" incidents. So anyone, especially anyone involved in politics, who claims they don't remember any such reports either wasn't paying attention, have some gaps in their memory, or missed the memo because the fact that this was reported is true and substantiated.
What is the implication of all these immediate, spontaneous, alleged celebrations? The Muslims in New Jersey knew more about what happened at the moment than the U.S. media? On 9/11 we didn't know anything about who or what was responsible for the planes' actions - at least any substantiated info took several days to become public, and no one claimed responsibility for a long time. I think it was about a week before the identities of the hijackers were released. I can understand some overseas Muslims celebrating the downfall of the Twin Towers as a triumph over the "Godless Satan" of the U.S., but Muslims in America instantaneously celebrating on 9/11 with no handycam recording it? I never heard of it or saw it on TV. One thing I do know is that there are lots of crazy people on the radio - not all, but lots.
That one article is from 9/18, so it doesn't substantiate anything Trump said, and the "incident" cited is still "alleged".
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 12:49 AM
I'm only interested in the truth. I believe that Islamic Terrorism was identified as the suspected culprit by the end of the day on 9/11 in the President's evening address. But I'm not sure.
The reports of Muslims celebrating went on for a good week or two after.
I know it was reported. According to the article, police made multiple arrests upon arriving to reports of Muslims celebrating in the streets - seems strange they'd just arrest people at random who were quietly going about their business or in mourning. Why would they arrest anyone who wasn't causing some kind of ruckus or drawing attention to themselves? (I know this question begs a variety of answers based on the current reputation of police in this country right now.) Did they arrest people just for looking Muslim? How did they decide who to arrest people for looking Muslim and not arrest others in an area that had an all-Mulsim population?
These arrests must be on file. Wonder why we can't look them up?
My personal account - I was working in New Brunswick, NJ as a construction safety coordinator at the time. Many of the construction workers I dealt with commuted from various parts of NJ and I heard several accounts from these men (unprompted and from a variety of unconnected sources) that many of them witnessed the same thing as many of them were from or traveled through the NJ cities across the river from NYC. Many of the workers volunteered to work at Ground Zero with the blessings of their companies. (Today, I wonder how many of them have contracted lung disease.) When these workers returned to my job site, several of them also told me they witnessed Muslims celebrating on their way to and from the city.
It seems strange that so many people - many of whom worked for different companies and had no connection to each other - would all come up with the same "rumor" at the same time especially when it's now being reported that nothing like this was reported in 2001 to prompt such a simultaneous mass rumor - when indeed it was reported, on TV, in newspapers and on the radio.
I know none of this is "proof," but I do remember these specifics. The fact that the media is now saying it was never ever reported and it is being substantiated that indeed it was reported is a bit disturbing. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but what seems really scary is how certain forces seem to be erasing or revising history to fit some PC narrative.
Perhaps 20 years from now, the Cybernet will tell us that it was ASIS (the Amish State in Iraq and Syria) that conducted a reign of terror in the Middle-East that spread throughout the world beginning in 2014.
The article I read - the one you posted - says "detained and questioned", no mention of arresting anyone.
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 01:27 AM
The article I read - the one you posted - says "detained and questioned", no mention of arresting anyone.
Okay. Why were they detained and questioned? Were they walking down the street just like thousands of other Muslims in the U.S. and the police thought they MUST have some connection to the attack while the cops ignored the hundreds of other Muslims in the area? There must have been some reason they were detained & questioned.
I found this in a Reuters article from 2007:
"Paterson was shaken by the September 11 attacks. On that day, a report circulated on some radio stations and Internet sites that Muslims in Paterson had demonstrated in celebration.
Paterson officials promptly issued a statement denying the report, and Muslim leaders insist it was pure fabrication.
Less well known is Paterson's real if unwitting link to the attacks. At least two of the hijackers who commandeered American Airlines 77, the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, had rented an apartment in Paterson, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the official U.S. inquiry."
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/26/us-usa-muslims-idUSN2536037320070726#eXy6O17xkocySx51.99
It does say no celebrations took place - but I'm quoting it here because it say a report of celebrations was made and circulated on radio stations & Internet sites on 9/11.
But, today the media spent all day saying that NO SUCH REPORTS were ever made. Some politicians and others are saying they have no memory of this, yet many DO remember these very reports that Rueters confirms were indeed made. And circulated they were - to TV, newspapers in addition to radio & Internet.
So if the media is saying something is fact - and then historical documentation can be found to say they are wrong, then might they also be wrong about other aspects of the incidents or the veracity of eyewitnesses? Especially considering, now that the issue is apparently going viral, thousands of people are coming forward saying they not only heard these reports that the media says were never broadcast (- but Rueters says they were -) and that they witnessed first hand.
christine
11-24-15, 04:23 AM
Of course there must've been Muslims who celebrated 9/11, there's always perverted people in the world. Whether they celebrated on the streets of America or not is up to you to believe. Conversely there must've been innocent Muslims rounded up and questioned at the time. There must've been many Muslims verbally and physically abused after 9/11 too, I've read several reports about that as well as research done later.
I just went looking - I am, by far, not the greatest Internet researcher out there, but I found this...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/
If nothing else, it does prove that newspapers were indeed reporting the "alleged" incidents. So anyone, especially anyone involved in politics, who claims they don't remember any such reports either wasn't paying attention, have some gaps in their memory, or missed the memo because the fact that this was reported is true and substantiated.
Your by far missing the point of what Trump is trying to do. He specifically said there was video of celebrations taking place in NJ. That seems to be totally false and he is not backing down. He is using fear tactics and politicizing this issue. It's pathetic.
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 01:07 PM
I'm not trying to defend Trump - I'm not a supporter. And I recognize his "thousands" comment as pure exaggeration - I did the same thing in my last post when I said thousands of people are coming forward saying they heard the reports. A bunch of people are coming forward, but I don't know the number.
All I'm saying is that it was a widespread news story in the tri-state area and there were reports of similar occurrences from other areas of the country as well. And there were many eye witnesses who may not agree with Trump's version. but who say they did see celebrations occurring.
honeykid
11-24-15, 03:33 PM
Trump talking bollocks? No. Really? Say it ain't so? :rolleyes:
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 04:05 PM
Trump talking bollocks? No. Really? Say it ain't so? :rolleyes:
Trump is exaggerating. I can neither confirm nor deny what he said he personally saw, but his memory that there were reports of celebrations is accurate.
This was widespread news, and yes, probably much of it was confused with the confirmed celebrations that were filmed in the Middle East and aired by western media.
There are plenty of cops, fire-fighters, EMT's, teachers, store owners, and various people who headed from NJ to work at Ground Zero who witnessed it first hand.
As we speak, more and more eyewitnesses are coming forward because they're astounded that they're suddenly all being called liars by the media, and that they would have concocted mutual, unconnected, spontaneous falsehoods motivated only by bigotry. The media is saying these incidents never happened, and anyone who says they did or saw or heard reports on them is lying.
These reports have never been contested before - until Trump started talking (and exaggerating) about it.
My guess is (after 8 years of the current administration reinforcing PC policies, obfuscating or altering facts of "uncomfortable" events to fit political or PC narratives, and gaining large followings of like-thinkers who want to whitewash any area or chosen demographics they are instructed to,) that a sudden revision of history has taken place simply as a knee-jerk reaction to oppose Trump saying what he said because he currently leads in the polls & represents the non-PC view.
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 04:27 PM
Currently:
Bomb blast in Tunisia capital attacking bus carrying presidential guards: at least 12 killed.
Hostage crisis in Roubaix, France: armed individuals with Kalasnikovs in gun battle with police, several people wounded by gunfire.
Let me try a different tact. What will be gained if everyone suddenly came around to the way of thinking your talking about? Do you think Islam would go away? More importantly, do you think radical Islam and terrorism would go away?
I'm not just trying to attack you here. I am just as frustrated with the administrations determination to not say certain things certain ways. I just don't know what the end game is of all this talk surrounding the true intentions of the religion and I definitely don't see the end game in the language semantics. Unfortunately both sides seem to not want to stop fighting this battle. It is baffling to me. If the right wants to stop all the PC talk, ignore it. I guarantee if the right no longer cared the left would be far less inclined to keep worrying about it. Someone has to be the grown up in the room. I'm over here waiting.
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 05:31 PM
Let me try a different tact. What will be gained if everyone suddenly came around to the way of thinking your talking about? Do you think Islam would go away? More importantly, do you think radical Islam and terrorism would go away?
I'm not just trying to attack you here. I am just as frustrated with the administrations determination to not say certain things certain ways. I just don't know what the end game is of all this talk surrounding the true intentions of the religion and I definitely don't see the end game in the language semantics. Unfortunately both sides seem to not want to stop fighting this battle. It is baffling to me. If the right wants to stop all the PC talk, ignore it. I guarantee if the right no longer cared the left would be far less inclined to keep worrying about it. Someone has to be the grown up in the room. I'm over here waiting.
I watched Ayann Hirsi Ali on TV last night - she is a Muslim.
She said that the government's refusal to identify radical Islam has taken the sights off of many areas of terrorist threat within the country & abroad that absolutely need to be looked at, monitored and exposed if we hope to prevent future attacks.
The government proclaims that global terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - the implication is that to combat terrorism, understand the motives of terrorism and defend against it, we must look elsewhere - or anywhere except at Islam because, by deductive reasoning, we've eliminated Islam as a suspect. Ali is saying that playing these games with semantics isn't just a game - it leads into real world lapses and failures.
And it boosts terrorist confidence and recruitment by delivering the message that the doors to infiltration are wide open and unguarded because we're not going to look toward Islam - that community is exempt from scrutiny because scrutiny might offend someone.
To wit: Obama actually had official anti-terrorist documentation & training manuals for law enforcement changed so that there are no references to Islam out of Political Correctness.
So, the single largest source for terrorism within our country & abroad is off the table as something our authorities can be instructed to look at, single out, investigate, monitor, be aware of, or even talk about.
Of course most Muslims are peaceful, but terrorism and recruitment to it is still coming from within the Islamic community - the ideology that drives terrorism & "radicalization" is interwoven into the fabric of the religion and the culture. So the degrees of separation between "moderate" and "fundamental" are tenuous and ever-changing from sect to sect, group to group, family to family, individual to individual. (If there's any doubt, look at ISIS recruitment of Muslims from wealthy, free & developed countries all over the world... and that's just ISIS, no less the hundred other major Islamo-terror groups.)
It's not about making anything go away - whether you acknowledge facts or ignore them, they won't go away. It's about protecting ourselves - you can't protect yourself with ignorance or denial. You can't protect yourself from something with a definitive source if you ignore the source or say that source has absolutely nothing to do with the threat that source is producing.
Being a Muslim obviously she agrees they are extremists. I just don't see the difference between saying radical Islam or radical Jihad. I don't know, maybe I'm missing the big picture but ISIS is the problem right now and we are focused on it. If someone was saying ISIS has done nothing wrong I would have a problem with it, but what name you call the crazy people, I don't think I will ever care.
Captain Steel
11-24-15, 08:51 PM
Being a Muslim obviously she agrees they are extremists. I just don't see the difference between saying radical Islam or radical Jihad. I don't know, maybe I'm missing the big picture but ISIS is the problem right now and we are focused on it. If someone was saying ISIS has done nothing wrong I would have a problem with it, but what name you call the crazy people, I don't think I will ever care.
A couple problems - "crazy people."
Crazy people (schizophrenics, people with mental illness or who are brain damaged through physical trauma or substance abuse) aren't united by the political goals of a single, worldwide ideology.
Some schools of thought want us to think that Islamic Terrorism is a "handful" of random crazy people who, in their insanity, have just somehow come together. Like someone opened all the cells of an asylum for the criminally insane, but instead of all the inmates running off to pursue their own hallucinations & delusions, they ban together in an organized fashion to obtain goals like a military unit. It doesn't work that way.
I've called terrorists "crazy" myself, but there's a difference between emotional & physical mental illness as classified by the psychiatric community, and that caused by religious indoctrination to a political ideology. Jihadists are "crazy" because they've been mentally conditioned to reject common emotions of empathy & compassion, while embracing hatred and a desire to destroy life by an organized, militant, fascist ideological system that is couched in religious zealotry with tenets of genocide.
Second - Hillary saying she uses the term "Radical Jihadists," [to refer to Islamic Terrorists] but then goes on to say that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with "Jihadist" Terrorism is laughable.
Where does she think the term & concept of "Jihad" comes from?
(Must be another one of those crazy fundamentalist Christian concepts! Probably comes from the Amish no doubt.)
Denial isn't just a huge vacuous space where Hillary's brain should be! ;)
christine
11-25-15, 03:06 AM
Currently:
Bomb blast in Tunisia capital attacking bus carrying presidential guards: at least 12 killed.
Hostage crisis in Roubaix, France: armed individuals with Kalasnikovs in gun battle with police, several people wounded by gunfire.
The hostages taken in Roubaix was an armed robbery incident not a terrorist one.
honeykid
11-25-15, 09:52 AM
Second - Hillary saying she uses the term "Radical Jihadists," [to refer to Islamic Terrorists] but then goes on to say that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with "Jihadist" Terrorism is laughable.
Where does she think the term & concept of "Jihad" comes from?
While I agree with you and I don't/didn't really see why this differential needs to exist, I'm then reminded that people hear "terrorist" when someone says the word "muslim", so while it annoys me (as does the whole "so called Islamic State" and all the other things) if that's what it takes for people to actually know what they're discussing, then I guess those who want to discuss the deeper issues should just let this go.
Second - Hillary saying she uses the term "Radical Jihadists," [to refer to Islamic Terrorists] but then goes on to say that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with "Jihadist" Terrorism is laughable.
Where does she think the term & concept of "Jihad" comes from?
(Must be another one of those crazy fundamentalist Christian concepts! Probably comes from the Amish no doubt.)
I couldn't agree more. That is why I think it is also laughable that the right is giving any time and energy to the semantics argument. Your just making my point for me.
Yes, I mean crazy in the most general of ways. I didn't mean to imply that ISIS is full of bipolar individuals who simply need to up there meds.
A couple problems - "crazy people."
