Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Do you do this a lot? Where you pretend I quoted a different post than I did?

    THIS is what you said: And yes you're right. Religious people usually are against homosexuality. That is the case in many western countries with pretty much all the main religious groups. That is like... christians and muslims.

    You are playing moral equivalency games and it's sad.
    Lol....

    Read the post I was replying to and the one he was replying to.
    You see... knowing what the discussion is about helps towards achieving a fluid and amicable conversation.

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Lol....

    Read the post I was replying to and the one he was replying to.
    You see... knowing what the discussion is about helps towards achieving a fluid and amicable conversation.
    Getting any converts today Dajil?
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    Did you read westboro baptists chruch remarks about the shooting? "The shooter was sent from god."



    I try to argue this point all the time. A lot of these countries are basically like america a few hundred years ago when gay and black people were lynched. Guess we need to wipe our Christianity too then.
    So, in your mind, one radical group saying God hates fags is morally equivalent to an entire society where they brutally murder gays as a matter of everyday law?

  4. #384
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Getting any converts today Dajil?
    Whatever THAT means I guess.

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Lol....

    Read the post I was replying to and the one he was replying to.
    You see... knowing what the discussion is about helps towards achieving a fluid and amicable conversation.
    Likewise buddy. If you can't handle it when someone challenges your response, you will just have to keep trying.

  6. #386
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Likewise buddy. If you can't handle it when someone challenges your response, you will just have to keep trying.
    I dont mind someone challenging my response, as long as it's kept in within the logical flow of the discussion. Your post wasn't. It was a random outburst concerning something I wasn't even thinking about and neither were the lads I replied to.
    No point in answering again on this.

  7. #387
    Well, I really think we should not involve ourselves in the middle east and let them sort it out, then decide what to do with the winner.

  8. #388
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam-OC View Post
    I'm embarrassed for you that you even posted this. Innocent people dying is never acceptable, but would there be drones attacking ISIS if there was no ISIS BLATANTLY KILLING INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN?

    Nice how you minimize the ISIS factor while you shove the collateral damage to the forefront.
    Oh, religion! You scamp you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  9. #389
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    So, in your mind, one radical group saying God hates fags is morally equivalent to an entire society where they brutally murder gays as a matter of everyday law?
    The point is, the Western society used to be like this in the past as well. We just developed faster than the Middle Eastern societies did. Give them 200-300 years, and who knows, they will be like we are today. Of course, by that point we will likely see even our present society as extremely bigoted and outdated...
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I dont mind someone challenging my response, as long as it's kept in within the logical flow of the discussion. Your post wasn't. It was a random outburst concerning something I wasn't even thinking about and neither were the lads I replied to.
    No point in answering again on this.
    No point in most your posts TBH....

    It was clearly within the bounds of what you were discussing, you are just mad I pointed out teeny tiny hipocricy, and now you are all bent. /shrug

  11. #391
    The Lightbringer Fullmetal89's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Burpelson Air Force Base
    Posts
    3,255
    It's a war you dummy. Casualties are an inevitable cause of war. No country that has ever existed has successfully waged a war without having some civilian casualties.
    "I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "
    -
    General Jack D. Ripper.


  12. #392
    People really misrepresent civilian deaths in drone strikes and military engagements as 'accidental' and 'unfortunate collateral damage'. It's really a disingenuous way of looking at it. In a lot, if not most cases, drone operators, and their supervisors are making a deliberate decision to kill everyone in a given marketplace or neighborhood in order to kill one guy who might be a terrorist. They're not accidental deaths, people are deciding to kill them.

  13. #393
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    No point in most your posts TBH....

    It was clearly within the bounds of what you were discussing, you are just mad I pointed out teeny tiny hipocricy, and now you are all bent. /shrug
    .... what? On the bounds of what we were discussing? No it wasnt at all.
    God how I enjoy you people trying hard at all costs.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    .... what? On the bounds of what we were discussing? No it wasnt at all.
    God how I enjoy you people trying hard at all costs.
    It's pretty easy to type. Click click click. No costs, the internet will be here all day.

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    Intentions are important. The guy who walked into that bar INTENDED to kill as many people as possible, while our government may fuck up, or even not care and recklessly kill innocents... Does our government bomb with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible? No. Does ISIS? Yes.

    I'm very critical of the US and our foreign policy, but people like the OP make me look like a flag-waving apologist in comparison to the "Nothing else matters because America killed people" attitude.

    Oh another difference is that ISIS holds and trades sex slaves, which the US military also doesn't do.
    Sounds like weak justification to me. Regardless, all of the people mentioned are STILL DEAD!!!!! And by the way, not caring if you kill civilians is about the same as intentionally doing it. You seem to have quite an American justification attitude. Pathetic

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Triskell View Post
    Sounds like weak justification to me. Regardless, all of the people mentioned are STILL DEAD!!!!! And by the way, not caring if you kill civilians is about the same as intentionally doing it. You seem to have quite an American justification attitude. Pathetic
    You seem to have an equivalency meter that only has one setting. What you quoted is quite rational and not particularly defensive.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    They literally celebrated the massacre, that's a lot more than saying god hates gays.

    It's not an entire society. Again, in the past Christianity was much harsher on gays as well yet no one called to wipe them out. Why is it only one radical group for christianity but it's an entire society for Muslims? Don't be a hypocrite.
    Well, when said society has laws that are bigoted, everyone gets lumped in. To recap, you are saying that the exercise of free speech that most find completely disgusting, means that we are morally equivalent, on this issue, to a society that kills people for being gay? Surely you don't really mean that....

