[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bush, like any other Muslim apologizer, was dead wrong.[/quote]
What was the consequence, and what was the alternative?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ok Bistro, for the third or fourth time, where is the Koran reference?[/quote]
Al-Baqara 2:173 reads, āHe has only forbidden you carrion, blood, pigās meat, and animals over which any name other than Godās has been invoked. But if anyone is forced to eat such things by hunger, rather than desire or excess, he commits no sin: God is most merciful and forgiving.ā Shooting jihadists with pig laced ammunition or desecrating their corspes similarly would not be theologically disconcerting to them in the least. Through their ostensibly faithful acts, martyrs are exempt from the practice of ghusl. Even if they were not, forced contact with pork products would not constitute a sin, much less a damnation worthy one capable of deterring them.
[quote]pat wrote:
And now we have another massacre in Mali.
they donāt make the news because nobody gives a shit about Africa unless westerners are involved as they are in Mali.
[/quote]
-
it clearly does make the news.
-
so what if westerners are more interested in events like Paris? Western history and culture is hugely aligned with French history/culture. it is totally normal for westerners to be more interested.
it is popular on social media for people to say stuff like āyeah but what about mali/beirut/etcā
who here lives in a city like tokyo/new york/london etc? probably the majority. how many posters live in mali/nigeria/etc. probably not many.
it doesnt mean people ādont give a shitā about these other places, and it is not wrong at all to be more interested/concerned about somewhere like Paris imo.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone here willing to bet that a Paris type attack will not occur in the USA?[/quote]
Nope. This spike in activity tells me that these groups have somehow become emboldened. Like some newly found energy or power has invigorated them.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone here willing to bet that a Paris type attack will not occur in the USA?[/quote]
Nope. This spike in activity tells me that these groups have somehow become emboldened. Like some newly found energy or power has invigorated them.[/quote]
I have been wondering what it could be.
For a terrorist group to brazenly attack both Russia and France within a fortnight while making videos threatening washington and new york is so fucking nuts.
Surely they have the strong backing of at least someone like Saudi Arabia to essentially pursue WW3 or else how do they possibly expect to survive?
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone here willing to bet that a Paris type attack will not occur in the USA?[/quote]
Nope. This spike in activity tells me that these groups have somehow become emboldened. Like some newly found energy or power has invigorated them.[/quote]
I have been wondering what it could be.
For a terrorist group to brazenly attack both Russia and France within a fortnight while making videos threatening washington and new york is so fucking nuts.
Surely they have the strong backing of at least someone like Saudi Arabia to essentially pursue WW3 or else how do they possibly expect to survive? [/quote]
Didnāt you guys hear what President Obama said? They have been emboldened by the Republican rhetoric. Itās a great recruitment tool for ISIS.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The Paris attackers who have been identified have all been European. Foreign fighters returning home is the real danger, not refugees. [/quote]
Brahim and Salah Abdeslam, Bilal Hadfi, IsmaĆ??Ć?ĆĀÆl MostefaĆ??Ć?ĆĀÆ, Samy Amimour, Omar Ismail Mostefai, Ahmad al-Mohammed.
Those are definitely European names Bismarkā¦yeah, long lineage of Europe right there.
[/quote]
What are you babbling on about? Refer to my second sentence. They were European citizens, yet everyone is shitting themselves over refugees.[/quote]
And yet I wouldnāt quite call them European.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone here willing to bet that a Paris type attack will not occur in the USA?[/quote]
Nope. This spike in activity tells me that these groups have somehow become emboldened. Like some newly found energy or power has invigorated them.[/quote]
I have been wondering what it could be.
For a terrorist group to brazenly attack both Russia and France within a fortnight while making videos threatening washington and new york is so fucking nuts.
Surely they have the strong backing of at least someone like Saudi Arabia to essentially pursue WW3 or else how do they possibly expect to survive? [/quote]
Didnāt you guys hear what President Obama said? They have been emboldened by the Republican rhetoric. Itās a great recruitment tool for ISIS.
[/quote]
Clearly, the Russians give a fuck about Obamaās opinion:
BOOM!
[quote]pat wrote:
Clearly, the Russians give a fuck about Obamaās opinion:
BOOM![/quote]
Iām starting to like Russia more and more.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Iām not saying Christianity was the sweetest kid in itās history
[/quote]
The temptation to hate muslims is strong, I get it. But we cannot. We know that pretty much all terrorism for the last 3 decades was done by muslims. The muslims have largely been silent about the problem in their religion. [/quote]
Everyone loves to cite how Christianity has been evil in the past, and thatās true. But people seem to gloss over the fact that this was in the PAST, centuries ago.