Crazy people (schizophrenics, people with mental illness or who are brain damaged through physical trauma or substance abuse) aren't united by the political goals of a single, worldwide ideology.
Some schools of thought want us to think that Islamic Terrorism is a "handful" of random crazy people who, in their insanity, have just somehow come together. Like someone opened all the cells of an asylum for the criminally insane, but instead of all the inmates running off to pursue their own hallucinations & delusions, they ban together in an organized fashion to obtain goals like a military unit. It doesn't work that way.
I've called terrorists "crazy" myself, but there's a difference between emotional & physical mental illness as classified by the psychiatric community, and that caused by religious indoctrination to a political ideology. Jihadists are "crazy" because they've been mentally conditioned to reject common emotions of empathy & compassion, while embracing hatred and a desire to destroy life by an organized, militant, fascist ideological system that is couched in religious zealotry with tenets of genocide.
Second - Hillary saying she uses the term "Radical Jihadists," [to refer to Islamic Terrorists] but then goes on to say that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with "Jihadist" Terrorism is laughable.
Where does she think the term & concept of "Jihad" comes from?
(Must be another one of those crazy fundamentalist Christian concepts! Probably comes from the Amish no doubt.)
Denial isn't just a huge vacuous space where Hillary's brain should be! ;)
On the flip side there isn't a single ideology which "all Muslims adhere to" anymore than Catholics and Protestants.
The conspiracy theory that all Muslims secretly embrace Jihad but are in the closet about it is pretty farfetched. Even arguing that Jihadism is the "true interpretation" of Islam still doesn't change the fact that not all Muslims agree to this interpretation.
This is similar to the fallacy of "New Atheism", basically a no true Scotsman fallacy. Claiming the most fundamental interpretation of Christianity is the "true interpretation" and using it to attack Christians on the whole despite the fact that most of them don't agree with it in practice.
In a lot of ways I'd say that Muslims (at least in America) are less dangerous than some on the far-left anyway; one reason being that almost no one agrees with radical Islamic ideology, yet we have outright Marxists teaching college students in public universities. And even in authoritarian religious states like Saudi Arabia, we don't see mass genocide like that committed by Stalin and Mao - basically even Islamist regimes are more stable than nihilistic secularist governments.
Captain Steel
12-06-15, 10:12 PM
On the flip side there isn't a single ideology which "all Muslims adhere to" anymore than Catholics and Protestants.
The conspiracy theory that all Muslims secretly embrace Jihad but are in the closet about it is pretty farfetched. Even arguing that Jihadism is the "true interpretation" of Islam still doesn't change the fact that not all Muslims agree to this interpretation.
This is similar to the fallacy of "New Atheism", basically a no true Scotsman fallacy. Claiming the most fundamental interpretation of Christianity is the "true interpretation" and using it to attack Christians on the whole despite the fact that most of them don't agree with it in practice.
In a lot of ways I'd say that Muslims (at least in America) are less dangerous than some on the far-left anyway; one reason being that almost no one agrees with radical Islamic ideology, yet we have outright Marxists teaching college students in public universities. And even in authoritarian religious states like Saudi Arabia, we don't see mass genocide like that committed by Stalin and Mao - basically even Islamist regimes are more stable than nihilistic secularist governments.
There are very few people, and virtually no intelligent or rational people, who truly believe that "all Muslims adhere to" a single ideology or interpretation of Islam, including those ideologies of literalism, fundamentalism, extremism or Jihadism.
There seems to be this cry that a lot of people think this way (or if you use terms like "Radical Islamic Terrorism" you're going to make people think this way - so oooh! you better not say the words or else all the mentally-challenged idiots will think you mean "all Muslims," and all Muslims will be so offended that they'll all want to become terrorists just because they heard a term that has an accurate descriptor contained within it).
But I think that's as much a fallacy as the concept that "all Muslims" are terrorists.
The problem is that the PC crowd beats this drum that if anyone acknowledges that Jihadist Terrorism is a problem that comes directly out of Islam, then peace-loving Muslims will automatically be driven to terrorism themselves by the people who are identifying the source of terrorism. Muslims aren't stupid - they know as well as everyone else that global Islamic terrorism is produced out of the political aspects of their ideology and from the stringency of Islamic cultures.
i think i should do my european vacation ( which i have been planning for some time ) before european civilization ends and the things that i wanted to see in europe no longer exist :(
You seriously think European Civilization can just end? Let's be honest here, no country will fall just because civilians died for the hands of terrorists, if anything it might get stronger, at the moment nationalists in France are getting strong support.
Mr Minio
12-07-15, 07:17 AM
If Muslims take over Europe and Islam gets 100% in Europe then, yes, European Civilization as we know it would end.
If Muslims take over Europe and Islam gets 100% in Europe then, yes, European Civilization as we know it would end.
And if I learn how to turn water into wine... That is one big if, not something you plan your vacation around. That would be like "Let's go to USA before they go to war with Mexico", can happen, but yea...
linespalsy
12-07-15, 12:07 PM
Okay. Why were they detained and questioned? Were they walking down the street just like thousands of other Muslims in the U.S. and the police thought they MUST have some connection to the attack while the cops ignored the hundreds of other Muslims in the area? There must have been some reason they were detained & questioned.
And the reason could be that they were watching the giant spectacle from their rooftops near Journal Square (which has a good view of lower Manhattan -- I have friends who live there). Like many other people close enough to see the city, including my parents, who climbed to the highest point they could find near Princeton so they could see the smoke on the horizon. Or friends I had who were in various schools in the city at the time, and watched it from their rooftops. Or indeed, like most Americans who didn't live close enough to view it directly but were watching it live on TV. Maybe someone on his way to the city saw a group of them watching, thought it was a "celebration", and reported it to the police. Maybe the police -- on high alert for such tips in the the aftermath -- investigated and found that the reports were false, exaggerated, or not enough to press charges for anything.
Not saying this is how it went down, but the article you linked lends itself at least as much to this interpretation as it does to yours.
You seem to assume that a "crime" was committed and therefore someone must be guilty. In fact the Post article you linked to says no such thing. All it says is that someone alleged that they saw a group of Muslims "celebrating", and the police investigated it. Maybe there's not a lot of info on this because these investigations didn't turn anything up. Or maybe they determined that it was a false alarm (why would you think this is suspicious unless you already assume that people were celebrating?). I was in school (studying Political Science, which I say not because it makes me an expert, but because we talked about the news everyday in my I.R. class) in South Jersey at the time, in frequent contact with family and friends closer to and in the city, and don't remember these reports. I do remember the reports of Palestinian celebrations, and also one of my cousins saying that we should "kick out the [slur for Muslims and Sikhs]" but even he wasn't citing the reports you vaguely remember. My wife was on the bottom floor of the WTC at the time of the attack (she was an architecture student at NYU and was there for a class. She also had a job working for an architect in the financial district -- kind of painful to think that not that long ago you could actually get a decent job while you were in college) and she doesn't seem to remember these reports either. That's beside the point though (and my point isn't that my memory is right and yours is wrong): you claim you're only interested in the truth, so what matters is documentation and not 15-year old memories of anecdotes and "reports", which are likely to vary a lot from person to person and over time.
I would also like to point out that what you said wasn't that there were "small pockets" of celebration.
What you said was:
People also fail to remember that on 9/11/2001, Muslims all over the world, including neighborhoods full of "moderate" Muslims throughout the United States, celebrated and danced in the streets when the towers fell and as the body counts increased.
The problem I have with some of your posts on this topic isn't that you explicitly argue "all Muslims are or support terrorists" (as I think you denied in another thread recently) but when you make maximal claims like the one above (also saying there was video footage of the American celebrations, which you haven't actually produced -- and yeah, cellphones weren't ubiquitous yet, but photography and video weren't exactly technologies that were limited to the professional class by 2001, you know?) which turn out to be based on 15-year-old memories of tv/radio reports (which ones?) and work gossip. Then when people call you on one of the more egregious ones you revise it down, insinuate a media cover-up, muddy the water with articles that don't back up your initial assertion and only very equivocally back up the revised one, all the while saying you're only interested in facts.
Captain Steel
12-07-15, 01:44 PM
And the reason could be that they were watching the giant spectacle from their rooftops near Journal Square (which has a good view of lower Manhattan -- I have friends who live there). Like many other people close enough to see the city, including my parents, who climbed to the highest point they could find near Princeton so they could see the smoke on the horizon. Or friends I had who were in various schools in the city at the time, and watched it from their rooftops. Or indeed, like most Americans who didn't live close enough to view it directly but were watching it live on TV. Maybe someone on his way to the city saw a group of them watching, thought it was a "celebration", and reported it to the police. Maybe the police -- on high alert for such tips in the the aftermath -- investigated and found that the reports were false, exaggerated, or not enough to press charges for anything.
Not saying this is how it went down, but the article you linked lends itself at least as much to this interpretation as it does to yours.
You seem to assume that a "crime" was committed and therefore someone must be guilty. In fact the Post article you linked to says no such thing. All it says is that someone alleged that they saw a group of Muslims "celebrating", and the police investigated it. Maybe there's not a lot of info on this because these investigations didn't turn anything up. Or maybe they determined that it was a false alarm (why would you think this is suspicious unless you already assume that people were celebrating?). I was in school (studying Political Science, which I say not because it makes me an expert, but because we talked about the news everyday in my I.R. class) in South Jersey at the time, in frequent contact with family and friends closer to and in the city, and don't remember these reports. I do remember the reports of Palestinian celebrations, and also one of my cousins saying that we should "kick out the [slur for Muslims and Sikhs]" but even he wasn't citing the reports you vaguely remember. My wife was a block away from the WTC at the time (she was an architecture student at NYU and had a job working for an architect in the financial district -- kind of painful to think that not that long ago you could actually get a decent job while you were in college) and she doesn't seem to remember these reports either. That's beside the point though (and my point isn't that my memory is right and yours is wrong): you claim you're only interested in the truth, so what matters is documentation and not 15-year old memories of anecdotes and "reports", which are likely to vary a lot from person to person and over time.
I would also like to point out that what you said wasn't that there were "small pockets" of celebration.
What you said was:
The problem I have with some of your posts on this topic isn't that you explicitly argue "all Muslims are or support terrorists" (as I think you denied in another thread recently) but when you make maximal claims like the one above (also saying there was video footage of the American celebrations, which you haven't actually produced -- and yeah, cellphones weren't ubiquitous yet, but photography and video weren't exactly technologies that were limited to the professional class by 2001, you know?) which turn out to be based on 15-year-old memories of tv/radio reports (which ones?) and work gossip. Then when people call you on one of the more egregious ones you revise it down, insinuate a media cover-up, muddy the water with articles that don't back up your initial assertion and only very equivocally back up the revised one, all the while saying you're only interested in facts.
Very nice rebuttal.
It's true I don't have evidence to produce. And it's true I've insinuated that there may be some level of cover up involved in the pursuit of political correctness. (Is that so hard to believe when, after an Islamic Terror attack in CA., Obama's Attorney General comes out and says she wants to create a special dispensation to deconstruct the first amendment by prosecuting anyone who speaks ill of Islam?)
The reason I've made such an insinuation is because I, and many others, do remember these events being reported on TV, radio and in newspapers. And many of us in the tri-state area heard direct reports from eye-witnesses, as I described earlier from my co-workers lived or commuted through areas like Paterson or Jersey City.
But in recent days, it's been reported that Trump's claims have been vindicated to a certain degree (not his claims of numbers, but that these celebratory outbursts occurred) by the sheer number of people (including police who have challenged that their incident reports on the matter be pulled and reviewed) who witnessed the events, and media reporting of the events.
"You seem to assume that a "crime" was committed and therefore someone must be guilty."
I don't think a crime was committed by anyone celebrating the attack. There's nothing illegal about celebrating anything. Only that such a display would evidence where someone's loyalty lies, and that might be a basis to keep an eye on such people who might share the cult ideology and want to do violence themselves.
I'm wondering why disproving these once-established reports is such a big deal - it seems there's this rabid desire by the PC crowd to say, "No! It's impossible that ANY Muslim in the U.S. would have celebrated on 9/11 - that's just insane! Anyone who says they witnessed or remember the reports about it is obviously an Islamophobic bigot who hates all Muslims!"
Meanwhile, there are polls that say a substantial percentage of U.S. Muslims anonymously say they support terrorism, suicide bombings and Sharia law. There are dozens of Islamic Terrorist training camps within the U.S. that the government protects. The Council for American-Islamic Relations has been indicted as an Islamic terrorist front group. There have been multiple attacks carried out by American Muslims who hate the country and want its citizens destroyed. There are hundreds of U.S. citizens going to join ISIS and more who want to support the terrorist group on American soil. We've had over 50 large-scale Radical Islamic Terror attacks prevented by the authorities within the U.S. And we JUST experienced a major mass murder terror attack by an American Muslim and his imported fiance in CA.
So, why is there this obsession by some to say that there's absolutely no way any Muslim in America would have celebrated 9/11 when we know that there are many Jihadists on American soil who wish to see the country harmed, and that Radical Islam exists & has been growing in the U.S. for decades?
Captain Steel
12-07-15, 02:34 PM
Just a quick follow up... this report from Pablo Guzman on Sept. 16, 2001.
Even I didn't remember this connection between celebrating Muslims in Jersey City, the 1993 attack on the WTC, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and his Jersey City Mosque.
Whether you believe Trump's exaggerated account or not, this is pretty interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3auKMHkZJnQ
You seriously think European Civilization can just end? Let's be honest here, no country will fall just because civilians died for the hands of terrorists, if anything it might get stronger, at the moment nationalists in France are getting strong support.
the population of the native european christians is just dwindling because they have turned too modern and progressive and whatnot and want to have just fun and do not accept the responsibility of rearing children . i would go so far as too say that the current generation of native european christians is the most selfish generation of all humankind and is letting down the achievements of their ancestors by literally extinguishing european civilization by ceasing to produce children---and no children means no future generations.....if this is progressiveness modernity and freedom then i dont want it !! most of all i would like my people ( indians ) to survive and i hope that they dont go so far on the path of the europeans towards so called enlightenment that they cease to exist !!
populate or perish !! in germany entire schools are closing down because there are no children to educate . in russia entire towns are becoming empty because there are no people .
and who is coming to replace them ?? the largest community replacing the dwindling european population is muslim . they are increasing their population by producing several children per couple and they are coming to europe in waves .
and what happens when muslims become majority in a nation ?? at l;east in my country's experience the entire non muslim population gets massacred . actually both pakistan and bangladesh were hindu majority once and were part of india . then over a period of time the muslim population became majority . and they divided my country ( india ) to create seperate muslim nations and literally raped all the hindu women and massacred the hindu men . very few hindus dare to live in pakistan and the few remaining hindus in bangladesh are being kicked out . not satisfied with this the muslims in kashmir ( the only muslim majority region left with india ) declared jehad and massacred the hindus there too in the 1990s .
i am applying the lesson of my country to europe and the future does seem very bleak....
I know that I'm never having kids.
False Writer
12-07-15, 03:21 PM
the population of the native european christians is just dwindling because they have turned too modern and progressive and whatnot and want to have just fun and do not accept the responsibility of rearing children . i would go so far as too say that the current generation of native european christians is the most selfish generation of all humankind and is letting down the achievements of their ancestors by literally extinguishing european civilization by ceasing to produce children---and no children means no future generations.....if this is progressiveness modernity and freedom then i dont want it !! most of all i would like my people ( indians ) to survive and i hope that they dont go so far on the path of the europeans towards so called enlightenment that they cease to exist !!
populate or perish !! in germany entire schools are closing down because there are no children to educate . in russia entire towns are becoming empty because there are no people .
and who is coming to replace them ?? the largest community replacing the dwindling european population is muslim . they are increasing their population by producing several children per couple and they are coming to europe in waves .
and what happens when muslims become majority in a nation ?? at l;east in my country's experience the entire non muslim population gets massacred . actually both pakistan and bangladesh were hindu majority once and were part of india . then over a period of time the muslim population became majority . and they divided my country ( india ) to create seperate muslim nations and literally raped all the hindu women and massacred the hindu men . very few hindus dare to live in pakistan and the few remaining hindus in bangladesh are being kicked out . not satisfied with this the muslims in kashmir ( the only muslim majority region left with india ) declared jehad and massacred the hindus there too in the 1990s .
i am applying the lesson of my country to europe and the future does seem very bleak....
I... can't help but agree with you on most points. The same goes for North America too. Of course not all of them are like that but enough of them to really cause the problems you mentioned.
Senso_68
12-07-15, 03:21 PM
Too modern and progressive? Hahaha! Oh please... Oohhh, let's go back in the fifties. The women? In the kitchen, with the children! Great!
Selfish generation? Hahaha!
Ok, you should go in Europe. Firstly, it's difficult here because it's very hard to find a job. How can we have children if we don't have a job? It's expensive to have a family.
And we're just free. It's not an obligation to have kids. It's not a duty. We are 7 billions on this planet (and we destroy it), it's enough...
And don't worry, "the European civilization" won't die because there are Muslims. A lot of Muslims are well integrated. And all the Muslims don't have 9 children... The sons of immigrants have the same customs as the West here. I've friends who are "Muslims". For me, they are French. The problem is not the religion but the integracy policy.
Don't compare India to Europe. The Muslims here come from Tunisie, Maroc... Countries with a "moderate" Islam.
BTW : The first victims of Islamic terrorism are... Muslims.
And we're just free. It's not an obligation to have kids. It's not a duty.
charles martel ( who fought the arabs with only a hammer in hand in the eighth century and drove them out ) would turn in his grave if he knew that people like you ( who are handing over france to the arabs on a platter in the name of liberalism ) still exist .
the french soldiers who died to protect french freedom in the trenches of the first world war would turn in their graves if they knew that their descendants could not even find the time to produce some future generations of french men and women .
problem with your generation is that you have got your freedom without toiling for it and dont realise it's value . but you forgot---freedom is not free !! you have to do a little bit of work to maintain it , and that little bit of work includes producing and taking care of a few children .
those who are young today are going to be old one day . in other countries parents expect their children to take care of them in their old age . but you people want to just make merry right now without taking any responsibilities and so many of you wont be having children to take care of you in your old age . so you want foreigners to come and do that in exchange for giving them a better standard of living than they get in their third world countries . but you people are choosing the wrong kind of foreigners . the ones who are coming in will not take care of your old age but will seek to impose their medieval laws on you . all the women's rights gay rights jew rights are going to go away because the medieval laws of the newcomers wont tolerate them . you people are shooting yourself in the foot .
linespalsy
12-07-15, 03:59 PM
I don't think a crime was committed by anyone celebrating the attack.
I could have phrased it more clearly, but I put "crime" in quotes because I know celebrating isn't against the law. My point was that you seem to be reasoning backwards from the assumption that people were celebrating (if they weren't celebrating, why would the cops investigate?!) An investigation isn't evidence (rather, evidence is one possible byproduct of an investigation; another one is, well, lack of evidence).
I'm wondering why disproving these once-established reports is such a big deal - it seems there's this rabid desire by the PC crowd to say, "No! It's impossible that ANY Muslim in the U.S. would have celebrated on 9/11 - that's just insane! Anyone who says they witnessed or remember the reports about it is obviously an Islamophobic bigot who hates all Muslims!"
One of the things at issue here is exactly whether these reports were "once-established". For the ones you posted so far, what exactly did they "establish"? Certainly not your original claim (which I quoted in full). They (including the most recent news clip you posted) arguably lend some support to your much-revised claim, but as I showed in my previous post it's also not difficult to fit them to an alternative interpretation.
And I can't speak for all of "the PC crowd", but I think it's at least a moderate deal that when people make inflammatory claims about large groups of people, they have a strong basis for it. Ideas formed from distant recollections of anecdotes, newscasts and talk radio call-ins are maybe not always worth sharing with the world, regardless of whether or not you "know in your heart it's true." Also I'm lazy. Often such claims are very broad and vague and hard to rebut in an efficient manner, but yours provided an excellent opportunity because it was relatively specific.
honeykid
12-07-15, 04:14 PM
Women in Europe are well educated, liberated and have control of their reproductive cycle and so choose not to have children until later. That's what happens. :)
Senso_68
12-07-15, 04:23 PM
I know who is Charles Martel... If Charles Martel lost the fight against the Muslims, we will be Muslims. And? We won't cry in 2015 "Oh no, we are Muslims"! Well, in this case, I should cry : "Oh no, I'm not German anymore" (the Region where I'm living was German for centuries).
What the link between Muslims and... First World War?! There were fights between German and France. Yes, and? Now, there's an important friendship between these two countries. Have you seen films about the First World War? These soldiers were victims of the governments. I'm crying for these soldiers because there were victims of the governments.
And please, it's an insult to me. I have ancestors who were in the First WW.
The problem is : identity. I don't believe in this notion. Yes, I'm French but to me, there is no "French identity". What means "To be French"? Not a lot of things. To be Catholic? No, there are French Protestants, Jewish, Muslims, Atheists, etc., etc. To live in France? No, there are French who lives in another countries. To speak French? And what about the other languages in France? To be white? There are blacks. It doesn't mean nothing.
A girl like Marion-Maréchal Le Pen has nothing in common with me but she's French, like me. I can be more "connected" with a German, an American than a French.
We're living in a globalized world and we have the sensation to lose our "identities".
You don't know me, don't judge me please. I work, my friends works... I see my grandmother very often, I help my parents, etc., etc.
We can't talk about this point, we're living in different countries with another way of thinking. I understand that the situation can be hard in India but we can't compare. We are not "invaded" by the "baaad Muslims".
The Muslims migrants who comes in Europe are victims of ISIS, they are educated and they don't believe in "Medieval laws".
Today I'm more afraid by the extreme-right than by "Muslims". Extreme-right is : against gay's rights, women's rights, against the culture. I have Muslims friends who are for these rights. ISIS and extreme-right have the same ideas.
One person's freedom ends where another's begins.
Women in Europe are well educated, liberated and have control of their reproductive cycle and so choose not to have children until later. That's what happens. :)
some of them choose to not have children only . liberated women should pass on the benefits of liberation to future generations by ensuring that future generations do exist---and that makes producing the future generations necessary . or you are handing over your nation to foreigners on a platter .
honeykid
12-07-15, 04:26 PM
some of them choose to not have children only . liberated women should pass on the benefits of liberation to future generations by ensuring that future generations do exist---and that makes producing the future generations necessary . or you are handing over your nation to foreigners on a platter .
Who cares? We'll all be dead anyway.
Who cares? We'll all be dead anyway.
that's a shockingly selfish statement to make . the nation you live in does not have an obligation to protect you if you don't care for the future of that nation .
but thanks for making clear to me the mentality of the current generation---live life like there no tomorrow . now i understand it . i give up .
Who cares? We'll all be dead anyway.
That's the spirit!
Senso_68
12-07-15, 04:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIlUvEOhFos
:D
I know who is Charles Martel... If Charles Martel lost the fight against the Muslims, we will be Muslims. And? We won't cry in 2015 "Oh no, we are Muslims"! Well, in this case, I should cry : "Oh no, I'm not German anymore" (the Region where I'm living was German for centuries).
What the link between Muslims and... First World War?! There were fights between German and France. Yes, and? Now, there's an important friendship between these two countries. Have you seen films about the First World War? These soldiers were victims of the governments. I'm crying for these soldiers because there were victims of the governments.
And please, it's an insult to me. I have ancestors who were in the First WW.
The problem is : identity. I don't believe in this notion. Yes, I'm French but to me, there is no "French identity". What means "To be French"? Not a lot of things. To be Catholic? No, there are French Protestants, Jewish, Muslims, Atheists, etc., etc. To live in France? No, there are French who lives in another countries. To speak French? And what about the other languages in France? To be white? There are blacks. It doesn't mean nothing.
A girl like Marion-Maréchal Le Pen has nothing in common with me but she's French, like me. I can be more "connected" with a German, an American than a French.
We're living in a globalized world and we have the sensation to lose our "identities".
You don't know me, don't judge me please. I work, my friends works... I see my grandmother very often, I help my parents, etc., etc.
We can't talk about this point, we're living in different countries with another way of thinking. I understand that the situation can be hard in India but we can't compare. We are not "invaded" by the "baaad Muslims".
The Muslims migrants who comes in Europe are victims of ISIS, they are educated and they don't believe in "Medieval laws".
Today I'm more afraid by the extreme-right than by "Muslims". Extreme-right is : against gay's rights, women's rights, against the culture. I have Muslims friends who are for these rights. ISIS and extreme-right have the same ideas.
One person's freedom ends where another's begins.
you dont have to give me these long rambling talks . see , how honeykid made the whole thing crystal clear to me in a few words . now i have nothing more to say....
Globalization is inevitable. One day we'll all be the same race and one day we'll all be free of religion.
Or maybe we will destroy the planet first. Or just ourselves.
Senso_68
12-07-15, 04:46 PM
I was answering to your long rambling talks.
Captain Steel
12-07-15, 04:57 PM
I could have phrased it more clearly, but I put "crime" in quotes because I know celebrating isn't against the law. My point was that you seem to be reasoning backwards from the assumption that people were celebrating (if they weren't celebrating, why would the cops investigate?!) An investigation isn't evidence (rather, evidence is one possible byproduct of an investigation; another one is, well, lack of evidence).
One of the things at issue here is exactly whether these reports were "once-established". For the ones you posted so far, what exactly did they "establish"? Certainly not your original claim (which I quoted in full). They (including the most recent news clip you posted) arguably lend some support to your much-revised claim, but as I showed in my previous post it's also not difficult to fit them to an alternative interpretation.
And I can't speak for all of "the PC crowd", but I think it's at least a moderate deal that when people make inflammatory claims about large groups of people, they have a strong basis for it. Ideas formed from distant recollections of anecdotes, newscasts and talk radio call-ins are maybe not always worth sharing with the world, regardless of whether or not you "know in your heart it's true." Also I'm lazy. Often such claims are very broad and vague and hard to rebut in an efficient manner, but yours provided an excellent opportunity because it was relatively specific.
My basic point is that the reports were indeed there. I remember them because I watched, listened to and read them. Similar reports came in from some other areas of the country as well.
So the numbers Trump has been saying may be way off, but his memory of the news reporting is accurate (as to his personal memory of what he claims he saw, I can't say. I'm not here to support him - I just remember the same stuff on the news that he said he heard. And I heard many of the eye-witness reports first hand that supported the news reports.)
I also said early on that perhaps some memories were skewed because the reports about events within the U.S. were accompanied by films of people celebrating in the Mid-East. I'll definitely give you that.
There are now a bunch of online resources listing public officials (such as the former Mayor and Police Commissioner of NYC) confirming official police reports of celebrations, and major news outlets and reporters who reported on the events. Most of these news outlets never retracted or countered these reports (although some only did AFTER Trump's comments and the ensuing controversy).
Again, I think the bigger issue is why are some people so adamant about proving these celebrations (no matter how large or small) never happened?
Why is there this need to try to say that there is no possibility of support for Islamic Terrorism by Muslim fundamentalists in this country?
Whether the 9/11 "celebrations" happened or not to whatever extent, we know there were radical Islamists in the U.S. in 2001 just as we know there are radical Islamists here now, so why this desire to whitewash the idea that there are radical factions of Islam here that pose a threat when we've ALREADY been attacked on multiple occasions?
I was answering to your long rambling talks.
people like me who believe in security of future generations are prone to give long rambling talks . but since you are not going to have future generation ( no kids you see ) , why should you care . after you die , who cares if all the churches become mosques and who cares if all the human rights your ancestors fought for dont even exist . since you are not going to produce future generations why should you care what happens to future generations who will be non french ( because french people wont have any kids ) anyway . thanks honeykid again for enlightening me . many thanks .
honeykid
12-07-15, 05:18 PM
that's a shockingly selfish statement to make . the nation you live in does not have an obligation to protect you if you don't care for the future of that nation .
Yes they do. The first thing any legitimate government does is to assure the security of its people. I have the freedom to choose how I live my life within the boundaries of the laws of the land. We're not forced to have children, so whether I do or not is my own business. Whether or not there should be a law to enforce children onto people is another argument entirely, but the nation actually does have an obligation to protect me.
but thanks for making clear to me the mentality of the current generation---live life like there no tomorrow . now i understand it . i give up .