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    You're still missing the point, obviously I'm not saying our society (presently) is equivalent to theirs but it was in the past. Through centuries of government reform we have slowly bettered our society. If someone came and wiped us out back then we wouldn't have had that opportunity. You're the one who keeps comparing westboro church to entire muslim nations, I'm comparing them to their radical groups because that's what they both are. Sure, theirs might be larger and more prevalent, but so was ours in the past. Are you comprehending yet?
    Are you? Yeah, we were worse than we we are now. Much of the Middle East is worse now than then they used to be. That's a historical fact. I never said we were innocent and I wasn't even the one that brought up Westboro. What I was pushing back on, was the notion that because we have hateful people who are allowed to speak, that we somehow can't criticize societies with systemic and legal bigotry.

  18. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    You're still missing the point, obviously I'm not saying our society (presently) is equivalent to theirs but it was in the past. Through centuries of government reform we have slowly bettered our society. If someone came and wiped us out back then we wouldn't have had that opportunity. You're the one who keeps comparing westboro church to entire muslim nations, I'm comparing them to their radical groups because that's what they both are. Sure, theirs might be larger and more prevalent, but so was ours in the past. Are you comprehending yet?
    It's also worth mentioning that Christianity in less developed parts of the world is often MUCH less benign than it is here. Spousal murder was legal up into the 90s in much of Central/South America. Full on terrorism, pogroms and other lord of the flies style mayhem is going on in the name of Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa and eastern India. It's not the religion, it's the situation.

  19. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    Pardon my language, but what are you babbling about? Dude, you are advocating mass murder of civilians. Tell me how mass murdering civilians (among which there are homosexuals too), say, in Iraq helps get rid of the ideology that wants homosexuals burned alive in a cage (whatever that ideology is; you still failed to explain what ideology you are talking about). Why are you considering all civilians there to be religious fanatics? You yourself say that there is 3%, 4%, 7% public acceptance of it, and yet you advocate killing them all. What the hell?

    Turn your brain on, man. In the US, over 70% people identify as Christian, and Christianity caused throughout the history countless deaths for silly religious reasons, just as Islam is causing in many places currently. Perhaps, you want to advocate killing all American civilians too (short of you, of course; you are saint, apparently)? Let's go all the way and just kill all humanity, so these problems disappear naturally, shall we?

    What is a "liberal apologist"? Someone who thinks that mass murder is a bad idea? Guess I should be proud to be called one then.

    Here, I cannot embed the video, but please watch this .https://twitter.com/TheBucketShop/st...01573466644480
    This is the ideology I'm talking about. There is no such thing as "radical" islam anymore. It is just Islam in general. These ideas are being preached nationwide, and globally. Moderate muslims do not exist, and if they do, they're either slaughtered by their neighbor in their own country for crimes against the prophet, or don't do a damn thing to stop it from happening in the first place. This is the ideology that want's you dead for being you. They don't care if you feel bad for their civilians, because if a drone strike didn't kill one, they would do it themselves. They firmly believe this is not "radical" and completely rational under their religion, which is completely obvious in the video above.

    War comes with collateral damage, and we are in a war. If 3% of muslims accept homosexuality, but 97% will hunt you for being gay, and a drone strike kills 10 of those 97% who are actively trying to kill others, but 1 of those 3% gets killed as well, then the greater good has prevailed, because those 10 of the 97% would of killed much more.

    Using Christianity as a comparison is also unbelievably flawed. The Crusades (by far the worst thing perpetrated by Christians in history) were in DIRECT RESPONSE to muslim aggression in the region. It was also ONE THOUSAND YEARS AGO you fucking nitwit. We live in modern times, where EVERY OTHER RELIGION does not believe in their fucking dark age beliefs anymore except Islam.

    A liberal apologist is someone who believes they have unearned moral superiority because they say the obvious statements of "killing is bad", but fail to accept the reality that if we do not kill, they will kill us first, and our killing is in direct response to that.

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam-OC View Post
    I'm embarrassed for you that you even posted this. Innocent people dying is never acceptable, but would there be drones attacking ISIS if there was no ISIS BLATANTLY KILLING INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN?

    Nice how you minimize the ISIS factor while you shove the collateral damage to the forefront.
    Or.. If the CIA didn't foster and create the Taliban and their offshoots (ISIS) there would be no drone attacks on weddings and funerals, or red cross or humanitarian aid convoys.

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

    B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

    Q : “Some agitated Moslems”? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today...

    B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is t here in common among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia , moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries...
    Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article165889.html Zbigniew Brzezinski former National Security Advisor.
    English Transcript: http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview (original from 1998 interview to Le Nouvel Observateur 1950-)

    If you want to be angry at someone be angry at your rulers.
    Waging war on the world at some point the war will come to your home.

    No one is even mentioning
    G4S has an unfathomably broad reach. The largest in its industry, it operates across six continents and in hundreds of countries. Mateen was a low-level employee at G4S, but his company has lucrative contracts with countless clients, including the Department of Homeland Security.
    Who is G4S you say?
    U.K.-based security firm G4S said Mateen “was subject to detailed company screening when he was recruited in 2007 and re-screened in 2013 with no adverse findings.”
    “He was also subject to checks by a U.S. law enforcement agency (FBI) with no findings reported to G4S,” the company said in a statement. “G4S is providing its full support to all law enforcement authorities in the USA as they conduct their investigations.”

    What about those links to the industrial-military complex, training, arming him, trusting him?
    Last edited by Roadblock; 2016-06-14 at 08:47 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •