Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Shooting At Orlando Nightclub

258 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#241

Posted 30 June 2016 - 11:16 PM

Omar Mateen was sympathetic to the NYPD.

 

 

We need to ban cops until we can figure out what's going on.

This is actually an important part of how he was able to get the weapons, being an aspiring cop and having a security guard license.

 

I actually don't know what's going on either so I'm with you on the ban proposal. 


SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#242

Posted 01 July 2016 - 12:12 AM

Of course it's relevant. The father was sympathetic to radical Islam. I don't think patrolling mosques was suggested at any point around here? I also did not at any point say the guy was affiliated with ISIS. You can't just brush over the fact that there are young Muslims in the West being swayed by ISIS propaganda and acting out in violent ways. 
 
And yes, for the millionth time, we're all aware that happens with Christianity and violence from the intolerance many Christians have. However, that's not the topic of this thread. Constantly bringing it up everytime radical Islam is discussed serves zero purpose.


It has a great purpose, it keeps the scope of this in check. Perhaps you don't like it because you would prefer to believe the answer is as simple as doctrine? Well glossing over the fact that it inspires Islamophobia, what good does it do you? What can you actually do with that information?

Let's be frank, terrorism always has been the new communism. When we're talking about a population that for decades saw communism as the world's greatest threat despite being unable to define the word, is it surprising that the same thing can be done with terrorism? Pointing out all these incredibly loose ties to Islamic terrorism does what good? We can't stop people from worship, we can't gag free speech, so what is the benefit of pointing out the terrorism in this? To cast suspicion, to go "Look our common enemy," and then act like that keeps us safe. Sorry if you drank the Kool-aid, but most people can see through our own brand of propaganda to see that showcasing "radical Islam" or terrorism in this case does absolute no good. Zero benefits.
  • Triple Vacuum Seal, AlienTwo and Thesmophoriazusae like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#243

Posted 05 July 2016 - 01:30 AM Edited by Irviding, 05 July 2016 - 01:44 AM.

These are not "loose ties" to Islamic terrorism. The man was inspired by radical Islamic views. Yeah, he's not some ISIS sleeper that was trained in Syria for 3 years then sent here as a refugee like Fox News says is going to happen. But, you can't ignore the facts here. We need to actually take steps to try and support the efforts of actual Muslims that aren't following polluted bullsh*t ideology from Wahhabi scholars, and not sit around here and make excuses for terrorists. If this were a white guy who was a Christian and did this, would you be in here saying that there's no problem with intolerance and homophobia in Christianity (there is a problem with it, by the way)? I think not. 


Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#244

Posted 05 July 2016 - 05:12 AM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 05 July 2016 - 05:12 AM.

The problem is that there's not much we can do on the enforcement end of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing many of the "freedoms" that hawkish folk are supposedly fighting to protect.  Unlike the cells of militants in the Middle East, these self-radicalized shooters in the west are inspired by sympathetic social media to some extent and overwhelmingly inspired by negative social factors independent of religion.  Not much can be done beyond what Facebook (and Google or Twitter too I think) has done to remove extremist media.  Though we're on board with the banning of extremist social media, that issue is much easier to build a consensus around than what lies in the road ahead as far as censorship goes.  More aggressive censorship in general enables a more regressive concept of "freedom".  We also upset the freedom of religion to the extent that millions of people began free associating all Muslims with terrorism.  Within the US, Muslims face the threat of violence from non-Muslims more so than the other way around.

 

 

Religiously-motivated terrorist use a warped understanding of Islamic ideology to reconcile the dissonance associated with acting out violently while claiming to be the righteous one.  They're just twisting scripture...or taking it literally (because scripture is often logically incoherent on its own) to suit a decision that they were going to make anyway.  People have done it to justify heinous acts in every major religion.  So the compatibility between violent extremism and Islam is pretty moot.  We shouldn't pick out the bad cults/religions one by one.  We should tolerate yet undermine them altogether until they become as trivial as our favorite colors...or our flavors.  Maybe then, humans will stop killing each other in the streets on the orders from some invisible man.