You're welcome. :) Though I certainly don't claim to represent anyone but myself.
Yes they do. The first thing any legitimate government does is to assure the security of its people. I have the freedom to choose how I live my life within the boundaries of the laws of the land. We're not forced to have children, so whether I do or not is my own business. Whether or not there should be a law to enforce children onto people is another argument entirely, but the nation actually does have an obligation to protect me.
You're welcome. :) Though I certainly don't claim to represent anyone but myself.
problem is that---in your own lifetime there are going to be lots of terrorist attacks . your statement ''who cares . we will be dead anyway'' may revert against your generation in a perverse way if many of you are going to be dead not due to natural causes but due to those terrorist attacks .
honeykid
12-07-15, 05:40 PM
But then we'd die regardless. Those who die with children will just be leaving children to go on without one/both parents. Obviously that's not a reason not to have children, but I don't see how a baby boom will stop us dying in terrorist attacks in the next 20, 30 40 years.
linespalsy
12-07-15, 05:53 PM
So the numbers Trump has been saying may be way off, but his memory of the news reporting is accurate
If the content of the reports that he (and you -- I'm not trying to unfairly pin a maximal claim Trump made on you, I quoted you directly) remembered was "way off", then his/your memory of the reporting was not accurate. Your new position is more reasonable (it would almost have to be) but the evidence you've actually posted is still vague and lends itself to multiple interpretations, and at least one part of your new position (that exaggerating numbers doesn't matter as long as someone somewhere was celebrating) is just hand-waving away a salient criticism.
Again, I think the bigger issue is why are some people so adamant about proving these celebrations (no matter how large or small) never happened?
Why is there this need to try to say that there is no possibility of support for Islamic Terrorism by Muslim fundamentalists in this country?
Who's adamantly trying to prove what? How would it even be possible to prove no celebrations ever took place? I never said there is no possibility of support, I said you were exaggerating the evidence for your inflammatory assertions (and still seem to be, to a smaller extent). The existence of Islamic terrorists does not change or excuse that.
But then we'd die regardless. Those who die with children will just be leaving children to go on without one/both parents. Obviously that's not a reason not to have children, but I don't see how a baby boom will stop us dying in terrorist attacks in the next 20, 30 40 years.
those terror attacks will be stopped if you erect barriers to prevent the so called ' refugees from ISIS' from coming---for many ISIS fighters are probably among them .
why need for baby boom ?? because if the newcomers are not going to be allowed , then the jobs you expect them to do in the future will not be done by them--for they will not be allowed in . but those jobs can be done by the baby boomers . so you dont need outsiders to come in at all . have your own people take care of you in your old age instead of relying on unreliable middle easterners .
Citizen Rules
12-07-15, 06:00 PM
Globalization is inevitable. That's true and it's been happening at increasing rates since the 19th century. More so in the last 50 years. Maybe Japan will be a hold out? They're somewhat xenophobic (according to Guap anyway).
One day we'll all be the same raceThat's kind of happening, so ya in a 1000s years or so that very well might be true. Sort of like the movie The Lathe of Heaven.
and one day we'll all be free of religion Sadly the reserve seems to be true. With dwindling world resources we can expect more religious violence and intolerance, not less. History has shown that whenever the poor masses are combined with religious-political ideas, a blood bath can ensue. The whole: ISIS - Jihadist - Extremest thing isn't going away. It's a force that is sweeping the Middle East, Africa and eventual Europe and else where.
Or maybe we will destroy the planet first. That's my greatest fear and it's quite possible.
Or just ourselves.Humans are a pretty stupid animal, we kill each other, we kill other animals, we destroy our planet and we think we're superior. But we're not.
honeykid
12-07-15, 06:05 PM
those terror attacks will be stopped if you erect barriers to prevent the so called ' refugees from ISIS' from coming---for many ISIS fighters are probably among them .
This doesn't really have anything to do with the refugees, though. ISIS don't need refugees to enter Europe. Whether there's ISIS fighters among them or not isn't really here nor there when it comes to whether or not they need help. As for you saying there could be "many", what's many? Ten? A thousand? There's millions there. Now, I'm not saying I want millions to enter the UK (I don't know that we have the infrastructure to cope with the numbers we're already having to deal with) but there are people there in need and we should try to do the right thing as much as we can. Personally I think that'll do more to hurt ISIS than the few bombs we're going to throw in.
why need for baby boom ?? because if the newcomers are not going to be allowed , then the jobs you expect them to do in the future will not be done by them--for they will not be allowed in . but those jobs can be done by the baby boomers . so you dont need outsiders to come in at all . have your own people take care of you in your old age instead of relying on unreliable middle easterners .
But this has nothing to do with terrorists. Globalisation is the way things are going and this is how it works. :shrug:
one indian guy who likes my movie reviews wrote this about my reviews recently on another forum---
When Islamofascists destroy civilisation and mankind is long extinct and all that is left is a harddrive of a remote server somewhere in the ruins, some aliens are gonna find that ****.
After years of research in our tech, they will be able to read the contents and will stumble upon your posts.
It will put a smile on the Alien nerds face as he reads your posts .
actually it was meant to praise my reviews . but why did he have to bring the islamofascists in it ?? i guess that's because everyone is worried about them .
honeykid
12-07-15, 06:10 PM
Alien nerds. :D
Captain Steel
12-07-15, 07:02 PM
If the content of the reports that he (and you -- I'm not trying to unfairly pin a maximal claim Trump made on you, I quoted you directly) remembered was "way off", then his/your memory of the reporting was not accurate. Your new position is more reasonable (it would almost have to be) but the evidence you've actually posted is still vague and lends itself to multiple interpretations, and at least one part of you're new position (that exaggerating numbers doesn't matter as long as someone somewhere was celebrating) is just hand-waving away a salient criticism.
Who's adamantly trying to prove what? How would it even be possible to prove no celebrations ever took place? I never said there is no possibility of support, I said you were exaggerating the evidence for your inflammatory assertions (and still seem to be, to a smaller extent). The existence of Islamic terrorists does not change or excuse that.
There are multiple conversations going on here, making it all a bit confusing. So I apologize for adding to any confusion.
I'm not sure what your contention with my statement is. I went back to find it:
"People also fail to remember that on 9/11/2001, Muslims all over the world, including neighborhoods full of "moderate" Muslims throughout the United States, celebrated and danced in the streets when the towers fell and as the body counts increased."
The context was in responding to how allegedly "moderate" Muslims in other countries were respecting the attack in Paris (some, on the streets in France, were justifying it and some in Turkey by chanting "Allahu Akbar!" - the terrorist victory cry - during a public moment of silence.)
So my response was saying that it's not all that surprising since we saw similar reactions coming from other centers of moderate Islam as displays of support for terrorism occurred after the 9/11 attack both here and abroad. (This was days before Trump said anything on the subject.)
I talked about the Muslim celebrations all over the world - which are well-confirmed and documented. And about in Muslim neighborhoods throughout the U.S. I didn't give numbers because I don't know what they are - but the celebrations were reported by the media and those reports have been re-confirmed by documentation and public officials.
As far as who's trying to prove what - the current media reported with total confidence that there was never a single shred of evidence that ANY Muslims celebrated anywhere in the U.S., and thus Trump was a complete, hate-mongering liar starting unfounded rumors that had no basis whatsoever and were never uttered before.
(Their confidence points to the possibility that they were quite sure they'd concealed or disposed of all the evidence). Then, day by day, more and more people came forward to say they witnessed it (cops, teachers, fire-fighters, news reporters, mayors, police commissioners, etc.), and more evidence (newspaper articles, radio shows, TV newscasts) that seemed to have been buried and forgotten began to be found.
So it's become fairly obvious that someone went to a lot of trouble to try to prove something - I don't know if it was JUST to discredit Trump or to whitewash the presence of Islamic fundamentalists in America in 2001 - but there's a whole lot of PC folks from the White House on down who seem to want to cover up a lot of things when it comes to facts about Islam (and now the Attorney General wants to make it illegal to talk about those facts!) That's pretty telling.
the population of the native european christians is just dwindling because they have turned too modern and progressive and whatnot and want to have just fun and do not accept the responsibility of rearing children . i would go so far as too say that the current generation of native european christians is the most selfish generation of all humankind and is letting down the achievements of their ancestors by literally extinguishing european civilization by ceasing to produce children---and no children means no future generations.....if this is progressiveness modernity and freedom then i dont want it !! most of all i would like my people ( indians ) to survive and i hope that they dont go so far on the path of the europeans towards so called enlightenment that they cease to exist !!
populate or perish !! in germany entire schools are closing down because there are no children to educate . in russia entire towns are becoming empty because there are no people .
and who is coming to replace them ?? the largest community replacing the dwindling european population is muslim . they are increasing their population by producing several children per couple and they are coming to europe in waves .
and what happens when muslims become majority in a nation ?? at l;east in my country's experience the entire non muslim population gets massacred . actually both pakistan and bangladesh were hindu majority once and were part of india . then over a period of time the muslim population became majority . and they divided my country ( india ) to create seperate muslim nations and literally raped all the hindu women and massacred the hindu men . very few hindus dare to live in pakistan and the few remaining hindus in bangladesh are being kicked out . not satisfied with this the muslims in kashmir ( the only muslim majority region left with india ) declared jehad and massacred the hindus there too in the 1990s .
i am applying the lesson of my country to europe and the future does seem very bleak....
I would agree on some parts, especially on part about people thinking they are modern so they are above something. But all of this can't happen over night, it would take time and you would notice it, there would be drastic changes.
I agree on a long term idea, but in a short term (of your life time) there is no chance for this to happen.
Too modern and progressive? Hahaha! Oh please... Oohhh, let's go back in the fifties. The women? In the kitchen, with the children! Great!
There is a huge middle ground between being too progressive and "women to the kitchen". Also, what is so wrong with women being a house wife and focusing on her family?
Senso_68
12-07-15, 07:40 PM
There is no problem about that. To me, "progressivism" allows to have the choice.
but the nation actually does have an obligation to protect me.
This is just my interest in how people in Western Europe think about this (and a little bit unrelated to the topic :D ). Would you return the favor and protect your country when she calls in time of war?
There is no problem about that. To me, "progressivism" allows to have the choice.
Not questioning choice, but every progression brings negative side effects, rapid progressions brings more negative effects.
Senso_68
12-07-15, 07:46 PM
I don't think that progression about women is rapid.
I don't think that progression about women is rapid.
I was talking about progression in general when answering your last post.
honeykid
12-07-15, 08:08 PM
Would you return the favor and protect your country when she calls in time of war?
I wouldn't have thought so, no. Not unless I thought it was necessary. To defend my home, town, country etc here, yes. To join the forces and be sent where. when and to fight whom the politicians decide, no.
EDIT: By country I really mean way of life. I don't really care much about nationality.
I wouldn't have thought so, no. Not unless I thought it was necessary. To defend my home, town, country etc here, yes.
Yea, that is what I wanted to ask. :)
To join the forces and be sent where. when and to fight whom the politicians decide, no.
Agreed, I'm strongly against that also.
linespalsy
12-07-15, 11:43 PM
I'm not sure what your contention with my statement is. I went back to find it:
"People also fail to remember that on 9/11/2001, Muslims all over the world, including neighborhoods full of "moderate" Muslims throughout the United States, celebrated and danced in the streets when the towers fell and as the body counts increased."
I don't see much point in continuing to repeat myself much further. If by the above statement all you meant was what I have since argued you to have shown - "maybe a few Muslims in Jersey city celebrated" - then it's very poorly worded. You didn't cite any specific numbers, so with a lot of stretching it's possible that by "neighborhoods full" you meant "some people in neighborhoods" (as you're now saying), and that by the plural of "neighborhood" and "dancing in the streets across the country" you meant "celebrating on a rooftop in Jersey City" which as far as I'm aware is the only place cited in any of the news sources you've actually linked to, and not very conclusively at that. But that's not what you said, so I stand by my reading of the first as a baseless exaggeration of the second, and that by back-peddling while maintaining that "the actual numbers don't matter" you have merely gone from exaggerating evidence to trivializing criticism. Orders of magnitude are in fact important (in Trump's case "numbers" is a trivialization of the discrepancy between his claim and the news sources cited) when you're trying to establish how widespread and abundant a phenomenon is, and if you don't have much to go on you should maybe be cautious not to generalize and at least be clear what you're talking about. I even suspect that if you stopped to think for a little while you would agree with me, since it seems to matter to you how many people are backing up Trump's anecdotes. I find it odd that accuracy matters to you in the one case but not the other.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35231046
Captain Steel
03-21-16, 02:53 PM
Salah Abdeslam, Paris terror suspect, captured; four others arrested.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/world/paris-attack-salah-abdeslam-fingerprints-capture/
Just thought I'd mention this here - because you won't hear much about it on the TV news, all you'll hear there is "Trump / Clinton / Sanders" all night, all day, 24/7, blah-blah-blah. Apparently when there's a Presidential campaign circus going on, all other news ceases to exist.
honeykid
03-21-16, 03:37 PM
Yeah, he's talking too, apparently.
It's big news over here, btw.
Captain Steel
07-14-16, 10:32 PM
Here we go again.
Another terrorist attack... in Nice, France.
This time using a truck (filled with explosives) driven into a crowd - killing 77 people and injuring over 50!
Captain Steel
07-15-16, 12:20 AM
07-14-2016: Nice, France:
This is horrible (of course, all these terror attacks are horrible), but imagine being on a crowded seaside boardwalk on the fourth of July surrounded by families and excited kids...
This was Bastille Day in France, on a seaside thoroughfare crowded with people out to celebrate their holiday. Mostly families, children, babies in strollers - the killer ran them all down, killing at least 80 at current count and injuring hundreds. The killer began by firing weapons into the crowd and then drove the truck more than a mile, running down the innocent the whole way.
Some police and pedestrians even grabbed onto the back of the truck and were dragged along in heroic, but ultimately vain attempts to stop the vehicle.
In the aftermath the street was covered with mangled bodies, children crushed beyond recognition and blood as far as the eye could see. And the beach next to the road became a make-shift field hospital and morgue.
