Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #00
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » You aren't the fairest judge. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Attack on a hotel in Mali. Hundreds of hostages, dozens dead. I wonder if the attackers are Christian. I don't want to jump to any conclusions.
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Meanwhile they have taken 170 hostages in a hotel in Mali, 3 persons killed so far. They're releasing everyone who shows to able to recite the quran. Bismarck.Dracondria said: » AFP says 18 bodies have been carried out of the hotel and that there are no more hostages in the hotel Ramyrez said: » Also, Reuters now reporting 27 dead in the Mali hotel situation, though absolutely no split of victims/gunmen at this point. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » If you give the people the choice of "Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism" vs. "lets round up all the Muslims and kick em out" people are going to drift towards the less dangerous option. Ooh paged, good times Teenage boys? Or ISIS trained refugees? I don't know if this is still relating to the orphans with ak-47s or some inner lament against American teenage angst. Bismarck.Dracondria said: » Al-Mourabitoun is the group behind it, an offshoot of al-Qaida. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Attack on a hotel in Mali. Hundreds of hostages, dozens dead. I wonder if the attackers are Christian. I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Pretty easy to make that joke when you already know the answer. Don't mind Aman. He's just trying to establish imagined Christian persecution in the context of perceived
He's not entirely clear on the fact that no one has defended individual Muslim terrorists -- in fact, they've been lambasted soundly all around -- nor has anyone attacked Christianity as a whole, in relationship to these events. France ain't conceding anything and ain't playing around apparently. Hearing reports of over 170 wpns seized and alot more ppl than just that attack's group in custody atm. Good for them. Securing the borders and your country will go alot further than picking sides in the mideast. bravo
Siren.Akson said: » France ain't conceding anything and ain't playing around apparently. Hearing reports of over 170 wpns seized and alot more ppl than just that attack's group in custody atm. Good for them. Securing the borders and your country will go alot further than picking sides in the mideast. bravo Except for this little fact. Tighter security? Check. Cracking down on suspected terrorists? Check. Taking more pre-emptive action on tips regarding potential terrorist cells? Check. Seizing weapons? Che...well, check, but the U.S. would have a ***fit if we seized potential terrorists' weapons. That would mean taking guns away from a lot of white supremacists and militia groups that are basically Christian/right wing terror cells of an entirely different stripe. But closing borders to those fleeing the exact violence and hate the world wants to crack down on? NOPE. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » That's more like eating M&M for the cause of probability and statistics. Strangers Have The Best Candy! I'm sure that's the lesson you will be teaching your children Mil...>.> you wouldn't eat any M&Ms in any bowl handed to you by nausi...regardless of what he said beforehand, you big fat liar... at least I sure as hell wouldn't... no offense nausi, I wouldn't eat them from anyone else I don't know well either... but then again I am a paranoid psychotic and I don't eat samples handed out in the supermarket because little kids touch every *** one of them with freshly sneezed on hands that have never been washed.... But M&Ms are inanimate objects and can't fundamentally change their own nature... so then it becomes a question of your own trust in the person handing them to you. If I bought a sealed bag of M&Ms and Nausi said he heard the green ones were poison, then it's a question of how much do I trust the manufacturer vs the sanity/reliability of the person making the statement. But if we're talking about refugees that could theoretically change their essential nature and become terrorists like the boston bombers then should we seal up our borders and not let anyone in? and then why stop there? let's start kicking everyone's door down because timothy mcvey wasn't a syrian refugee or a muslim or an M&M but he was still very much a terrorist and went bat ***crazy and killed a bunch of people. So the real question is Do you want to be paranoid? Are you going to be afraid of everyone because some people are ***? Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Hopefully they pull it off. Without fail. Hard to not be sympathetic to refugees when you know the vast majority, if not all, just want a better life for thier family.
