Do you think Europe's problems with Muslims will be America's one day?

[agent00f]

Shoot the messenger, but not the message I see...

Anyways, so you're denying that none of the events reported on that page actually happened?

Dumb people are known for their inability to figure things out. You were provide the chain of information from ZUS to Pipes to Kern to Emerson/Fox. Did Kern accidentally forget to read Pipes investigation where he actual goes to check these claims IRL? Or does his sort of garbage not give a damn because the dumbshits already bit? Rather makes sense now why Kern would go out of his way to defend Fox & co since he was their source.

To reiterate, you've been informed of how these people lie to the ignorant, but that pea-brain refuses to believe it's so easily duped. This thread is basically a biopic of a conservative media victim.

Terrorism is how AMORAL SOCIOPATHS fight wars. Specifically targeting innocent people just trying to live their lives is inexcusable on any level. It is disgusting, vile and a moral outrage.

That's simply how modern wars are fought. IS appears to be reciprocating what they've learned from adversaries.

 

[realibrad]

He was being facetious, since the messiah which many aspire to was martyred for a great cause. Are you even christian?



If you can read the list from bottom, notice that they appear to be IS related. Also notice that you've been recently informed that terrorism is how poor people fight wars and that France has been actively fighting IS since 2013/2014.

Now try to put the 2 and 2 together here and see if you get anything near 4.

Hahaha. Terrorism is how poor people fight wars. So during the Paris attacks when the guy has his testicles cut off and put in his mouth while young women were raped is just military strategy!

But, nice job on not addressing the point at all. It would be super hard to explain how in 2012 how kids ages 8,6,3 were just the way that poor people had to fight. I mean, sure, I guess that 3 year old was going to some day be a full grown Jew and we cant have that.

I wish more people on here on the left would be able to call this out for the horrific shit that it is. Saying that terrorism is the way that poor people have to fight is disgusting.

Any takers?

 

[bshole]

I wish more people on here on the left would be able to call this out for the horrific shit that it is. Saying that terrorism is the way that poor people have to fight is disgusting.

Any takers?

Agreed. It was a horrible thing to say. Are we reduced now to terrorism apologetics?

 

[realibrad]

Agreed. It was a horrible thing to say. Are we reduced now to terrorism apologetics?

Apparently. You fall more in the middle like me, but I really want to see if anyone who is from the left will say something about his post.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Interesting. Well, lets look at the wiki article about terrorism in France in response to your link on a different wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_France

France for 21 Century.

20 Terrorist attacks Total
17 Attacks were Islamic

2003 Not Islamic
2004 Islamic
2007 Not Islamic
2010 Not Islamic
2012 Islamic
2013 Islamic
2014 Islamic
2014 Islamic
2014 Islamic
2015 Islamic
2015 Islamic
2015 Islamic
2015 Islamic
2015 Islamic
2015 Islamic
2016 Islamic
2016 Islamic
2016 Islamic
2016 Islamic
2016 Islamic

Super weird eh.

I think the world knows this everyday - new attacks all the time by Muslims.

Seriously though, I know not every Muslim is extreme to the point of violence. I've been in personal contact with many in my daily life.

But what I am saying is that allowing one group to dominate when some aspects of their faith call for violence against non Muslims and MANY act on that call resulting death and terror to many, you bet your sweet ass we need to keep our heads out of the sand and not blow it all off as weird or unusual occurrences.

Just the other day A CHRISTIAN CHURH was attacked in FRANCE by two Muslims who killed an innocent elderly Priest who was just doing is job at his place of work for no damn reason other than the fact he was not Muslim.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Germany just raided a salafist mosque. Seems like salafism and Wahhabist traditions are the most "problematic" for the west since they're "ultraconservative" (read: regressive).

So where are the global centers for these dangerous factions that are unequivocally incompatible with western ideals? Hint: one country in particular has been implicated in a number of attacks in the US.

My question is, and I'm admitting my ignorance here, why don't western Muslims decry the belief systems that produce attackers rather than the attackers themselves?

Some Muslims who have spoken against violence and terrorism are mocked, scorned or worse for opposing peaceful existence with all other people. The Koran says non believers must be converted by the sword so to say otherwise invites ridicule.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

 

[agent00f]

Hahaha. Terrorism is how poor people fight wars. So during the Paris attacks when the guy has his testicles cut off and put in his mouth while young women were raped is just military strategy!