Meanwhile, reports are coming in that ISIS is celebrating the attack and praising Allah for the crushed heads of babies in the street.
Omnizoa
07-15-16, 01:03 AM
The killer began by firing weapons into the crowd and then drove the truck more than a mile, running down the innocent the whole way.
You're not supposed to do the things you do in GTA in real life.
Captain Steel
07-15-16, 01:19 AM
An interesting question is arising - since the truck was reportedly loaded with weapons: hand grenades, various types of guns, etc., did the killer have something further planned beyond shooting into the crowd then mowing them down with the truck? Especially since the logical assumption would be that he'd be stopped with deadly force behind the wheel at some point. He reportedly had far more weapons than one person could possibly use. (Why bring so many on a suicide run?)
So the implication many are speculating on is - were those weapons in the truck intended for cohorts along the way or at a designated meeting point?
Perhaps the presence of police (who gunned the driver down) deterred more terrorists before the truck reached their rendezvous point? And if there were more terrorists, perhaps they dissipated into the crowd and are still on the loose?
Omnizoa
07-15-16, 01:43 AM
A fairly consistent quality to "terrorists" is their overconfidence. I'm banking on the idea that he planned to use them or make a show of it if nothing else.
Captain Steel
07-15-16, 02:12 AM
A fairly consistent quality to "terrorists" is their overconfidence. I'm banking on the idea that he planned to use them or make a show of it if nothing else.
Could be. We still don't know what "loaded" means when they say the truck was loaded with weapons. Time will tell.
Guaporense
07-15-16, 02:55 AM
How many people were murdered in Brazil in the 8 months between these attacks which killed 220 people in total?
a) 3,500
b) 6,500
c) 40,000
d) 350
If you guessed (c) you got it right. Terrorist attacks generate disproportionate media attention than normal murders because of their nature but statistically speaking they do not affect a person's security: the probability someone would be killed in a terrorist attack is a low as being hit by lightning or being eaten by a shark.
The Rodent
07-15-16, 03:14 AM
What's important to note about this attack, is only the panic mongering newspapers are saying it is a terrorist attack.
The guy was driving a truck, and had a pistol.
There were no explosives in the truck, nor on the guy's body (like a vest or whatever).
He drover the truck into the crowd, and opened fire with his pistol. That, doesn't sound like an ISIS cell to me.
The newspapers are panic mongering. Simple.
omg i just woke up to this.this is so horrible.
seems like a terrorist attack---
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36800730
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/nice-terror-attack-driver-who-killed-84-on-french-riviera-was-cr/
The Rodent
07-15-16, 06:21 AM
The very article you posted a link to says:
"He was known to the police for violence, and using weapons, but had no direct links with terrorism," said an investigating source. "His identity car was found in the lorry. He had French and Tunisian nationality."
The very article you posted a link to says:
"He was known to the police for violence, and using weapons, but had no direct links with terrorism," said an investigating source. "His identity car was found in the lorry. He had French and Tunisian nationality."
the headline of the telegraph link directly calls it terrorist attack .
this is what it says---
Nice terror attack: Lorry driver who killed 84 including 10 children during Bastille Day rampage was criminal well known to police
The Rodent
07-15-16, 06:26 AM
It's the telegraph that had that quote in it.
As I said... it's all panic mongering to sell papers and get people to click on their websites.
This is not an IS attack. Although, IS will probably take responsibility for it to strike more fear into Westerners.
IS will claim responsibility for a cat getting stuck in a tree if it meant they get headlines and attention.
It's the telegraph that had that quote in it.
As I said... it's all panic mongering to sell papers and get people to click on their websites.
This is not an IS attack. Although, IS will probably take responsibility for it to strike more fear into Westerners.
IS will claim responsibility for a cat getting stuck in a tree if it meant they get headlines and attention.
change your ID from rodent to ostrich :D
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg
It was a terrorist attack no matter what, the question is whether it was Islamic or not.
Awful, just awful. RIP :(
All my love to France they've been through so much over the past few years.
The Rodent
07-15-16, 06:36 AM
This bullsh*t is exactly why I keep away from the tabloids and media.
I get so angry with their lies and sensationalist headlines so they can get a quick buck.
I don't deny ISIS are a problem... but this to me looks like a mentally ill individual who has done this atrocity, yet the newspapers and websites are jumping all over it with lies and wordplay to get their clickbait to work.
I hate the media. Absolutely hate it.
This bullsh*t is exactly why I keep away from the tabloids and media.
I get so angry with their lies and sensationalist headlines so they can get a quick buck.
I don't deny ISIS are a problem... but this to me looks like a mentally ill individual who has done this atrocity, yet the newspapers and websites are jumping all over it with lies and wordplay to get their clickbait to work.
I hate the media. Absolutely hate it.
http://photovalet.com/data/comps/PCF/PCFV01P10_14.jpg
Utøya was also reported as a terrorist attack when it was the opposite.
cant blame anyone for speculating however the media has a bigger responsibilty and should be more professional.
but theres not a lot of that left in "journalism" anymore.
christine
07-15-16, 07:53 AM
An interesting question is arising - since the truck was reportedly loaded with weapons: hand grenades, various types of guns, etc., did the killer have something further planned beyond shooting into the crowd then mowing them down with the truck? Especially since the logical assumption would be that he'd be stopped with deadly force behind the wheel at some point. He reportedly had far more weapons than one person could possibly use. (Why bring so many on a suicide run?)
So the implication many are speculating on is - were those weapons in the truck intended for cohorts along the way or at a designated meeting point?
Perhaps the presence of police (who gunned the driver down) deterred more terrorists before the truck reached their rendezvous point? And if there were more terrorists, perhaps they dissipated into the crowd and are still on the loose?
apart from the fact that the guy actually killed all those people and he was shot dead, everything you're saying is speculation. Speculation is what fills 24 hour news channels and leads to people quoting speculation as fact. Doesn't help anyone.
How many people were murdered in Brazil in the 8 months between these attacks which killed 220 people in total?
a) 3,500
b) 6,500
c) 40,000
d) 350
If you guessed (c) you got it right. Terrorist attacks generate disproportionate media attention than normal murders because of their nature but statistically speaking they do not affect a person's security: the probability someone would be killed in a terrorist attack is a low as being hit by lightning or being eaten by a shark.
That is true but the reasons why that happen are clear. The criminality in Brazil comes from poverty. Besides, there's no mass murders, the problem is it happens a lot. The reason behind a terror attack like this one is more frightening because hundreds of people are aimed at the same time and it happens because of hate, pure and simple.
Besides, the implications for Europe are huge, even if it's "only" a few hundreds instead of thousands. France can be close to a civil war. EU can be close to its end.
It's time for France look itself in the mirror and realize what's happening with the integration of immigrants. It's not a new problem, it has decades. Receiving a lot of immigrants it's not bad (on the contrary, it's morally correct, IMO), but these immigrants are not being integrated in society. They come, they are not respected, they eventually form entire neighboorhoods where there's ignorance, poverty, hunger and that's where ISIS attacks. That's where they recrute people. This murderers did not come on the immigration wave as the right wing extremists want people to believe. They are French! Many of them were already born in France! What is France doing with all these people?
Omnizoa
07-15-16, 08:19 AM
Here's the million dollar question begging to be asked:
Is it really terrorism if the intent is unknown?
It's one thing to fly passenger vehicles into priority buildings as a "message", but it's another to mow down loads of people because you're a misanthrope with a death wish.
Many of them were already born in France!
this one was not born in france . he was born in tunisia .
from the below link---
Driver named as loner, 31, from Nice who was born in Tunisia
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel a career criminal known to police
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/nice-terror-attack-driver-who-killed-84-on-french-riviera-was-cr/
Here's the million dollar question begging to be asked:
Is it really terrorism if the intent is unknown?
It's one thing to fly passenger vehicles into priority buildings as a "message", but it's another to mow down loads of people because you're a misanthrope with a death wish.
The intent is to put fear into people, to make them isolate and hate muslims so more can grow more susceptible to radicalism.
They are winning, btw. Every racist comment, every vote the extreme right gains is a victory to ISIS because every muslim offended on the street become a potential terrorist.
Violence creates ignorance, ignorance creates violence.
Captain Steel
07-15-16, 10:37 AM
apart from the fact that the guy actually killed all those people and he was shot dead, everything you're saying is speculation. Speculation is what fills 24 hour news channels and leads to people quoting speculation as fact. Doesn't help anyone.
Good morning. I did say it was speculation, just so we're all on the same page. Yes, I was bringing up the speculation for discussion.
P.S. Last headline I saw said all the weapons in the back of the truck were fake. (???)
Omnizoa
07-15-16, 11:04 AM
The intent is to put fear into people, to make them isolate and hate muslims so more can grow more susceptible to radicalism.
I wasn't talking about muslims I was talking about mass killings in general.
They are winning, btw. Every racist comment, every vote the extreme right gains is a victory to ISIS because every muslim offended on the street become a potential terrorist.
Violence creates ignorance, ignorance creates violence.
Labelling any attack "terrorism" is also ignorant and liable to stir up violence itself when certain media buzzwords trigger the wrong people.
Omnizoa
07-15-16, 11:04 AM
P.S. Last headline I saw said all the weapons in the back of the truck were fake. (???)
For show.
Mr Minio
07-15-16, 01:14 PM
Carmageddon in real life!
Citizen Rules
07-15-16, 01:39 PM
Was the truck driver an IS (Islamic state) operative? maybe not....But I will bet anything he was an IJ (Individual Jihadist), and all those innocent people are just as dead. IJ or IS does it really even matter what we call them? Both are evil religious nutcase terrorist, with as much grip on reality as Joseph Gerbils.
What in the hell can we do about it?
What in the hell can we do about it?
the least you westerners can do is to stop lecturing india by writing articles like these in western magazines like this---
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/26/narendra-modi-india-safe-for-muslims-hindu-nationalism-bjp-rss/
that's because we know these people better than you , having lived cheek by jowl to them for 1000 years .
also maybe you should stop supplying weapons to the same country that was hiding osama bin laden---pakistan . france is guilty of supplying exocet anti ship missiles and agosta attack submarines to pakistan . USA has supplied f 16 fighterjets to that country .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-attack-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-who-is-he-age-nationality-isis-latest-news-updates-a7138951.html
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel: Everything we know about the Nice attack killer
The man who killed 84 people by driving a truck into them in Nice was not especially religious and showed no signs of extremism, according to reports.
Reports have named the man as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a 31-year-old French-Tunisian man.
Though he was known to police for anti-social behaviour, he had no file with the specialist division who monitor possible terrorism targets.
Citizen Rules
07-15-16, 03:40 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-attack-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-who-is-he-age-nationality-isis-latest-news-updates-a7138951.html
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel: Everything we know about the Nice attack killer
The man who killed 84 people by driving a truck into them in Nice was not especially religious and showed no signs of extremism, according to reports.
Reports have named the man as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a 31-year-old French-Tunisian man.
Though he was known to police for anti-social behaviour, he had no file with the specialist division who monitor possible terrorism targets.Question to anyone....Obama wants to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees, and most likely will do that. Hillary Clinton wants to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees into America if she becomes president. She claims they can be successful vetted. Would this truck driver murder (as mentioned in the news article) have been spotted as a potential dangerous person and not allowed into the U.S.? Could he have been successful vetted?
Most all of the refugees will be peaceful, but there's concern they can be infiltrated by ISIS or just by the lone nut case, like the truck driver.
Labelling any attack "terrorism" is also ignorant and liable to stir up violence itself when certain media buzzwords trigger the wrong people.
This was terrorism. It doesn't matter if it was a single man's idea or if it was organized by ISIS. It doesn't matter also if its reasons were religious or purely hatred. This was terrorism.
Question to anyone....Obama wants to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees, and most likely will do that. Hillary Clinton wants to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees into America if she becomes president. She claims they can be successful vetted. Would this truck driver murder (as mentioned in the news article) have been spotted as a potential dangerous person and not allowed into the U.S.? Could he have been successful vetted?
Most all of the refugees will be peaceful, but there's concern they can be infiltrated by ISIS or just by the lone nut case, like the truck driver.
I don't think the main problem is in the refugees to be honest. The problem is what you do with them. Portugal is not receiving a lot because we are a very small country, but the ones who are coming are being helped to find a job and create life conditions. You won't have terrorists coming from that. But if you take 100 Muslims, put them in a ghetto with crime, poverty, hunger, ignorance, then you'll have terrorists coming from there. USA should receive refugees (especially because USA is one of the countries responsible for the crisis on Middle East) but they shouldn't receive them all at once. And they must have a plan to each one of them!
Guaporense
07-15-16, 04:33 PM
That is true but the reasons why that happen are clear. The criminality in Brazil comes from poverty.
No really. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are much poorer than Brazil and has way less murders (less than the US in fact). Attributing crime to "poverty" is nonsense.
Besides, there's no mass murders, the problem is it happens a lot.
There are a lot of mass executions by drug dealers in Brazil.
The reason behind a terror attack like this one is more frightening because hundreds of people are aimed at the same time and it happens because of hate, pure and simple. Besides, the implications for Europe are huge, even if it's "only" a few hundreds instead of thousands. France can be close to a civil war. EU can be close to its end.
I don't think a couple of terrorist attacks will turn France in civil war. Although the response to such attacks usually has more impact than the attacks themselves. September 11 killed 3 thousand but made the US start a war in Iraq that killed 100,000 and whose indirect effects together with the general instability in the middle east, created ISIS.
Terrorist attacks are dangerous because people pay too much attention to them and governments overreact and create further problems. World War I started because of a terrorist attacks which killed 1 person, by the way. After WW1 we had all the massive historical ramifications that include the USSR, the Holocast, WW2 and others, killing over 120 million people combined.
It's time for France look itself in the mirror and realize what's happening with the integration of immigrants. It's not a new problem, it has decades. Receiving a lot of immigrants it's not bad (on the contrary, it's morally correct, IMO), but these immigrants are not being integrated in society. They come, they are not respected, they eventually form entire neighboorhoods where there's ignorance, poverty, hunger and that's where ISIS attacks. That's where they recrute people. This murderers did not come on the immigration wave as the right wing extremists want people to believe. They are French! Many of them were already born in France! What is France doing with all these people?