The muslims world still has that medieval world view. Itās not the religion, itās the fact that their part of the world is still stuck in the middle ages with monarchies, no freedoms, cruel and unusual punishments; humanity needs to move forward for this ideology.
Yeah, I say we still to the recent millenniem.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Iām not saying Christianity was the sweetest kid in itās history
[/quote]
The temptation to hate muslims is strong, I get it. But we cannot. We know that pretty much all terrorism for the last 3 decades was done by muslims. The muslims have largely been silent about the problem in their religion. [/quote]
Everyone loves to cite how Christianity has been evil in the past, and thatās true. But people seem to gloss over the fact that this was in the PAST, centuries ago.
The muslims world still has that medieval world view. Itās not the religion, itās the fact that their part of the world is still stuck in the middle ages with monarchies, no freedoms, cruel and unusual punishments; humanity needs to move forward for this ideology.
[/quote]
Yeah, gotta echo this. It drives me nuts when some people I know will start to say ābut the crusadesā, like it happened last week.
This is what happens when you leaves Marxists in charge of education.
Everything becomes identity politics and the West is always the bad guy, and then these kids grow up believing this shit, and donāt even understand that theyāve been indoctrinated from a young age into believing arguments from (the right kinds of) authority with little to no criticism or critical thinking.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Yeah, gotta echo this. It drives me nuts when some people I know will start to say ābut the crusadesā[/quote]ā¦
I agree also.
The Crusades were a result of approximately 400 years of Muslim aggression against Christianity. People either forget or are ignorant of this.
Plus, the Crusades were a failureā¦crushed by more unrelenting Muslim aggression. Followed by centuries of Ottoman aggression.
Europe did not gain the upper hand until Napoleon defeated the Mamelukes in Egypt.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And yet I wouldnāt quite call them European.[/quote]
Nobody cares what you would call them. They were European citizens. This argument isnāt about genetics, itās about passports.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And yet I wouldnāt quite call them European.[/quote]
Nobody cares what you would call them. They were European citizens. This argument isnāt about genetics, itās about passports.[/quote]
Good thing you cant buy fake passports.
So this whole thing has gotten me a bit confused. Iām having trouble making sense of some things.
I can understand the idea of wanting to [re]establish an Islamic state, or at least, an Arab Islamic state. A lot of Arabia has been messed with by external forces for a very long time; from Turkish Ottoman rule, to British and French colonial rule, to the āfalseā governments of the last 80 or so years. We have this genuinely organic development of a nation-state, based on an ideology, and theyāre willing to fight to the death for it. Thatās happened a few times in history. I kind of get it.
If they want to try this grand experiment of a pure islamic state, and try and make it work in the modern world, and they figure out a way to coexist with the rest of the world, Iām pretty ok with that. (Now, obviously the human rights and womenās rights issues Iām less happy about, but I vary between the view of āthatās none of our businessā at one end, and at the other end, psy-ops intervention to incite internal reform, once some things have stabilized.)
What I actually have a problem with is this whole terrorist contingent. That doesnāt seem to fit well into the narrative. Thereās obviously a military contingent focused on expanding and defending their territorial claims, and I understand that, but these terrorist attacks all seem to work against that goal.
And perhaps the military leadership is trying to get control over that. (I mean, pissing off the EU, Russia, China and the US within a few weeks of each other is not exactly the best foreign policy. Kind of undermines their stated goals to be a nation-state.)
On the other hand, if theyāre truly wanting to play by 7th century rules ā 20th century tactics like the threat of destruction donāt seem to be making a dent ā it seems like the only way theyāll concede defeat is by being conquered. A genuine invasion, occupation, and assimilation by some foreign power that intends to maintain the territory. Not someone who wants to create a transitional government, but someone willing to actually rule the territory and invest in infrastructure.
The chances of any European State or the US making a return to colonialism seems pretty slim, but thereās one way for that to happen. A corporation taking that role also seems unlikely; I mean, thereās no real equivalent to the East India Company any more, and I doubt any actual nation is going to allow that to happen.
From a regional standpoint, along the invasion-line, thereās really not much for big players in the area that I like, but given the current circumstances, I wouldnāt mind something like: Saudi decides to expand territory to the Northeast, Iranian secularists revolt against Muslim (Arab-ish) rule, and Iran invades to the Southwest, and the two of them somehow just figure it out. Obviously unrealistic.
But really, at the most basic level, Iām ok with any direction that leads toward building and maintaining infrastructure, and a cessation of all the destruction. If that can happen internally, thatās even better. If that has to be externally imposed, I guess thatās what will have to happen.
Right now there seems to be minimal infrastructure (left) to begin with, and it seems like many nations are hell-bent on destroying that. I just donāt see how thatās going to leave the situation any better.
I donāt have any answers. Just trying to make sense of some things.