But, nice job on not addressing the point at all. It would be super hard to explain how in 2012 how kids ages 8,6,3 were just the way that poor people had to fight. I mean, sure, I guess that 3 year old was going to some day be a full grown Jew and we cant have that.

I wish more people on here on the left would be able to call this out for the horrific shit that it is. Saying that terrorism is the way that poor people have to fight is disgusting.

Any takers?

You appear to have this idea that war is this great honorable thing. I suspect this goes hand in hand with the we're-the-good-guys jingoism you've exhibited in the past. Not incidentally the IS folks have this same belief as you.

Agreed. It was a horrible thing to say. Are we reduced now to terrorism apologetics?

I suspect the sort of people who think that have ~zero clue what war actually is. They sit back in their cushy first world couches and cheer for their favorite combat team on CNN.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That's simply how modern wars are fought. IS appears to be reciprocating what they've learned from adversaries.

No. That's how wars are fought by people who can't fight modern wars.

 

[agent00f]

No. That's how wars are fought by people who can't fight modern wars.

The two armies in a field you're thinking of was the classic approach. Ponder for a while how that classic/modern contrast works.

 

[realibrad]

You appear to have this idea that war is this great honorable thing. I suspect this goes hand in hand with the we're-the-good-guys jingoism you've exhibited in the past. Not incidentally the IS folks have this same belief as you.
.

Where did I say that? When did I even come close to saying war is honorable? What did you see that appears that way?

Again, you deflect.

All that you are trying to do is justify why terrorism is not totally the fault of terrorists.

Kill some Jewish kids, well darn, its just the way that poor Arabs have to fight their war against the Jews.

 

[SSSnail]

Dumb people are known for their inability to figure things out. You were provide the chain of information from ZUS to Pipes to Kern to Emerson/Fox. Did Kern accidentally forget to read Pipes investigation where he actual goes to check these claims IRL? Or does his sort of garbage not give a damn because the dumbshits already bit? Rather makes sense now why Kern would go out of his way to defend Fox & co since he was their source.

To reiterate, you've been informed of how these people lie to the ignorant, but that pea-brain refuses to believe it's so easily duped. This thread is basically a biopic of a conservative media victim.

Shoot the messenger, but not the message I see...

Anyways, so you're denying that none of the events reported on that page actually happened?

What about the recent incident where group of Muslims were brazen enough to smash up a bar because people were drinking in said bar because "Ramadant"? That's just a small example. It only take a few to enforce their will upon the rest, because apathy and cowardice. They're only so brazen, because they know the laws don't apply to them.

Answer the question, smart guy, quit dodging.

 

[agent00f]

Where did I say that? When did I even come close to saying war is honorable? What did you see that appears that way?

Again, you deflect.

All that you are trying to do is justify why terrorism is not totally the fault of terrorists.

Kill some Jewish kids, well darn, its just the way that poor Arabs have to fight their war against the Jews.

I'm informing you that your view of war is emotionally charged and naive. This isn't sort of accident either, since it's advantageous to those propagating them to keep it that way. For example, take this guy who gets rather angry & fearful the muslim hordes are invading our ethnic/"cultural" purity, and ponder the system of propaganda described above which inserts those belief into his head:

What about the recent incident where group of Muslims were brazen enough to smash up a bar because people were drinking in said bar because "Ramadant"? That's just a small example. It only take a few to enforce their will upon the rest, because apathy and cowardice. They're only so brazen, because they know the laws don't apply to them.

So every time some muslims do anything untoward the reaction is same as many americans whenever blacks get uppity.

Similarly, the IS folks put these idea of the evil west into the head of their lowest common denominator, and sure enough they get all angry whenever some bombs drop on kids.

 

[SSSnail]

I'm informing you that your view of war is emotionally charged and naive. This isn't sort of accident either, since it's advantageous to those propagating them to keep it that way. For example, take this guy who gets rather angry & fearful the muslim hordes are invading our ethnic/"cultural" purity, and ponder the system of propaganda described above which inserts those belief into his head:



So every time some muslims do anything untoward the reaction is same as many americans whenever blacks get uppity.