If life in France is bad they should be free to leave the country back to their African homelands. :p
This terrorist attack is probably the result not of "poverty" (which is a meaningless word in in this sense) but the fact that ISIS is doing that as a strategy to boost morale among fighters in Iraq and Syria where they are losing ground.
To solve these problems of terrorist the answer is simple: Western countries shouldn't intervene so much in the middle east. They should let them be and the situation will calm down over time as the region attains it's own political equilibrium.
September 11 was caused by the fact that the US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War which made Islamic Radicals very angry. Then the US attacked Iraq for no reason other than a response for September 11, which created a power vacuum in the middle east leading to the emergence of ISIS and other radical organizations that promote terrorism.
Now what they should do is first deal with ISIS somehow (it was their mistake) them leave the middle east alone with their dictators who can hold the region together. And if Iraq invades Kuwait, let the Arabs to defend Kuwait instead of asking for US help.
Omnizoa
07-15-16, 05:09 PM
Would this truck driver murder (as mentioned in the news article) have been spotted as a potential dangerous person and not allowed into the U.S.?
Hell no.
This was terrorism. It doesn't matter if it was a single man's idea or if it was organized by ISIS. It doesn't matter also if its reasons were religious or purely hatred. This was terrorism.
Google disagrees.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Captain Steel
07-15-16, 11:31 PM
The intent is to put fear into people, to make them isolate and hate muslims so more can grow more susceptible to radicalism.
They are winning, btw. Every racist comment, every vote the extreme right gains is a victory to ISIS because every muslim offended on the street become a potential terrorist.
Violence creates ignorance, ignorance creates violence.
This is an argument I keep hearing from a certain segment.
The weird thing is this same segment is the first to tout that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful (such as members of the Obama / Clinton administration who think if they say "radical Islam" they will make all Muslims, no matter how reasonable, feel ostracized, generalized and segregated... and that will suddenly drive them to become crazed, homicidal ISIS terrorists).
Now, after studying Islam (the religion and its history) I know that it is not a religion of peace - it is quite the opposite in almost every aspect.
But the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful cannot be denied. (Like people of other religions, many members may be somewhat ignorant of all its tenets, or just not take it all that seriously, or view Earthly pursuits as much more relevant to their lives, or stick with it because it's just convenient to maintain family & cultural traditions.)
So, it's strange that the same people who talk about how peaceful, rational & reasonable most Muslims are, are the same people who are deathly afraid to "offend" them by simply stating facts because all these allegedly peaceful Muslims are also "potential terrorists" who are a hair trigger away from becoming a mass murder or driven to be "radicalized" if they at any point feel marginalized, insulted or hear certain words such as "radical Islam."
Why are the people who so vigorously defend Islam the same ones who want to paint every Muslim as some kind of Manchurian Candidate; a ticking time bomb that is ready to explode whenever a politician uses politically incorrect words, or if they experience economic or job woes (like everyone else) or if they feel alienated from greater society then find a website encouraging Islamic atrocities.
Let's say for a moment that there is any truth to this idea that "every Muslim on the street may become a potential terrorist." Wouldn't that indicate that there is something inherently wrong with Islam and it's fundamental ideology since people of all other religions can withstand insults, criticisms, facts about their religion, or the rigors of daily life that all sectors of society are exposed to without desiring to become a child rapist and mass murderer?
Citizen Rules
07-15-16, 11:51 PM
I have a hypothetical question for anyone.
If some one went into a Christian church in America, loudly screaming obscenities at their savoir. What would happen to that person?
What would happen if somebody did that in an American Mosque?
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 12:18 AM
I have a hypothetical question for anyone.
If some one went into a Christian church in America, loudly screaming obscenities at their savoir. What would happen to that person?
What would happen if somebody did that in an American Mosque?
My guess is in most churches the Pastor or Priest would first try to talk to the person about why they are upset, if the person persisted with disruptions or aberrant behaviors (that might be disturbing or threatening to congregants) then the police would probably be called.
In the church I once belonged to, the Pastor would invite the person to stay, listen, participate and invite them to "fellowship" afterwards for coffee & cake (there would probably be attempted hugs involved)! ;)
Now, honestly, my guess is that in an American Mosque the reaction would probably be something similar - most likely just a call to the police if the person would not leave when requested to do so.
I think you already know what the reaction would be in Mosques in the Middle East.
This reminds me of a quick story: back when mosques in NYC made an uproar about the authorities wanting to monitor them by attending services. My former church's Pastor was asked about this and said he'd welcome any authorities (be they FBI, CIA agents or police) to sit in to hear the good news of Christ and how He loves them - he'd tell them to invite their co-workers and their families next time. He'd invite them to fellowship afterwards and let them know they were welcome to join as members or just walk in anytime to listen or just to come in and pray. He openly asked why anyone who believed in what they were preaching and believed what they were preaching was a message that was good for all people, would try to bar anyone from coming to listen.
does this attack vindicate those who voted for brexit ??
If some one went into a Christian church in America, loudly screaming obscenities at their savoir. What would happen to that person?
You mean Dylann Roof? Haven't heard you or anyone else here denounce him.
Actually i've heard you guys denounce every one but Dylann Roof.
Dylann Roof - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
Citizen Rules
07-16-16, 03:10 AM
You mean Dylann Roof? Haven't heard you or anyone else here denounce him.
Actually i've heard you guys denounce every one but Dylann Roof.
Dylann Roof - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_RoofNo I don't mean Dylann Roof, I have no idea who Dylann Roof is. I meant my hypothetical question at face value. I will read the wiki link tomorrow, it's just about midnight here.
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 03:10 AM
You mean Dylann Roof? Haven't heard you or anyone else here denounce him.
Actually i've heard you guys denounce every one but Dylann Roof.
Dylann Roof - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
If you want a denouncement... sure!
Mass murdering little demented whitetrash scumbag racist piece of $&%#. He should get the Jeffrey Dahmer treatment in prison. Handcuff him to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and let them pick lice off each other until they starve to death.
How's that?
No I don't mean Dylann Roof, I have no idea who Dylann Roof is. I meant my hypothetical question at face value. I will read the wiki link tomorrow, it's just about midnight here.
Your hypothetical scenario was what Dylan Roof used to justify his actions,
Dunno. Sometimes i think good people get wrapped up in hate, stuff that they probably wouldn't voice In Real Life. Who knows? BOOM!
If you want a denouncement... sure!
Mass murdering little demented whitetrash scumbag racist piece of $&%#. He should get the Jeffrey Dahmer treatment in prison. Handcuff him to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and let them pick lice off each other until they starve to death.
How's that?
Wasn't talking to you.
So it was prety weird.
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 03:37 AM
Your hypothetical scenario was what Dylan Roof used to justify his actions,
Dunno. Sometimes i think good people get wrapped up in hate, stuff that they probably wouldn't voice In Real Life. Who knows? BOOM!
I didn't make the connection based on Rules' question.
But yes, Roof committed his massacre in a church. As to what Roof used to justify his actions - from what I read, he was upset over black on white crimes. So what does he do? Does he go out and find some criminals (since that's who he claims he was apparently mad at)? No, he goes to a Christian church and murders 9 innocent, defenseless people at a prayer group who he just sat with & prayed with for an hour!
Just another psycho. A little Nazi KKK-wannabe racist mental case. Put him on a military transport plane and drop him on an ISIS stronghold in Iraq - shove him out without a parachute, maybe he'll land on a terrorist.
Better yet, put him in burlap pants, shackle him in chains, force him to work in the hot sun for the families of his victims and let them string him up and whip him.
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 03:40 AM
Wasn't talking to you.
So it was prety weird.
Well, you said "you guys" in your post about denouncing Roof - so I assumed I might be one of the guys you were talking to, especially since I had some lengthy recent posts here. :)
As to what Roof used to justify his actions - from what I read, he was upset over black on white crimes.
He made it clear that he wanted to wipe out the blacks. He actually said that in his 'manifesto' :sick:
Anyway, i don't want to give that POS any more attention but his attack was absolutely a white on black racist attack. I don't like how you and Citizen are always here when it might be IS but you are nowhere to be found when things like this happen.To me it seems like selective bias.
I think one of the biggest mistake is that they have these big apartement comlexes where they put all of them together, meaning they dont socialice with the people of the country they just moved into but eachother.
id love to be one of those who feels sorry for them and want us to let all of them in,Id feel sorry for them-but at the same time its so naive.Sweden is a ****ing mess right now-theres constantly riots from the immigrants and theres have been such an increase of rape and violence against women.
Just this summer when there were festivals young immigrant boys would go in groups and attack young girls. over 35 sexual offences in one festival.And Sweden is so scared of the racial (read culture difference) hate that they have even proposed not to reveal the ethinicity and skin colour of people who are "wanted" for sexual abuse (cos then you`re going to find them how?) They also tried to hide the fact that all these assaults happened.
My problem is also that Norway has much less of a backbone when it comes to things like this cos we want to be so politically correct we`d rather ignore the problem-as we have been for awhile.but who is that hurting? me.
its apparantly completely fine to be misogynesist,just as long as you in no way can come across rascist ;)
Also a part of the problem is that so many of these come without their papers,alot of them claim to children
(for example the "child" who killed the swedish nurse) they could be anyone,they could be a part of anything and we dont know.they could also be nice people,but we dont know that either.
So yeah my problem is definitly a lack of backbone in the government and the blue eyed people,but I think alot of could be fixed with forced intergration. not all of them in one place but spread out-women would have to work aka less childsupport,
not having them all work together and strickter laws. You break the laws like rape or assault or suspected terrorism -no second changes. you`re out,take your family or leave them but youre gone and this should be forcefed to themfrom the beginning. but that would never happen here.
I HAVE AN OPINION LISTEN TO ME
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 08:52 AM
Better yet, put him in burlap pants, shackle him in chains, force him to work in the hot sun for the families of his victims
Sounds better than having him twiddle his thumbs in a tax-funded prison system.
cricket
07-16-16, 09:19 AM
I knew somebody was going to use a truck at some point, except I figured it would be used as a bomb. Trucks are needed everywhere, and all major buildings and attractions have loading areas, and with the large buildings you normally drive right inside them. Background checks for drivers are lax, and security is not always tight where we go. I can drive right into some office buildings, hotels, sports stadiums, casinos, etc., without even being questioned. That needs to change.
RIP to all the victims of this terrible atrocity.
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 09:47 AM
Background checks for drivers are lax, and security is not always tight where we go. I can drive right into some office buildings, hotels, sports stadiums, casinos, etc., without even being questioned.
In related news, the MPAA is a spyproof bunker built to withstand a nuclear bomb.
christine
07-16-16, 10:32 AM
does this attack vindicate those who voted for brexit ??
No Ashdoc it doesn't , no matter how any UKIP members would want to spin it (if they even have) . A nutcase killing people in a lorry can happen anywhere in the world EU or no EU, I think most British people are sensible enough to understand that
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 10:55 AM
A nutcase killing people in a lorry can happen anywhere in the world
Damn Brits leavin' the EU! Let's punish them by killing French people.
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 11:08 AM
He made it clear that he wanted to wipe out the blacks. He actually said that in his 'manifesto' :sick:
Anyway, i don't want to give that POS any more attention but his attack was absolutely a white on black racist attack. I don't like how you and Citizen are always here when it might be IS but you are nowhere to be found when things like this happen.To me it seems like selective bias.
???
Roof's crime took place just days after I became aware of this board. Since I was new and still feeling out the technical aspects as well as the timbre of the site, I was not about to start posting off-topic threads about mass murders at that time. This is the first thread I started about a terrorist attack (the Paris attack) that occurred on 11-13-2015. The Charleston attack occurred on 06-17-2015. Was there even a thread started on this site about the Charleston shooting when it occurred?
And what does Citizen Rule's commenting practices have to do with it? Some people comment on these types of threads and some don't.
Also, is it somehow my responsibility to start threads on every incident? Now I feel like Obama who only opines on some incidents but doesn't comment on others (except I'm not President).
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 11:17 AM
I was not about to start posting off-topic threads about mass murders at that time.
I like how you said "at that time".
You gotta save your mass murder fascination 'till the third date at least.
Daniel M
07-16-16, 11:22 AM
Now I feel like Obama who only opines on some incidents but doesn't comment on others (except I'm not President).
Actually laughing at how you've managed to link him in to the discussion of this incident once again...
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 11:25 AM
I like how you said "at that time".
You gotta save your mass murder fascination 'till the third date at least.
I don't think I was even aware of the site's "Intermission" forum (non-movie / off-topic) at that time and I'm not the type to come on a new site and post off-topic stuff.
Still, I'm not the one making suggestions of bias about other posters over things they did NOT post about. Did you start a thread today about how you LOVE other MoFo's? You didn't? What are we to make of that? You must be biased against them! ;)
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 11:26 AM
Actually laughing at how you've managed to link him in to the discussion of this incident once again...
It's a standard comedic tactic - you always reference back to something you said before.
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 11:41 AM
I'm not the type to come on a new site and post off-topic stuff.
Whereas in my opinion, if there's one thing Movie Forums needs right now, it's a philosophical debate about the moral quarry of incest.
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 11:50 AM
Whereas in my opinion, if there's one thing Movie Forums needs right now, it's a philosophical debate about the moral quarry of incest.
Start a thread. I'll be there.
I'm still trying to find Camo's thread on the Charleston shooting - I can't seem to find it. I'd be glad to bump it and comment if I can find it.
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 11:58 AM
Start a thread. I'll be there.
Oh, ummm... okay.
http://images.rapgenius.com/hu7cb7giqt82g9qi8z4r3ial.400x300x17.gif
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 01:01 PM
That's so Raven.
Citizen Rules
07-16-16, 01:18 PM
I have a hypothetical question for anyone.
If some one went into a Christian church in America, loudly screaming obscenities at their savoir. What would happen to that person?
What would happen if somebody did that in an American Mosque?
You mean Dylann Roof? Haven't heard you or anyone else here denounce him.
Actually i've heard you guys denounce every one but Dylann Roof.
Dylann Roof - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
No I don't mean Dylann Roof, I have no idea who Dylann Roof is. I meant my hypothetical question at face value. I will read the wiki link tomorrow, it's just about midnight here.