  • SagaciousKJB and Irviding like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#245

Posted 05 July 2016 - 07:21 AM Edited by Irviding, 05 July 2016 - 07:23 AM.

The problem is that there's not much we can do on the enforcement end of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing many of the "freedoms" that hawkish folk are supposedly fighting to protect.  Unlike the cells of militants in the Middle East, these self-radicalized shooters in the west are inspired by sympathetic social media to some extent and overwhelmingly inspired by negative social factors independent of religion.  Not much can be done beyond what Facebook (and Google or Twitter too I think) has done to remove extremist media.  Though we're on board with the banning of extremist social media, that issue is much easier to build a consensus around than what lies in the road ahead as far as censorship goes.  More aggressive censorship in general enables a more regressive concept of "freedom".  We also upset the freedom of religion to the extent that millions of people began free associating all Muslims with terrorism.  Within the US, Muslims face the threat of violence from non-Muslims more so than the other way around.

 

 

Religiously-motivated terrorist use a warped understanding of Islamic ideology to reconcile the dissonance associated with acting out violently while claiming to be the righteous one.  They're just twisting scripture...or taking it literally (because scripture is often logically incoherent on its own) to suit a decision that they were going to make anyway.  People have done it to justify heinous acts in every major religion.  So the compatibility between violent extremism and Islam is pretty moot.  We shouldn't pick out the bad cults/religions one by one.  We should tolerate yet undermine them altogether until they become as trivial as our favorite colors...or our flavors.  Maybe then, humans will stop killing each other in the streets on the orders from some invisible man.

I agree with you on the first part. Nobody is suggesting we censor Islamic communications, or start monitoring mosques. Well, maybe people are suggesting that, just not me.

 

As for the second part, that's true, but again, it serves no purpose in this discussion to say "other religions have some problems too!". Yes, they do. But right now, we aren't facing problems with Hindus or Christians strapping suicide bombs on and blowing dozens of people up around the world. Islam is a very big religion. It has two main sects, and within the Sunni sect, a very extreme pedigree that is followed not only by Islamic terrorists that attack the West and are popular TV villains, but by entire countries in the Gulf. This is something that is a problem. It's a toxic ideology. The majority of Islamic scholars disagree with it. But, there are Islamic scholars who are equally as educated who do not. We need to do more to crowd out that ideology and end the support for regimes in the Gulf that pettle that ideology, i.e. Wahhabism. When you have countries in the Gulf teaching schoolchildren that Jews need to be beheaded and that women are f*ck toys that shouldn't be able to drive, it's a big problem. The more peaceful/accepting majority forms of Islam you see in the Hanafi-dominated states like Jordan or Egypt, while having some issues in the more conservative cliques, needs to crowd out the Wahhabi/Hanbali ideology that directly and tacitly supports the growth of ISIS and the spread of that ideology. Sitting here and pretending like Islam is totally fine and that there aren't any issues with it whatsoever is not helpful.


Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#246

Posted 06 July 2016 - 12:27 AM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 06 July 2016 - 12:30 AM.

But no one is pretending that Islam is "totally fine".  Islam has a problem with extremism and intolerance.  Most people never denied that.  In fact, that part is too obvious to even state without beating a dead horse.  Every other movie villain (and IRL villain) reminds us of this problem.  The point of contention was whether the problem is sourced in the religious ideology of Islam or more so in the political endorsement of extremism by one of our close allies (Saudi Arabia).  Without the endorsement from the Saudi crown, Wahhabi leaders are just a bunch crazy people preaching violent puritan nonsense.  The scripture is not the heart of the issue.  One of the most influential states in the world being a theocracy is the heart of the issue...especially when that state's leaders are tyrants....and the loudest western critics of the resulting radical terrorism whorishly yield to the authority of that regime's $.  And addressing that issue has a lot less to do with religious scripture than you'd think.

