[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
…
There wouldn’t happen to be an online version of that would there?
Couldn’t find it but I did find some other stuff. Check my post above.[/quote]
Thank you. That was very interesting.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“So what for should I be caring about this teddy bear name Muhammad?”
Headhunter wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Islamic Rage Boy is a Kashmiri, not an African. I’m not sure why his picture is relevant to this discussion.
The story took place in Sudan, where the Muslims wanted to behead a volunteer 1st grade teacher. She let a little boy name his Teddy ‘Muhammed’.
No, Headhunter.
He is a Kashmiri activist named Shakeel Bhat who has protested against the Indian Army, Israel, Pope Benedict, and the Danish Muhammed cartoons, but not over the Sudan Teddy Bear incident. You should check your sources.
Oh, and here’s a hypothetical problem for you. Say you are living in a border town along the Rio Grande. Control of the region is disputed, but the Mexican army has de facto control. One night the Mexican police raid your house, and throw your 18-year-old sister out of the second-story window. She dies of a broken spine after suffering for four years. You are twelve years old at the time.
Do you think you might become enraged by this? Do you think you might consider any action you took against the Mexican police, or any Mexican for that matter, justified in your own mind?
If not, then you’re a better man than I.
[/quote]
The pic came with the article. Now, if I was a lottery winner living in San Francisco, with nothing to do all day, then I might…just might…if I had absolutely nothing better to do (like watch grass grow), investigate where a picture attached to an article comes from.
Of course, you C-hristians I-n A-ction guys have more access to information than do I.
Oh, come on, Headhunter. Don’t be lazy. Anyone can google “Islamic rage boy.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on, Headhunter. Don’t be lazy. Anyone can google “Islamic rage boy.”[/quote]
How do you know if what you then get is more truthful than the original? Maybe the ‘fact check’ is the scam.
How does the CIA check their facts? Just curious.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on, Headhunter. Don’t be lazy. Anyone can google “Islamic rage boy.”
How do you know if what you then get is more truthful than the original? Maybe the ‘fact check’ is the scam.
How does the CIA check their facts? Just curious. [/quote]
Apparently, they don’t.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on, Headhunter. Don’t be lazy. Anyone can google “Islamic rage boy.”
How do you know if what you then get is more truthful than the original? Maybe the ‘fact check’ is the scam.
How does the CIA check their facts? Just curious.
Apparently, they don’t.
[/quote]
Ouch.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, come on, Headhunter. Don’t be lazy. Anyone can google “Islamic rage boy.”
How do you know if what you then get is more truthful than the original? Maybe the ‘fact check’ is the scam.
How does the CIA check their facts? Just curious.
[/quote]
I’m more interested in plausibility than “truth.”
It really isn’t that hard to tell the difference between a Sudanese man and an Indian man.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Apparently, they don’t.
[/quote]
Don’t jerk the thread into one of your half-informed rants against the war. We all know the US along with other Western intelligence agencies had evidence of Iraq’s WMDs.
You’ve been shown this more times than you can bench press 135 pounds. Why keep going back to an empty well when you know a refutation of your propaganda is coming without haste?
EDIT: typo
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Don’t jerk the thread into one of your half-informed rants against the war. We all know the US along with other Western intelligence agencies had evidence of Iraq’s WMDs.
[/quote]
How do they know? Because Bush Sr. Has the receipt. As do the Russians and probably a few more western governments.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Apparently, they don’t.
Don’t jerk the thread into one of your half-informed rants against the war. We all know the US along with other Western intelligence agencies had evidence of Iraq’s WMDs.[/quote]
Oh, they said they “had evidence”, alright. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
Strange. I can feel some haste in your post.
Anyway, failures of intelligence or fact-checking are unavoidable. When all they cause is a humbled HH (who incidentally has been told about the guy several times), there’s no real problem. When it causes an “oops” moment, it’s harmless. But when the ill-informed “intelligence” speaks of a “slam dunk” it is my right, nay duty, to ridicule to the fullest possible extent. If you don’t like that, suck it up. The war caused anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people to die prematurely. Countless more were maimed, made refugees and their country was turned into a hellhole. 4000 Americans military died violently and much more are severely injured. And we can’t even know how many of the private contractors suffered a similar fate.
The most secular Arab country is the region is now governed by a bastardized legal system of sharia, the place is threatening to break up into bits and pieces and every wolf is actively seeking its share.
So, yeah, continue to describe it as “the war” to make yourself feel better. We all know it was a blatant act of aggression and no amount of obfuscation is going to change that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Oh, they said they “had evidence”, alright. That’s not what we’re talking about here.[/quote]
Yes, even the ones that didn’t want to attack Iraq. Do you ever get any better at this?
But you aren’t ridiculing. You’re not in a position to ridicule. No one feels the “sting” of your comments because you don’t have any credibility to lecture on the topic. We’ve all learned that.
As I said, your whining aside, try and keep on topic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I think Africa would have been better off without European intervention. It may not have been as technologically or culturally advanced but it would have been less of a shithole, to be sure.
Agreed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some people still believe that European intervention helped the situation.[/quote]
I knew that you were somehow, even indirectly going to blame white people for africa’s problems. Look, the africans are still burdened by a lot of thir tribal kinds of mindsets so much so that there have been all kinds of little wars going on between them just bringing the whole place down further. Whites simply speeded up the process of change in Africa, that Africa has had a somewhat hard time coping with, the most significant of these changes are the inclusion of guns.