Offline
Posts: 13787
Ramyrez said: » Siren.Akson said: » France ain't conceding anything and ain't playing around apparently. Hearing reports of over 170 wpns seized and alot more ppl than just that attack's group in custody atm. Good for them. Securing the borders and your country will go alot further than picking sides in the mideast. bravo Except for this little fact. Tighter security? Check. Cracking down on suspected terrorists? Check. Taking more pre-emptive action on tips regarding potential terrorist cells? Check. Seizing weapons? Che...well, check, but the U.S. would have a ***fit if we seized potential terrorists' weapons. That would mean taking guns away from a lot of white supremacists and militia groups that are basically Christian/right wing terror cells of an entirely different stripe. But closing borders to those fleeing the exact violence and hate the world wants to crack down on? NOPE. Sure, you get people like Aman and Nausi who try to speak in absolutes (as in they know absolutely nothing about what's going on), but they are the fringe minority on the issue of allowing the refugees who need help and shelter come into the US. They also speak as if every single refugee *is* a terrorist simply because of the region they are fleeing. Yet they hold no regard for native born terrorists, or terrorist converts, and simply assume that each and every refugee are welfare lifers, where as the majority work "like slaves" to repay the kindness and debt they feel is owed to the people/community/nation that helped them. It's also funny that Nausi would say "poison is poison", because almost all of the arguments he tries to make, are poisonous themselves, and quite dangerous even among the more fringe elements of his idea of conservative values. Offline
Posts: 13787
Shiva.Nikolce said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » That's more like eating M&M for the cause of probability and statistics. Strangers Have The Best Candy! I'm sure that's the lesson you will be teaching your children Mil...>.> you wouldn't eat any M&Ms in any bowl handed to you by nausi...regardless of what he said beforehand, you big fat liar... at least I sure as hell wouldn't... no offense nausi, I wouldn't eat them from anyone else I don't know well either... but then again I am a paranoid psychotic and I don't eat samples handed out in the supermarket because little kids touch every *** one of them with freshly sneezed on hands that have never been washed.... But M&Ms are inanimate objects and can't fundamentally change their own nature... so then it becomes a question of your own trust in the person handing them to you. If I bought a sealed bag of M&Ms and Nausi said he heard the green ones were poison, then it's a question of how much do I trust the manufacturer vs the sanity/reliability of the person making the statement. But if we're talking about refugees that could theoretically change their essential nature and become terrorists like the boston bombers then should we seal up our borders and not let anyone in? and then why stop there? let's start kicking everyone's door down because timothy mcvey wasn't a syrian refugee or a muslim or an M&M but he was still very much a terrorist and went bat ***crazy and killed a bunch of people. So the real question is Do you want to be paranoid? Are you going to be afraid of everyone because some people are ***? Bloodrose said: » I'm afraid of all evil old men in top hats and handle bar mustaches because of Nik. I'm afraid of men with hats and beards but no moustaches, because the Amish are the true sleeping terrorist threat in this country! Bloodrose said: » I'm afraid of all evil old men in top hats and handle bar mustaches because of Nik. that fear is perfectly justified. we're all evil. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Bloodrose said: » Ramyrez said: » Siren.Akson said: » France ain't conceding anything and ain't playing around apparently. Hearing reports of over 170 wpns seized and alot more ppl than just that attack's group in custody atm. Good for them. Securing the borders and your country will go alot further than picking sides in the mideast. bravo Except for this little fact. Tighter security? Check. Cracking down on suspected terrorists? Check. Taking more pre-emptive action on tips regarding potential terrorist cells? Check. Seizing weapons? Che...well, check, but the U.S. would have a ***fit if we seized potential terrorists' weapons. That would mean taking guns away from a lot of white supremacists and militia groups that are basically Christian/right wing terror cells of an entirely different stripe. But closing borders to those fleeing the exact violence and hate the world wants to crack down on? NOPE. Sure, you get people like Aman and Nausi who try to speak in absolutes (as in they know absolutely nothing about what's going on), but they are the fringe minority on the issue of allowing the refugees who need help and shelter come into the US. They also speak as if every single refugee *is* a terrorist simply because of the region they are fleeing. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » So how much are people here willing to concede for the illusion of absolute safety? It's more the left overcompensating for almost three years of ignoring the plight of the Syrian people because Obama drew a red line then backed down. Unfortunately, in their usual fashion they have to be extremely divisive and inflammatory. There is a lot of common ground on this issue. Nearly everyone agrees that we want to help Syrian refugees, but in the times we live in it is prudent to take extra caution when bringing in people from this particular region. It is not Xenophobic. It is not Islamophobic. It is not racist. But this is what is said about people that want to take extra caution when screening people from Syria. We are dealing with an enemy of all humanity whose tactics are to blend in and carry out suicide attacks against civilians. We only have to go back one week to see the devastation that one bad Syrian refugee can cause that slips through screening. There is zero reason that this should be a divisive issue. Even after 7 years of President Obama, politicizing this surprised me. Wtf you talking about dipshit? Here is my position. Wow that's so absolute. Let in refugees but give us assurances of a good vetting system that's puts our security first. Wow. I am such a hard liner. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
I wonder how resolute the cowards at Anonymous really are. They think they are badass attacking ISIS twitter accounts. When ISIS lines up a hundred innocent people, men, women and children; all with Anonymous masks on and shoots them each in the head, dead; I wonder how badass Anonymous will be when that inevitably happens.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » I wonder how resolute the cowards at Anonymous really are. They think they are badass attacking ISIS twitter accounts. When ISIS lines up a hundred innocent people, men, women and children; all with Anonymous masks on and shoots them each in the head, dead; I wonder how badass Anonymous will be when that inevitably happens. That's actually a very good question. Though you may be downplaying the effectiveness of social media for ISIS. ISIS is very good at PR. They are very good at swaying disillusioned young people to their cause, and social media is a key tool in this. Anonymous really can *** with them pretty good if they can take over their accounts/disrupt their PR campaigns. That said, your question remains valid. If ISIS can manage to track down any of these people, I wonder how it will go for them. Then again, you could say that of any vigilante justice action if the bad guys catch them, I suppose. Playing outside the law certainly limits the protections you're afforded. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
They don't need to track them down.
They just need to kill innocent people and call it retaliation for Anonymous. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » They don't need to track them down. They just need to kill innocent people and call it retaliation for Anonymous. Yeah, I thought about that. But the thing is, if they're not tracking down the actual Anonymous peeps, then...what? I mean, you could say they were going to line up and kill innocent people in retaliation for some stupid *** anyhow, because that's what scumsucking terrorists do. That's really their only go-to, you know? So at that point you're just encouraging more people to target you and you're not deterring anything. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
I think Anonymous would immediately back down when their mask becomes symbolic of rows of dead innocent people.
I'll just put it this way. If I were them, that's what I would do. It's a smart play. Another smart play. Having members with no record pose as Syrian refugees. Offline
Posts: 13787
Anonymous has always been kind of a Sword of Damocles organization from the get go.
Sometimes their anonymous tips, hacks, etc. do good, other times it's just hanging from a thread ready to metaphorically drop and cut their own heads off. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » I think Anonymous would immediately back down when their mask becomes symbolic of rows of dead innocent people. I'll just put it this way. If I were them, that's what I would do. It's a smart play. Again, I get where you're coming from. But I also wouldn't be part of a hacking collective in the first place because that doesn't seem like a smart play to me, either. Threats to kill innocents before by the Mexican cartel made Annoymous back down before, iirc.
But it can also depend on who controls the narrative. iSIS relies heavily on their recruitment ability (you can only use a suicide bomber once...) and uses modern advertising/social media/magazine very effectively. If annoymous can limit their ability or control how well the message is relayed they could do significant damage to ISIS's potential recruits. But it depends on how smart they play it... Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Wtf you talking about dipshit? Here is my position. Wow that's so absolute. Let in refugees but give us assurances of a good vetting system that's puts our security first. Wow. I am such a hard liner. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|