 

 

The problem with the "Mr. Obama! Please say radical Islam!" camp is the hypocrisy of suggesting that our fight against violent extremism in general is a half-measure....yet they put forth the more ridiculous half measure, stopping short of calling all religions absolutely ridiculous and instead blaming Islam for the lion's share of violent radicalism simply because it's the most recent.  If we 100% expected politicians (of all people) not to bullsh*t us on the issue of violent extremism, then we should be calling for them to denounce all religion.

 

 

Apologies for coming off as flippant.  But you just gave pretty good reasons for doing away with religion altogether.  Radical Islam has more or less showed us why all religions in the 21st and obviously the 22nd century will largely become obsolete.  "Crowding out" bad Islam in favor of good Islam is practically just the first step in getting people to take all religion less seriously.  Spirituality wasn't supposed to be institutionalized in the first place.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#247

Posted 07 July 2016 - 12:34 AM Edited by Irviding, 07 July 2016 - 12:38 AM.

But no one is pretending that Islam is "totally fine".  Islam has a problem with extremism and intolerance.  Most people never denied that.  In fact, that part is too obvious to even state without beating a dead horse.  Every other movie villain (and IRL villain) reminds us of this problem.  The point of contention was whether the problem is sourced in the religious ideology of Islam or more so in the political endorsement of extremism by one of our close allies (Saudi Arabia).  Without the endorsement from the Saudi crown, Wahhabi leaders are just a bunch crazy people preaching violent puritan nonsense.  The scripture is not the heart of the issue.  One of the most influential states in the world being a theocracy is the heart of the issue...especially when that state's leaders are tyrants....and the loudest western critics of the resulting radical terrorism whorishly yield to the authority of that regime's $.  And addressing that issue has a lot less to do with religious scripture than you'd think.

 

 

The problem with the "Mr. Obama! Please say radical Islam!" camp is the hypocrisy of suggesting that our fight against violent extremism in general is a half-measure....yet they put forth the more ridiculous half measure, stopping short of calling all religions absolutely ridiculous and instead blaming Islam for the lion's share of violent radicalism simply because it's the most recent.  If we 100% expected politicians (of all people) not to bullsh*t us on the issue of violent extremism, then we should be calling for them to denounce all religion.

 

 

Apologies for coming off as flippant.  But you just gave pretty good reasons for doing away with religion altogether.  Radical Islam has more or less showed us why all religions in the 21st and obviously the 22nd century will largely become obsolete.  "Crowding out" bad Islam in favor of good Islam is practically just the first step in getting people to take all religion less seriously.  Spirituality wasn't supposed to be institutionalized in the first place.

I have no problem with Obama saying radical Islam or radical extremism or whatever. As long as he recognizes that there's a problem within Islam, which he has numerous times and spoken on it. And for what its worth to that camp who claims he doesn't say radical Islam or whatever, Hillary Clinton now says radical Islam. The attacks are still coming.

/

I agree with what you said in this post, apart from "no one is saying it's just fine". Actually, and unfortunately, people do say Islam is just fine. Often on this site and in the public dialogue, whenever people discuss radical Islam and the problems with it around the world, we immediately are barraged by "but Christians/Jews/Hindus/whatever have problems too!" as if that's somehow relevant by people who are not educated on Islam either formally or informally to know the issues it faces

  • Failure likes this

Majesty Dreamworth
  • Majesty Dreamworth

    Grand Marquess of Slumberdom

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013
  • None

#248

Posted 11 July 2016 - 02:27 AM

Of course it's relevant. The father was sympathetic to radical Islam. I don't think patrolling mosques was suggested at any point around here? I also did not at any point say the guy was affiliated with ISIS. You can't just brush over the fact that there are young Muslims in the West being swayed by ISIS propaganda and acting out in violent ways. 
 