Now, with AK-47s everywhere the africans can have all of the wars that want whenever they want and I’m sure that it is tempting especially for you to blame whites about this, but you have to think critically and ask yourself whether the guns would have just been brought there anyway. The africans want guns, and they will get them. So, even if whites just left the whole place alone the africans would still be in largely the same situation that they are in today.
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I think Africa would have been better off without European intervention. It may not have been as technologically or culturally advanced but it would have been less of a shithole, to be sure.
Agreed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some people still believe that European intervention helped the situation.
I knew that you were somehow, even indirectly going to blame white people for africa’s problems. Look, the africans are still burdened by a lot of thir tribal kinds of mindsets so much so that there have been all kinds of little wars going on between them just bringing the whole place down further. Whites simply speeded up the process of change in Africa, that Africa has had a somewhat hard time coping with, the most significant of these changes are the inclusion of guns.
Now, with AK-47s everywhere the africans can have all of the wars that want whenever they want and I’m sure that it is tempting especially for you to blame whites about this, but you have to think critically and ask yourself whether the guns would have just been brought there anyway. The africans want guns, and they will get them. So, even if whites just left the whole place alone the africans would still be in largely the same situation that they are in today.[/quote]
You are insane.
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I think Africa would have been better off without European intervention. It may not have been as technologically or culturally advanced but it would have been less of a shithole, to be sure.
Agreed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some people still believe that European intervention helped the situation.
I knew that you were somehow, even indirectly going to blame white people for africa’s problems. Look, the africans are still burdened by a lot of thir tribal kinds of mindsets so much so that there have been all kinds of little wars going on between them just bringing the whole place down further. Whites simply speeded up the process of change in Africa, that Africa has had a somewhat hard time coping with, the most significant of these changes are the inclusion of guns.
Now, with AK-47s everywhere the africans can have all of the wars that want whenever they want and I’m sure that it is tempting especially for you to blame whites about this, but you have to think critically and ask yourself whether the guns would have just been brought there anyway. The africans want guns, and they will get them. So, even if whites just left the whole place alone the africans would still be in largely the same situation that they are in today.[/quote]
How did I blame white people? I made a specific comment about how it is a HUGE error to assume that the entire continent would be WORSE off without European intervention. This was in response to one poster above who specifically stated that this was the case and that Europeans helped the situation.
If you are going to follow me around the forum, at least do a better job at it.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I think Africa would have been better off without European intervention. It may not have been as technologically or culturally advanced but it would have been less of a shithole, to be sure.
Agreed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some people still believe that European intervention helped the situation.
I knew that you were somehow, even indirectly going to blame white people for africa’s problems. Look, the africans are still burdened by a lot of thir tribal kinds of mindsets so much so that there have been all kinds of little wars going on between them just bringing the whole place down further. Whites simply speeded up the process of change in Africa, that Africa has had a somewhat hard time coping with, the most significant of these changes are the inclusion of guns.
Now, with AK-47s everywhere the africans can have all of the wars that want whenever they want and I’m sure that it is tempting especially for you to blame whites about this, but you have to think critically and ask yourself whether the guns would have just been brought there anyway. The africans want guns, and they will get them. So, even if whites just left the whole place alone the africans would still be in largely the same situation that they are in today.
You are insane.[/quote]
I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking it.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I think Africa would have been better off without European intervention. It may not have been as technologically or culturally advanced but it would have been less of a shithole, to be sure.
Agreed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some people still believe that European intervention helped the situation.
I knew that you were somehow, even indirectly going to blame white people for africa’s problems. Look, the africans are still burdened by a lot of thir tribal kinds of mindsets so much so that there have been all kinds of little wars going on between them just bringing the whole place down further. Whites simply speeded up the process of change in Africa, that Africa has had a somewhat hard time coping with, the most significant of these changes are the inclusion of guns.
Now, with AK-47s everywhere the africans can have all of the wars that want whenever they want and I’m sure that it is tempting especially for you to blame whites about this, but you have to think critically and ask yourself whether the guns would have just been brought there anyway. The africans want guns, and they will get them. So, even if whites just left the whole place alone the africans would still be in largely the same situation that they are in today.
You are insane.[/quote]
Look, if whites never came to africa the place would still have had:
-very little government regulation, allowing more bad luck to happen
-access to guns
You do the math, bro and this comment goes for X as well since this issue was originally directed at him.
I live in Africa,and I can categorically tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion,just because you have one,doesn’t mean it has any value whatsoever.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I live in Africa,and I can categorically tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion,just because you have one,doesn’t mean it has any value whatsoever.[/quote]
Ouch!
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I live in Africa,and I can categorically tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion,just because you have one,doesn’t mean it has any value whatsoever.[/quote]
Fine. If supposing that whites would have never came to Africa, how would guns be kept out? Perhaps you are referring more to my comment on the lack of regulation. I am not at all saying that any sort of regulation doesn’t exist but you have to agree that the standards are nowhere near the levels of western countries. Again, what specifically are you disagreeing with?
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
…
Look, if whites never came to africa the place would still have had:
-very little government regulation, allowing more bad luck to happen
[/quote]
Part of the problem is far too much regulation in Africa.
[quote]
-access to guns
You do the math, bro and this comment goes for X as well since this issue was originally directed at him.[/quote]
I have quite a few guns and do not have problems. The guns don’t cause the problems. How many people in Rwanda were killed with machetes?