Your hypothetical scenario was what Dylan Roof used to justify his actions,
Dunno. Sometimes i think good people get wrapped up in hate, stuff that they probably wouldn't voice In Real Life. Who knows? BOOM!Stop following me around the board and posting hate language at me!
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 01:32 PM
Stop following me around the board and posting hate language at me!
dislike
don't much care for
could do without
not a fan
not a proclivity of mine
not the worst thing
pretty bad
not especially good
no thank you
not how I'd spend a Sunday afternoon
Calvin window decal
Uwe Boll
cheeky synonyms for "hate"
http://res.cloudinary.com/lmn/image/upload/fl_lossy,q_80/f_auto,w_640,h_360,c_limit/v1/gameskinnyop/9/a/8/9a855899bd11b56e5a18bc6ea08f0e05.jpg
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 04:53 PM
:) I'm always calm. :)
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 05:24 PM
:) I'm always calm. :)
You're always flaccid placid?
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 05:27 PM
You're always flaccid placid?
Like the 1980 Winter Olympics!
Omnizoa
07-16-16, 05:34 PM
Like the 1980 Winter Olympics!
That's the problem with terrorists these days, they don't stop to consider the 1980 Winter Olympics.
Captain Steel
07-16-16, 05:47 PM
That's the problem with terrorists these days, they don't stop to consider the 1980 Winter Olympics.
They're still thinking about the 1972 Munich Olympics.
Captain Steel
07-17-16, 10:20 PM
Some strange parallels between the Nice terrorist (31 year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel) and the Orlando terrorist (29 year-old Omar Mateen)...
So far both appear to have been radicalized Muslim "lone wolf" terrorists inspired by ISIS (or similar groups / ideologies). Both were divorced men with children. Yet both appear to have been either closeted homosexuals or bisexuals who utilized social media to hook up with other men for sexual liaisons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/17/nice-terror-attack-police-vans-blocking-promenade-withdrawn-hour1/
I have no idea how any of that plays into who these guys were or what they did. Perhaps when one learned about the other he decided to "copy cat" in his own way?
this is a small attack by the atrocious standards of the attacks that have been happening lately---
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36827725
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/islamic-state-flag-home-of-suspected-german-train-attacker
Omnizoa
07-19-16, 08:10 AM
You guys don't get it, murder is just what's hip with the kids nowadays, you gotta get with the times and out of your... horse-drawn carriages and... abacuses...
Captain Steel
07-19-16, 01:42 PM
You guys don't get it, murder is just what's hip with the kids nowadays, you gotta get with the times and out of your... horse-drawn carriages and... abacuses...
It is hip with the kids these days and that's why there needs to be a propaganda war.
I called for one after 9/11, but it didn't manifest.
What I'm about to say may sound controversial, but the last two "lone wolfs" give us an opportunity to launch a targeted propaganda assault on ISIS.
This has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with fundamentalist Islam's hatred of homosexuality.
We need to paint these terrorists as the type of men that ISIS attracts. And that anyone, absolutely anyone attracted to ISIS or who wants to join them is sexually attracted to homosexuals (just like the current crop of terrorists), and wants to become one so they can be gang banged by ISIS. And that all the men in ISIS are homosexuals or closeted homosexuals.
Even better, if we can dig up any information or even start rumors about who is gay within ISIS and disseminate it, then we could watch the group begin to tear itself apart from within (remember, these animals think gay people need to be executed and they carry it out at any opportunity).
At the same time tell the world the factual information that these men are sexual deviants and cowardly losers of the worst order - that they sell and rape little girls, that they murder families and decapitate little kids. Paint the picture of them to the world and anyone who potentially wants to join them that they are perverted, cowardly baby killers and child rapists who have no concept of what real masculinity, real courage or real honor is.
cricket
07-19-16, 05:17 PM
I have no idea how realistic that is^^but I like that way of thinking.
Captain Steel
07-19-16, 06:14 PM
I have no idea how realistic that is^^but I like that way of thinking.
It's based on using the psychology of homophobic bullies against them. In any group where homophobia is a big thing, it usually means that latent or closeted homosexuality is in good supply. (Remember the story of "Vito" in the Sopranos?)
Think about flooding the airwaves & Internet with psychiatrists (or people posing as such) talking about how if only members of ISIS would learn to accept their inner feelings of homosexuality then they wouldn't need to manifest all their repressed rage (created by the conflicting ideals of their religion & pressures from their culture that counter their inner feelings) which manifests as violence, aggression and terrorism.
It's probably true to some extent anyway!
Then consider how Islam as a whole absolutely hates homosexuality... and you've got all these Islamic countries surrounding ISIS that won't do much to stop them (because they, unlike our administration, understand that ISIS is Islamic). The bottom line is to create inner conflict within ISIS and between ISIS and the greater Islamic world.
Omnizoa
07-19-16, 08:37 PM
What I'm about to say may sound controversial, but the last two "lone wolfs" give us an opportunity to launch a targeted propaganda assault on ISIS.
This has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with fundamentalist Islam's hatred of homosexuality.
We need to paint these terrorists as the type of men that ISIS attracts. And that anyone, absolutely anyone attracted to ISIS or who wants to join them is sexually attracted to homosexuals (just like the current crop of terrorists), and wants to become one so they can be gang banged by ISIS. And that all the men in ISIS are homosexuals or closeted homosexuals.
I love it. I can think of no better excuse to roll out the stereotypes.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/11MX5CKYZ9M/hqdefault.jpg
Captain Steel
07-19-16, 08:55 PM
What stereotypes?
Gay stereotypes are that they are free-thinking, non-violent individualists.
Islamic Terrorist stereotypes is that they are gay-hating, brain-washed, religious psychopaths.
Start the rumor that the terrorists are what they hate & have an irrational fear of (and we now have some prime examples of just that) - use the psychological idea that they are terrorists because they can't deal with the fact that they actually are the thing they are taught to hate, and that they can't summon up the courage to face their irrational fear (so they turn to terrorism to deal with their repressed feelings). There are a whole bunch of syndromes from the DSM that can back this idea up. It will be like throwing a lit match into a fireworks factory.
Omnizoa
07-19-16, 09:03 PM
What stereotypes?
What ISIS thinks of "gay culture".
I'm imagining stealth drones hovering over their compounds and dropping condoms and rainbow confetti on people.
It's based on using the psychology of homophobic bullies against them. In any group where homophobia is a big thing, it usually means that latent or closeted homosexuality is in good supply. (Remember the story of "Vito" in the Sopranos?)
Think about flooding the airwaves & Internet with psychiatrists (or people posing as such) talking about how if only members of ISIS would learn to accept their inner feelings of homosexuality then they wouldn't need to manifest all their repressed rage (created by the conflicting ideals of their religion & pressures from their culture that counter their inner feelings) which manifests as violence, aggression and terrorism.
It's probably true to some extent anyway!
Then consider how Islam as a whole absolutely hates homosexuality... and you've got all these Islamic countries surrounding ISIS that won't do much to stop them (because they, unlike our administration, understand that ISIS is Islamic). The bottom line is to create inner conflict within ISIS and between ISIS and the greater Islamic world.
wont work . the soft options of democratic countries are too soft for these hard bullies . ultimately russia and china ( two hard authoritarian counties ) will only have the willpower to take on these bullies .
Citizen Rules
07-20-16, 12:17 AM
What stereotypes?
Gay stereotypes are that they are free-thinking, non-violent individualists.
Islamic Terrorist stereotypes is that they are gay-hating, brain-washed, religious psychopaths.
Start the rumor that the terrorists are what they hate & have an irrational fear of (and we now have some prime examples of just that) - use the psychological idea that they are terrorists because they can't deal with the fact that they actually are the thing they are taught to hate, and that they can't summon up the courage to face their irrational fear (so they turn to terrorism to deal with their repressed feelings). There are a whole bunch of syndromes from the DSM that can back this idea up. It will be like throwing a lit match into a fireworks factory. That's brilliant! If we could just get a grass roots movement to actually do it. I think it could work and hey no bombs so liberals should be happy. But with our overtly PC think generation, I'm sure someone would object.
Captain Steel
07-20-16, 01:19 AM
That's brilliant! If we could just get a grass roots movement to actually do it. I think it could work and hey no bombs so liberals should be happy. But with our overtly PC think generation, I'm sure someone would object.
I can tell some will see it as a jab at homosexuals.
No, it's a jab at those who hate them and who are filled with hate for all mankind.
1. Get some of those alleged "coalition" forces to find caches of gay porn among ISIS remains (after a raid or a bombing of a stronghold or convoy).
2. Drop some leaflets showing al-Baghdadi in some compromising positions (who cares if they're Photoshopped, we're at war!) They'll be immediately identified as false propaganda, but drop enough of them long enough and it will effect some members subconsciously.
3. Get some caring & concerned psychiatric types to make public statements that the Orlando & Nice attackers have helped them begin to unlock how the ISIS mindset (and that of those they recruit) works. Have them remind ISIS that homophobia within large groups is almost always a cover perpetuated by the closeted homosexuals in those groups. Then have them make an appeal that all ISIS members accept their homosexuality for the sake of their mental health.
4. Publicize some "evidence" that several of the dead terrorists involved in some of the major attacks had similar leanings as the self-loathing Omar Mateen.
5. Have hackers break into ISIS web sites and do some "interior decorating" (i.e. spread propaganda).
6. Have some Mosques (would probably have to be faux Mosques) offer acceptance & same sex marriages to ISIS members who wish to leave the group and embrace their orientation. This guy might help... http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/29/american-gay-imam-nowhere-in-the-quran-does-it-say-punish-homosexuals/
7. Reveal the recently released letters recovered in Pakistan from Osama Bin Laden to his secret lover Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
8. Get gay Muslims groups (rare, but they are out there) to make publicized appeals to ISIS, based on this growing understanding that they largely consist of repressed homosexuals.
9. Offer sanctuary and protection to any ISIS members who are gay and wish to leave the group (no one will accept the offer, but put it out there as if the idea that many ISIS members are gay is being taken seriously by the entire world).
10. Spread stories like this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/06/the-secret-hypocritical-gay-world-of-isis.html
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BHeHFeScomY/0.jpg
Omnizoa
07-20-16, 05:11 PM
These guys make sense. :up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7u_n5MpuNg
I can tell some will see it as a jab at homosexuals.
No, it's a jab at those who hate them and who are filled with hate for all mankind.
I don't see it as a jab at homosexuals, but i do see it as something ridiculous that wouldn't work. It is clearly from a Western; ISIS=Barbarian=Stupid, point of view, even if we don't touch that it also ignores the fact that they suspect everything from Western Media as propaganda already so i don't see how an actual propaganda campaign would be taken any other way by the majority.
Omnizoa
07-20-16, 06:39 PM
they suspect everything from Western Media as propaganda already so i don't see how an actual propaganda campaign would be taken any other way by the majority.
I'm tellin' ya, stealth drones with condoms and rainbow confetti. You can fit them with little speakers too so they can't see 'em but they can hear YMCA by the Village People off in the distance before silly sexual decadence rains down on their heads.
And force feed the suspects pork. That will make them think twice about becoming a suspect.
Omnizoa
07-20-16, 07:02 PM
And force feed the suspects pork. That will make them think twice about becoming a suspect.
I'm sorry, Camo, my ideological beliefs only extend to showering my enemies in pornography, not feeding them.
We should meet in the middle and shower them in pork.
Captain Steel
07-20-16, 10:27 PM
I don't see it as a jab at homosexuals, but i do see it as something ridiculous that wouldn't work. It is clearly from a Western; ISIS=Barbarian=Stupid, point of view, even if we don't touch that it also ignores the fact that they suspect everything from Western Media as propaganda already so i don't see how an actual propaganda campaign would be taken any other way by the majority.
I certainly don't underestimate Islamic State terrorists as being stupid, but anyone who commits mass murder based on something written in a book is psychologically & emotionally unstable - big time! There's no doubt that members of this group or people attracted to it because they like the idea of beheading children and raping little girls is an unstable, homicidal psychopath. It doesn't take much to set these types off.
When unstable people get set off they do stupid things, they make mistakes...
Reminds me of this guy I know... Jack. Mean kid. Bad seed. Hurt people. Now you know, the problem was... he got sloppy. You know? Crazy. He started to lose it. He had a head full of bad wiring, I guess. Couldn't keep it straight up here. He was the kind of guy who couldn't hear the train until it was 2 feet from him. You know what happened to this guy, Jack? Well... he made mistakes. Then he had his LIGHTS OUT! Now you wanna get nuts? Come on! Let's get nuts.
Omnizoa
07-20-16, 10:41 PM
anyone who commits mass murder based on something written in a book is psychologically & emotionally unstable
For the sake of Devil's Advocate, let's consider a scenario, and by analogy empathize to some degree, a world in which you are surrounded on all sides by what you perceive to be irredeemably vile criminals. You may feel resigned to the world as you see it, even desensitized to it, until you pick up a book that says, "You know what? The world doesn't change on it's own and someone has to get their hands dirty".
Personally, I weigh anything I read against experience and rationalism, but that's not precluded in the claim and yet it asserts the quality of my critical faculties.
Citizen Rules
07-20-16, 10:50 PM
I had an idea for a propaganda campaign back after the Paris train bombing.
...I often have thought the best way of defeating terrorism in the middle east is through cultural assimilation. The more the west can dump western style images and values into the media they watch over there, the more they will start thinking like us. The more they can see that their religious jihad is something out of the stone age and modern people don't act that way...the better it will be. Make them as PC as we are!
Captain Steel
07-20-16, 10:58 PM
Not sure what your point is, Omni, but we're talking mass murder here. Mass murder by a group that kills people they know are completely innocent, who are strangers to them and who've never harmed them... all because their book says that they've got to kill all non-believers so that their religion can reign supreme.
Going back to the earlier idea. Sure, creating a global rumor that ISIS consists of latent, closeted or self-loathing homosexuals does sound ridiculous.
But look at the ideology we're dealing with. These are people who've gone ballistic over drawings & cartoons depicting some guy who died a 1400 years ago! Car-freaking-TOONS!
And they rioted over it, caused property damaged over it, announced fatwas against individuals & organizations that are still in place, assassinated people over it and committed mass murder over it.