And yes, for the millionth time, we're all aware that happens with Christianity and violence from the intolerance many Christians have. However, that's not the topic of this thread. Constantly bringing it up everytime radical Islam is discussed serves zero purpose.


It has a great purpose, it keeps the scope of this in check. Perhaps you don't like it because you would prefer to believe the answer is as simple as doctrine? Well glossing over the fact that it inspires Islamophobia, what good does it do you? What can you actually do with that information?
Let's be frank, terrorism always has been the new communism. When we're talking about a population that for decades saw communism as the world's greatest threat despite being unable to define the word, is it surprising that the same thing can be done with terrorism? Pointing out all these incredibly loose ties to Islamic terrorism does what good? We can't stop people from worship, we can't gag free speech, so what is the benefit of pointing out the terrorism in this? To cast suspicion, to go "Look our common enemy," and then act like that keeps us safe. Sorry if you drank the Kool-aid, but most people can see through our own brand of propaganda to see that showcasing "radical Islam" or terrorism in this case does absolute no good. Zero benefits.

You're right: the answer isn't as simple as doctrine. It's not simple at all. Worse, there may never be an answer. As long as man lives, he will kill his own kind.

But the Omar's claimed allegiance is relevant, if for no other reason than that it creates a more thorough profile. If that Mateen had lived, you can bet he'd have had his entire life put under the microscope, and the prosecution would not have hesitated to employ his allegiance in developing his character to the jury. And you can bet that the defense would have done the same.

I think it's rather presumptuous, condescending and cynical to assume that people are so unquestioning that discussing Omar's religious past will incite Islamophobia. Clearly, they're not that simple. What we can say is that this man claimed allegiance to ISIS, and that many other lone killers and bands have claimed allegiance prior to committing heinous acts, which indicates one possible pattern; one which does not incite an irrational fear of Islam, but a rational fear of ISIS.

Let's face it: they're influential enough that you men in America are claiming allegiance to them. And yes, those young men are unstable, but if it's not as cut-and-dry as a religious problem, then it's not as cut-and-dry as a psychological problem. This is we create the profile. There are nuances, a complex array of factors. Psychos don't need reasons, but it's intriguing when they use them. We can't say that ISIS really pushed Omar that far, but we can't also say that without a violent strain for a socially isolated man to finally attach his rage and frustrations to, that he would've definitively picked up a gun.

You don't have to stop religion or gag free speech to open up a dialogue about a particular religion's violent strains and offshoots. Pointing out the "Islam" in Islamic terrorism allows us to examine if there's anything in the religion that allows them to justify their violence tomthemselves and then take educative action against it. As a Christian, I have every responsibility to rebuke bad Christians. As a US citizen, I have every responsibility to rebuke bad US citizens. As a white man, I have every responsibility to rebuke white racists. As a person with a family, I have every responsibility to rebuke bad family members. And I take that responsibility unto myself.

But why is it that Muslims conveniently get to deny responsibility and distance themselves from these murderous freaks? Because we're afraid of offending someone? In an informed and open society, there's no need to be offended. Non-Muslims aren't saying that Muslims as a whole are at fault for this, any more than black people are saying white people as a whole are at fault for Sterling or Castile, or St. Louis. It's about saying, "hey, we're noticing you've got bad people in your family. Please, keep working on spreading the positive message before we have to do something about the ones who missed it."

It's not a blame game. It's about collective responsibility. And we have to take collective responsibility for our species, our religions, our races, our nations, our cities, and our families. The sooner we see that, the sooner we can get better at helping to reduce these numbers, even if they're never going away.

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#249

Posted 11 July 2016 - 05:14 AM Edited by Melchior, 11 July 2016 - 05:14 AM.