Similarly, the IS folks put these idea of the evil west into the head of their lowest common denominator, and sure enough they get all angry whenever some bombs drop on kids.

Quit trying to lump gang violence, or domestic crimes and comparing that to an inherently violent ideology. I thought you're smarter than that.

 

[agent00f]

Quit trying to lump gang violence, or domestic crimes and comparing that to an inherently violent ideology. I thought you're smarter than that.

I'm pretty sure your peers claim that blacks have inherently violent "culture". If you're ignorant of this just search for violent black "culture" to read some of their own words.

 

[SSSnail]

I'm pretty sure your peers claim that blacks have inherently violent "culture". If you're ignorant of this just search for violent black "culture" to read some of their own words.

No, it's not the "blacks" that are violent, you see. It's the "urban" and gang cultures that's violent, but they are not trying to impose their culture on other parts, other than just living their lives(Not saying that this culture is not a problem in and of itself - but it's a different kind of problem). Be it Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Irish, Russians, whatever...

 

[bshole]

I suspect the sort of people who think that have ~zero clue what war actually is. They sit back in their cushy first world couches and cheer for their favorite combat team on CNN.

You do have me there. I have no clue about the horrors of war apart from what I see or read. That being said, I am no cheerleader of war and oppose any American military intervention in the affairs of another nation.... especially any nation in the Middle East.

 

[realibrad]

I'm informing you that your view of war is emotionally charged and naive. This isn't sort of accident either, since it's advantageous to those propagating them to keep it that way. For example, take this guy who gets rather angry & fearful the muslim hordes are invading our ethnic/"cultural" purity, and ponder the system of propaganda described above which inserts those belief into his head:



So every time some muslims do anything untoward the reaction is same as many americans whenever blacks get uppity.

Similarly, the IS folks put these idea of the evil west into the head of their lowest common denominator, and sure enough they get all angry whenever some bombs drop on kids.

Other than me saying terrorism is not justified as being the way poor people fight, how you are informed on my view of war at all? What do you believe I believe about war?

I have not said how I feel about war. I have not signaled how I feel about war. How can you judge my views if I have not expressed them? Dont deflect. Just answer my questions.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I hope you are not trying to say that Christians are able to do that and be okay with it.

I hope you're not trying to say that there are no Christian US military members who don't think they are doing Gods work in the Middle East?
One of your top mil intelligence officers was often quoted seeing Satan in bomb smoke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin#Controversies

edit- Sheesh our own mil officer Nebor often spoke of a book that was about a holy war on Islam being on the top recommended book list for US mil

 

[woolfe9998]

Apparently. You fall more in the middle like me, but I really want to see if anyone who is from the left will say something about his post.

The notion that terrorism is just a poor man's way of fighting a war is repugnant. It's apologia for terrorism, plain and simple. It's worse than that, actually. It doesn't merely excuse it. It romanticizes it. Agent isn't the only lefty who has argued this. I've heard it before. But it's certainly not a universally held position on the left.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The two armies in a field you're thinking of was the classic approach. Ponder for a while how that classic/modern contrast works.

I'm pondering your incredible ignorance and failing to fully grasp it.

The two armies in a field thing is older than dirt. Modern warfare is fast, mechanized, air-based. It's drones, missiles, satellite intelligence, strikes from afar by forces that can't be retaliated against. Is ISIS doing any of that shit? You think terrorists would walk into a disco wearing an explosive vest if they had the capability of flying a Tomahawk through the front door instead? Terrorists go after soft targets because they lack the capabilities to attack hard targets. They're not attacking defenseless civilians because that's the path to victory, they're attacking defenseless civilians because they can't attack anything else.

 

[agent00f]

No, it's not the "blacks" that are violent, you see. It's the "urban" and gang cultures that's violent, but they are not trying to impose their culture on other parts, other than just living their lives(Not saying that this culture is not a problem in and of itself - but it's a different kind of problem). Be it Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Irish, Russians, whatever...

Seems you're quite aware of what your peers say, which is odd given you first tried to deny it. Similar to how it's odd you're aware of rap music (recorded for posterity above), but pretend to be ignorant of what they say about its imposition of culture.