There were even reports that in their frenzy of outrage (back during the Denmark riots), some of them shot each other over it just because they were upset and a warm body was next to them to shoot (and it didn't matter if the person next to them was a fellow Muslim, a relative or a neighbor's kid).
So, if cartoons can do that, then who knows what calling a bunch of (latently-gay) terrorists who's homophobia is part of their religion "gay" will do to them?
Reminds me of this guy I know... Jack. Mean kid. Bad seed. Hurt people. Now you know, the problem was... he got sloppy. You know? Crazy. He started to lose it. He had a head full of bad wiring, I guess. Couldn't keep it straight up here. He was the kind of guy who couldn't hear the train until it was 2 feet from him. You know what happened to this guy, Jack? Well... he made mistakes. Then he had his LIGHTS OUT! Now you wanna get nuts? Come on! Let's get nuts.
Was that written by Trump's campaign? :cool:
Guaporense
07-20-16, 11:14 PM
I had an idea for a propaganda campaign back after the Paris train bombing.
The causes of terrorism are not due to them being in the stone age. The causes for terrorism is Western military intervention in the region. I believe the reasons for that is oil and Israel (who decided to make a country inside the Middle East displacing the local population).
Guaporense
07-20-16, 11:16 PM
Not sure what your point is, Omni, but we're talking mass murder here. Mass murder by a group that kills people they know are completely innocent, who are strangers to them and who've never harmed them... all because their book says that they've got to kill all non-believers so that their religion can reign supreme.
That's not the reason, France has actively intervened in North Africa and the Middle East. So that's a reaction.
Citizen Rules
07-20-16, 11:21 PM
I thought the reason France was under attack from jihadist was France's involvement in Syria?
Frankly, I say let Russia take care of Syria. It's silly for the USA to always oppose Russian international policy just because we have an adversarial history with them.
Captain Steel
07-20-16, 11:50 PM
The causes of terrorism are not due to them being in the stone age. The causes for terrorism is Western military intervention in the region. I believe the reasons for that is oil and Israel (who decided to make a country inside the Middle East displacing the local population).
That's one cause for some modern terrorism.
But it doesn't account for Islamic Terrorism in various parts of the world that have little to nothing to do with the west.
It doesn't account for most inter-Islamic / sectarian violence & terrorism (which, we are told, is actually the largest percentage of all Islamic terrorism).
It doesn't account for Islamic terrorism against other faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. (not to mention major religions more associated with the West such as Judaism & Christianity).
The holocaust against Christians that has been taking place throughout Africa & the Middle East in modern times at the hands of Islam has nothing to do with Western military intervention and everything to do with the ideals of Islamic religious supremacy.
Islam's hatred for Christians, Jews and all other religions date back to its inception and is mandated in its scriptures. The mass murder of Christians & Jews as well as other religions at the hands of Islam has been ongoing for well over a millennium, and several times throughout the last 1400 years, almost resulted in Islamic domination of the known world.
The terrorism exacted by Islam has been going on since long before there was a "West" or any Western military.
The tenets of Islamic supremacy, subjugation, dhimmitude, jizya taxation, torture, dismemberment and genocide of infidels is still part of Islam and has never had anything to do with the west.
The ideology's practices of misogyny, conquest, rape, slavery, sex-slavery, pedophilia, honor killings, assassinations, kitman, taqiya, and mass murder (as following the example set by the Prophet) all precede the discovery of the New World.
Omnizoa
07-21-16, 12:23 AM
Not sure what your point is, Omni, but we're talking mass murder here. Mass murder by a group that kills people they know are completely innocent,
Not from their perspective, which is my point and why I find the term "mass murder" contentious. Even separating the current world affairs from the scenario you can engineering circumstances that could justify what would be considered by contemporary justice systems as "murder".
I agree with your intended point, I'm just poking at a loophole.
The tenets of Islamic supremacy, subjugation, dhimmitude, jizya taxation, torture, dismemberment and genocide of infidels is still part of Islam and has never had anything to do with the west.
The ideology's practices of misogyny, conquest, rape, slavery, sex-slavery, pedophilia, honor killings, assassinations, kitman, taqiya, and mass murder (as following the example set by the Prophet) all precede the discovery of the New World.
Christianity also has archaic doctrine, the only difference between the two is that one hasn't given up it's most barbaric traditions.
Captain Steel
07-21-16, 01:54 AM
Not from their perspective, which is my point and why I find the term "mass murder" contentious. Even separating the current world affairs from the scenario you can engineering circumstances that could justify what would be considered by contemporary justice systems as "murder".
I agree with your intended point, I'm just poking at a loophole.
Christianity also has archaic doctrine, the only difference between the two is that one hasn't given up it's most barbaric traditions.
I'm afraid you lost me with the first paragraph.
We are talking about such things as ISIS slaughtering thousands of Christians & Yazidis in Iraq over the last couple years, yes?
Under what system of "justice" is this being proclaimed (except that there is no god but Allah and all non-believers shall be killed to advance Islamic supremacy to establish a Caliphate on Earth). There is no concept of "justice" in tyranny through genocide. There is no person and no system that does not acknowledge it as mass murder, even ISIS members would say it's mass murder (but mass murder is part of their religion). Mass murder is Islam's religiously sanctioned "solution" to establishing supremacy just as mass murder was the final solution for the Nazis.
As to your second point. Christianity's history has "archaic doctrine" - basically that brought about by the power brokers that corrupted Christianity (namely the Holy Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages) by trying to use it as an abusive authority structure and turn it into a political power base. There is nothing archaic, backward or evil in the true doctrines of Christianity (i.e. the Gospels & teachings of Christ).
The difference between the two (Christianity & Islam) when a Christian murders a non-believer (or anyone else) they are in direct opposition with absolutely everything Christ taught and are doing the complete opposite of every example he set.
When a Muslim murders a non-believer they are in direct accordance with the instructions of their scriptures and are following the example set by their prophet.
matt72582
07-21-16, 10:28 AM
The causes of terrorism are not due to them being in the stone age. The causes for terrorism is Western military intervention in the region. I believe the reasons for that is oil and Israel (who decided to make a country inside the Middle East displacing the local population).
^Right
I wonder if ISIS reason for terrorism in Iraq is because of native Iraqis presence in the region
Omnizoa
07-21-16, 06:14 PM
I'm afraid you lost me with the first paragraph.
Nevermind, I was just making a point about generalizing.
As to your second point. Christianity's history has "archaic doctrine" - basically that brought about by the power brokers that corrupted Christianity (namely the Holy Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages) by trying to use it as an abusive authority structure and turn it into a political power base. There is nothing archaic, backward or evil in the true doctrines of Christianity (i.e. the Gospels & teachings of Christ).
I dunno, I think the sin of being rich is a teensy bit less important than the sin of rape. Unless you're pulling a No True Scotsman on me, the Bible is Christian doctrine and it's no small source of objectionable laws and practices.
When a Muslim murders a non-believer they are in direct accordance with the instructions of their scriptures and are following the example set by their prophet.
Yes, surely Christians have never had any such similar justifications.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Albigensian_Crusade_01.jpg
Captain Steel
07-21-16, 06:39 PM
Nevermind, I was just making a point about generalizing.
I dunno, I think the sin of being rich is a teensy bit less important than the sin of rape. Unless you're pulling a No True Scotsman on me, the Bible is Christian doctrine and it's no small source of objectionable laws and practices.
Yes, surely Christians have never had any such similar justifications.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Albigensian_Crusade_01.jpg
According to Christianity, punishment for personal sins is left up to God and takes place in the afterlife. No individual is given any kind of divine authority to judge another and exact revenge on someone else for their sins.
(In Islam, Muslims are commanded to take it upon themselves to punish others for simply having a different thought process regarding which religion is the only one to be followed - and those punishments are subjugation, enslavement, torture, dismemberment and death).
The second part of your post references incidents that I addressed previously.
No one who knows history will deny that atrocities were committed by evil and corrupt people in the name of Christianity at certain points in history. But the bottom line is that when political motivations of power-hungry clergy corrupted the church, their actions were in direct opposition to the true teachings of Christ (which the corrupt Catholic church of that period kept from the people and they even made it punishable by death to learn or read the Gospels in some countries).
The atrocities of the Middle Ages by people claiming to be Christian were the exact opposite of what Christianity taught and all its fundamental tenets.
While groups like ISIS committing atrocities in the name of Islam are carrying out exactly what the Koran instructs them to do and are following the example set by their prophet, and this has been the historic status quo of Islam since its inception. There has been no reformation in Islam because Islam didn't start out as a peaceful philosophy that became corrupted and then needed to be exposed and reformed - it was a philosophy of hatred and genocide from the point where its founder orchestrated his first mass murder of non-believers of his concocted religion that said; surrender all power to him or die.
Omnizoa
07-21-16, 06:58 PM
I dunno, I think the sin of being rich is a teensy bit less important than the sin of rape. Unless you're pulling a No True Scotsman on me, the Bible is Christian doctrine and it's no small source of objectionable laws and practices.
I'm still stickin' with what I said.
I certainly don't underestimate Islamic State terrorists as being stupid, but anyone who commits mass murder based on something written in a book is psychologically & emotionally unstable - big time! There's no doubt that members of this group or people attracted to it because they like the idea of beheading children and raping little girls is an unstable, homicidal psychopath. It doesn't take much to set these types off.
When unstable people get set off they do stupid things, they make mistakes...
Everything you said here is true except again you are underestimating their skepticism of anything Western. And psychopathy doesn't = stupid or even irrational actually, Psychopathy has been recognized as a common trait among powerful people particularly among C.E.O's of big companies who have to make cutthroat and calculated decisions constantly. Psychopathy has more to do with morals and empathy than state of mind so again i think you are underestimating them a bit.
Captain Steel
07-21-16, 07:09 PM
I'm still stickin' with what I said.
That's fine. I appreciate discussing all this with you.
A lot of people choose to ignore the subject entirely in hopes that closing their eyes to it will make it all go away.
Captain Steel
07-21-16, 07:28 PM
Everything you said here is true except again you are underestimating their skepticism of anything Western. And psychopathy doesn't = stupid or even irrational actually, Psychopathy has been recognized as a common trait among powerful people particularly among C.E.O's of big companies who have to make cutthroat and calculated decisions constantly. Psychopathy has more to do with morals and empathy than state of mind so again i think you are underestimating them a bit.
You're probably right.
But (I think it was Rules who pointed this out) this kind of propaganda campaign wouldn't cost much and would be far less destructive than bombing our way through ISIS' civilian captives & human shields.
I suggest it as one, tiny, experimental increment of what SHOULD be a worldwide, multi-pronged attack that: goes after ISIS financial assets; shuts down their Internet communications; humiliates their religious hypocrisy and atrocities against other religions, homosexuals, women and children; exposes ALL their ongoing atrocities to the world on a regular basis; goes after the individuals, countries & organizations that provide them aid or support whether overtly or covertly; that attacks them militarily; that encourages and provides incentives to Islamic nations to bring down ISIS from within & without; that attacks their recruitment campaigns; that cuts off their resources... and that all this should involve every single nation of the world that values justice, peace, decency and human life.
Some might argue that we shouldn't shake up the hornet's nest. But this argument that we should never give the terrorists anything to be mad about is one of appeasement and surrender. It's understood that Islamic Terrorists will use anything as an excuse and nothing as an excuse - they don't need excuses. They have their standing orders to destroy all infidels no matter what.
But (I think it was Rules who pointed this out) this kind of propaganda campaign wouldn't cost much and would be far less destructive than bombing our way through ISIS' civilian captives & human shields.
Sure. I was just saying i seriously doubt it would work and would be a waste of money, maybe not as big a waste of money as what is going off now but i didn't comment on that.
Some might argue that we shouldn't shake up the hornet's nest. But this argument that we should never give the terrorists anything to be mad about is one of appeasement and surrender.
I do fully agree with this and it is good that you are coming up with ideas, if they were to work then great i just personally don't think they would. My talk about pork was because your plan reminded me of something that has been suggested for years, that captured terrorist be force fed pork and for this to be an official policy. I think that both misunderstands Islam and the mentality of how these people would react to it. Not directly comparable and yours is definitely more sensible but i think they would have similar results.
Guaporense
07-22-16, 04:25 AM
I thought the reason France was under attack from jihadist was France's involvement in Syria?
Frankly, I say let Russia take care of Syria. It's silly for the USA to always oppose Russian international policy just because we have an adversarial history with them.
Indeed. The West shouldn't intervene that much, it gets to terrorism. Let Russia and China deal with the Middle East.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-french-france-court-suspends-rule-law-forbidding-swimwear-worn-muslim-women-seriously-a7211396.html
How many support the burkini ban here ?
I don't. Makes no sense whatsoever. Who the hell cares what someone wears when they swim? What about woman that want to wear something other than a burkini but similar for different reasons like avoiding skin damage or just simply not wanting to show much skin? That is ok but a woman wearing pretty much the exact same thing for religious reasons is a no go? Yeah, complete crap tbh. :rolleyes:
Daniel M
08-26-16, 12:25 PM
Me neither
CosmicRunaway
08-26-16, 12:28 PM
I thought the whole ban was ridiculous. I didn't realize there was a minimum amount of exposed skin required to visit a beach. Burkinis are basically just wetsuits with skirts. People only have problems with them because of their religious affiliations.
Citizen Rules
08-26-16, 01:02 PM
Has Trump become president of France? The burkini law is strange, something like Trump would dream up.
Captain Steel
08-26-16, 10:49 PM
As others said, I really don't care what people wear as much as I care what people do.
If people aren't hurting or infringing on the rights of others, they can wear a hundred scarfs on their heads till the cows come home.
Now, aside from this particular case, with the burqa and hijab we get into a realm where the garb represents something. Still, I'm not opposed to the garb itself, but have some problems with what it represents. Some Muslim women wear it by choice, some wear it by choice that is a result of conditioning or influenced by threats and intimidation. Some wear it because they have no choice. In Islam the garb is said to represent modesty, but we know that it really represents the domination of males over females, the misogyny that runs through the Islamic culture & religion, and the subjugation of women when their culture demands they wear it under threat of punishment and death.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.