It's not that we're "afraid of offending people" it's that there's already a thorough understanding of Islamic radicalism, one that is contradicted by claims that Muslims need to engage in some coordinated global effort to "reform their religion" as if ISIS were a natural consequence of people reading the Quran. People who say "well this is only a problem with Muslims" aren't trying to engage in thoughtful analysis, they're trying specifically to downplay other more relevant factors at best, and have Muslims locked up in internment camps at worst. 

 

I mean, the fact that saying ISIS is a logical consequence of Islamic doctrine will offend people should go to show that it isn't true. If it were, they obviously wouldn't react with anger at the association. Which is why narratives of Muslims being dishonest about their lack of support for terrorism ("their silence is deafening") come into play, as if Muslims were a hive mind; as individuals they're actively out to trick you into viewing their religion more positively than you logically should. 

 

It's not as though the left bend over backwards to never blame the oppressed or whatever, certain forms of transphobia exclusively come from women and some expressions of racism come exclusively from the poorest in society, and people don't have trouble forming hardline opposition against this. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#250

Posted 11 July 2016 - 06:02 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 11 July 2016 - 07:14 PM.

 

I am pretty sure there's been more abortion clinics bombed by Christian pro-lifer extremists than by "radical Islam" in the US.

 

Which is exactly a perfect example of something which defeats the point to completely equate Islam and Christianity. There is specific Christian doctrine which is used to justify attacks on abortion clinics, which Islam doesn't have. Supposedly Islam is actually compatible with stem cell research. People are aware that I'm on the side of those who say geopolitical factors and humanitarian disasters are the root cause of Islamic radicalism, but that doesn't mean investigating the doctrine and looking what doctrine is used as justification is meaningless and irrelevant. It is taboo, because politicians want to pretend disgusting pieces of doctrine don't exist, and pretend the vast majority of Christians who don't bomb abortion clinics are the true Christians, and the vast amount of Muslims who don't commit suicide attacks are the true Muslims, but that's politically correct behaviour to promote inclusiveness and unity. I'm not going to pretend to be some amateur religion expert and come up with all the passages, but they are easy to find.

What I'm bored about in politics is one sidedness and pure lies that the other side of the argument doesn't exist. Take for example multiculturalism. Does multiculturalism have benefits and does it enrich society? Yeah it does. Can it in many cases cause social issues and tensions? Yeah, also true. With terror it is the same way. Do doctrines in the religious teachings cause specific despicable behaviours of some followers? Yes. Do geopolitical factors, the crimes the West committed in its numerous foreign policy actions, like the disgraceful humiliations at Abu Ghraib which was the cause of radicalisation for those who comitted the Charlie Hebdo attack, the crimes of Israel which was Osama Bin Laden's reason for jihad, cause Islamic terror? Yeah, it most definitely has to an incredible extent. I'm tired of the oversimplification and idiocy on these issues.

What is also well known is that Western Muslims travelling to the Middle East for jihad know jack sh*t about Islam to the extent that they buy Islam for Dummies before the trip. But clerics promoting Salafism and members of Al Qaeda or IS promoting their ideas often do so on the basis of doctrine. So the extent to which Islamic terror is based on knowledge about the doctrine is an issue with multiple sides.

What is really the question is what can be done to prevent such attacks. Well, we can't change the doctrine of Islam or Christianity. What we can do is stopping our own crimes, like the horrible crimes we committed in Fallujah. We can stop those and promote inclusiveness, and rationality considering who enters our country and the social climate, and we have done all we can. Too bad we have made this escalate much too far out of pure imperialistic greed and idiocy. We can stop electing right wing Christian lunatics and air their opinions on tv like they are even remotely respectable. Those are actions which can be taken.