Other than me saying terrorism is not justified as being the way poor people fight, how you are informed on my view of war at all? What do you believe I believe about war?

I have not said how I feel about war. I have not signaled how I feel about war. How can you judge my views if I have not expressed them? Dont deflect. Just answer my questions.

I'll be very straight here and just put it out there that your views aren't exactly sophisticated or novel to any degree that warrants further investigation.

The notion that terrorism is just a poor man's way of fighting a war is repugnant. It's apologia for terrorism, plain and simple. It's worse than that, actually. It doesn't merely excuse it. It romanticizes it. Agent isn't the only lefty who has argued this. I've heard it before. But it's certainly not a universally held position on the left.

It's rather bizarre that your takeaway from the above is that I'm the one romanticizing war. However I have enough respect for your reading comprehension to present an opportunity to go over it again and ponder for a while if that's the position you want to take going forward.

 

[agent00f]

I'm pondering your incredible ignorance and failing to fully grasp it.

The two armies in a field thing is older than dirt. Modern warfare is fast, mechanized, air-based. It's drones, missiles, satellite intelligence, strikes from afar by forces that can't be retaliated against. Is ISIS doing any of that shit? You think terrorists would walk into a disco wearing an explosive vest if they had the capability of flying a Tomahawk through the front door instead? Terrorists go after soft targets because they lack the capabilities to attack hard targets. They're not attacking defenseless civilians because that's the path to victory, they're attacking defenseless civilians because they can't attack anything else.

Take a look at how well the others are doing in this argument, and avail yourself of the generous offer to reconsider which one of us is the ignoramus not grasping the other.

 

[realibrad]

I'll be very straight here and just put it out there that your views aren't exactly sophisticated or novel to any degree that warrants further investigation.

Got it. So you assumed that I was a right wing warhawk that loved kill'n and fight'n cause murica. When challenged to explain how you came to this view, you deflect. I suspect this is because last time I challenged you on a claim that you made, and asked you to provide your source, you were shown to be using data that was invalidated through peer review. Its much easier to make a claim and never have to defend it.

You are an ideologue who sees anyone that disagrees with you as any number of pejorative terms you can conjure up in your hateful little mind.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's rather bizarre that your takeaway from the above is that I'm the one romanticizing war. However I have enough respect for your reading comprehension to present an opportunity to go over it again and ponder for a while if that's the position you want to take going forward.

I said romanticizing terrorism in particular, not war in general. And it isn't bizarre. When you say that terrorism is the poor man's way of waging war, you are romanticizing what they are doing by suggesting that they're the little guy and they're just doing whatever they can against the big bad evil oppressor.

And although this was a reply to Realibad, I have to laugh at this:

I'll be very straight here and just put it out there that your views aren't exactly sophisticated or novel to any degree that warrants further investigation.

You think your views are in any way "novel"? There isn't a single assertion you've made here that I haven't heard before. Terrorism is the poor man's way of waging war? I've heard that argument made dozens of times. IIRC, the first I heard that was in the context of a debate about the battle of Jenin, on a different discussion board, circa 2002-3. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it since but its many, many times. No, your views aren't novel in the least. So if "novelty" is the criteria for determining whether an argument is worth replying to, then you've just argued people should be studiously ignoring your posts.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that no views expressed around here are particularly novel. P&N isn't exactly on the cutting edge of intellectual discourse.

So far as "sophistication," I'll leave that to you and other self-styled sophisticates to hash out, because it's an utterly meaningless concept, and a hollow, content free insult.

 

[agent00f]

Got it. So you assumed that I was a right wing warhawk that loved kill'n and fight'n cause murica. When challenged to explain how you came to this view, you deflect. I suspect this is because last time I challenged you on a claim that you made, and asked you to provide your source, you were shown to be using data that was invalidated through peer review. Its much easier to make a claim and never have to defend it.

You seem to be referring to that case where you thought an epidemiological study in the lancet was "invalided through peer review" by criticism published in a intl relations journal. This was after you had to be shown how to google for it.

For you own good, I would not bring that up in the future because it only validates my opinion here.

You are an ideologue who sees anyone that disagrees with you as any number of pejorative terms you can conjure up in your hateful little mind.

Frankly it's not my fault that undeniably dumb people choose to argue with me.