 

But anyway, to actually be on topic, Omar Mateen is a strange case like Dylan Roof. Dylan Roof was a white supremacist with several close black friends who wanted to start a race war by murdering black people. And Omar Mateen is a gay hating, active homosexual, who I think definitely was inspired by the current climate of Islamic terror and the aspects I mentioned concerning it. What these two have in common is that they were depressed deranged people exploding into violence out of pure desperation and misery to seek attention. But only the Muslim gets considered a terrorist out of those two. Just like the white right wing terrorist who killed Jo Cox was considered a ‘murderer’ and not a terrorist by media. And how the vegan terrorist killing Pim Fortuyn tended to be considered a ‘murderer’ and is already out of jail, whereas the Islamic terrorist killing Theo van Gogh is considered a terrorist and is in jail for life. This inconsistency is absolutely ridiculous and should immediately stop.

  • Tchuck and SagaciousKJB like this

Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#251

Posted 13 July 2016 - 09:31 AM Edited by Cyper, 13 July 2016 - 09:34 AM.

This shooting is only partly bound to Islam.

 

Mateens story is similar of school shooters. No doubt the man suffers from a personality disorder that includes qualities such as low self-control and high level of aggression. This is the case for 90 percent of all inviduals who commit violent crimes. These kind of people look and search for hatefull ideologies and world views. Islam is just one of many.

 

In the meantime mosques in the area teaches hatred and intolerance while the regressive liberals and followers of Islam claim that it has nothing to do with religion. By that logic, hatecrimes against blacks in the U.S has nothing to do with racism either. 'Moderate' religious indirectly bear responsibility for these attacks.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#252

Posted 13 July 2016 - 09:58 AM

'Moderate' religious indirectly bear responsibility for these attacks.

This notion is both logically absurd and undeniably harmful. The continued assertion that people of religious belief must tacitly or indirectly support the actions of extremists by association unless they engage in grovelling apologism is a contributor to social hostility and distrust.

It's no wonder Muslims in the West feel victimised when prevailing culture attempts to force them into making public denunciations of violent extremists they have literally nothing to do with, and alleges they're co-conspirators if they don't

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#253

Posted 13 July 2016 - 02:46 PM Edited by Stephan90, 13 July 2016 - 03:03 PM.

I think the most victimising thing for Muslims is to treat these "events" like Orlando as legit Islamist terrorist attacks and not false flags. Sivispacem you make yourself guilty. It is pretty hard to believe that you actually believe in what you are talking about regarding Islamist terrorism and the middle East, because you are continiuously promoting the agenda of the gigantic fraud that is the so called "war on terror", which is nothing but a war of terror. You delete posts on this forum which are unpleasant for you and not because of forum rules.

 

@ Eutyphro, you disapoint me, because you treat Orlando as if it was a legit Islamist terrorist attack and as if Omar Mateen himself actually shot people that night, although there is overwhelming evidence that he is just a patsy. I will never understand how people can be critical of the Iraq war or Obama and Bush, but still believe the fairytales that the same government tells us about these so called Islamist terrorist attacks. Every one of these stories has more holes than Swiss cheese. It is ridiculous to talk about fictional stories as if they were part of real history.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#254

Posted 13 July 2016 - 03:46 PM

I think the most victimising thing for Muslims is to treat these "events" like Orlando as legit Islamist terrorist attacks and not false flags. Sivispacem you make yourself guilty.

That's because your a conspiracy hack who actually believes in "false flags" despite there never bring any evidence for them and every attempt you ever make at trying to argue for one being a totally farcical dog's dinner filled with chunks cherry-picked from conspiracy theory blogs or the occasional far right forum which you've apparently performed no due diligence on or even cursorily checked for veracity.

You delete posts on this forum which are unpleasant for you and not because of forum rules.

No, I hide posts containing worthless, flippant bullsh*t that doesn't contribute to actual discussions. I know you like to dump steaming turds onto whatever thread you fancy and then bugger off for weeks on end, not actually bothering to respond to those who call you out on your bullsh*t, so I've taken to just removing these posts. It's not like you're making any effort to contribute to a coherent discussion, is it?
 
D&D isn't your litter tray; continue to use it as such and you will be banned. You can't even begin to assemble coherent arguments to support your wild theories and I suggest very strongly you refrain from posting in here entirely until you can.
  • blaze and The Deadite like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#255

Posted 13 July 2016 - 05:30 PM

I t there is overwhelming evidence that he is just a patsy....

It is ridiculous to talk about fictional stories as if they were part of real history.

were you planning on sharing any of this "overwhelming evidence" with the rest of us?

 

there's also overwhelming evidence that I have the largest penis of any man on planet Earth. it is ridiculous to talk about other penises as if they were any larger than my gargantuan penis.

 

trust me.

  • Tchuck and Failure like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#256

Posted 13 July 2016 - 07:42 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 13 July 2016 - 07:43 PM.

@ Eutyphro, you disapoint me, because you treat Orlando as if it was a legit Islamist terrorist attack and as if Omar Mateen himself actually shot people that night, although there is overwhelming evidence that he is just a patsy. I will never understand how people can be critical of the Iraq war or Obama and Bush, but still believe the fairytales that the same government tells us about these so called Islamist terrorist attacks. Every one of these stories has more holes than Swiss cheese. It is ridiculous to talk about fictional stories as if they were part of real history.

 

What I said was the opposite of what people like Bush tell us. What people like Bush tell us is Muslims do these attacks because they hate freedom. What I said was they mainly cause terror because we break international law and murder them for geopolitical domination. That's the polar opposite, so don't be silly. All I added was that being critical of foreign policy and being critical of religious doctrines, be they Christian or Islamic, are not mutually exclusive. But that from the perspective of pragmatism criticizing disgusting religious doctrines is ineffective, and we should rather look at the blood on our hands. Apart from that, I'm not prone to believe in conspiracy theories about these horrible terror attacks.


make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    living in the world no different from a cell

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#257

Posted 16 July 2016 - 12:18 PM

I think the most victimising thing for Muslims is to treat these "events" like Orlando as legit Islamist terrorist attacks and not false flags. Sivispacem you make yourself guilty. It is pretty hard to believe that you actually believe in what you are talking about regarding Islamist terrorism and the middle East, because you are continiuously promoting the agenda of the gigantic fraud that is the so called "war on terror", which is nothing but a war of terror. You delete posts on this forum which are unpleasant for you and not because of forum rules.

 

@ Eutyphro, you disapoint me, because you treat Orlando as if it was a legit Islamist terrorist attack and as if Omar Mateen himself actually shot people that night, although there is overwhelming evidence that he is just a patsy. I will never understand how people can be critical of the Iraq war or Obama and Bush, but still believe the fairytales that the same government tells us about these so called Islamist terrorist attacks. Every one of these stories has more holes than Swiss cheese. It is ridiculous to talk about fictional stories as if they were part of real history.

There is overwhelming evidenced that you are an absolute dumb-dumb.

  • blaze, The Deadite and Fonz like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#258

Posted 16 July 2016 - 01:52 PM

Please don't feed the trolls.

acmilano
  • acmilano

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011

#259

Posted 13 September 2016 - 03:52 PM

Unfortunatly this tragedy got and ugly continuation. The Mosque where Mateen was comeing was set on fire. That is not the way,and it could only bring more violence.

 

 http://edition.cnn.c...-pulse-shooter/

 

 

 

"Surveillance footage from cameras on the building revealed that a white or Hispanic male arrived on motorcycle at approximately 11:38 p.m.," said a statement from the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office. "In the video, it appears he is carrying paper and a bottle of some type of liquid. The male approaches the northeast side of the building and a flash is seen, presumably when the fire ignited. The male is then seen running from the building."
Police are now seeking a white or Hispanic male, wearing a button-down shirt, jeans with embroidery on the back pocket and a boonie or bush hat. The man may have burned his arm while setting the fire and he is driving a Harley-Davidson-style motorcycle, possibly with saddlebags, police said.
 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users