|
|
Thwarted Terror Attack in Australia
 Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-18 22:40:34
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it.
Just in case anyone else is trying to figure out Jetackuu's way of thinking, here's a summary:
Death penalty for child murderers: No! Killing is bad!
Death penalty for foreign terrorists and civilians who live where the terrorists live: Yes! Casualties in war are okay!
[+]
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-09-18 22:41:59
What this problem needs is more sunshine and rainbows!
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-09-18 22:44:08
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »What this problem needs is more sunshine and rainbows!
Heroin?
By Jetackuu 2014-09-18 22:45:52
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. Just in case anyone else is trying to figure out Jetackuu's way of thinking, here's a summary:
Death penalty for child murderers: No! Killing is bad!
Death penalty for foreign terrorists and civilians who live where the terrorists live: Yes! Casualties in war are okay! There's nothing civilized about war, and they brought it upon themselves, also it's not a death penalty when they're active combatants in a war zone, and casualties in a war zone.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-09-18 22:48:31
Just in case anyone else is trying to figure out Jetackuu's way of thinking, here's a summary:
Death penalty for child murderers: No! Killing is bad!
Death penalty for foreign terrorists and civilians who live where the terrorists live: Yes! Casualties in war are okay! There's no immediate conflict between those two views when you take into account the differences in necessity in each respective scenario.
Edit: Although I would differ with respect to civilian casualties. Not that they can't necessarily always be prevented but I wouldn't write them off as easily as I would a known terrorist.
Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-09-18 22:51:25
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »What this problem needs is more sunshine and rainbows!
Heroin? Need some Super Heroin.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-18 22:56:27
Just in case anyone else is trying to figure out Jetackuu's way of thinking, here's a summary:
Death penalty for child murderers: No! Killing is bad!
Death penalty for foreign terrorists and civilians who live where the terrorists live: Yes! Casualties in war are okay! There's no immediate conflict between those two views when you take into account the differences in necessity in each respective scenario.
Edit: Although I would differ with respect to civilian casualties. Not that they can't necessarily always be prevented but I wouldn't write them off as easily as I would a known terrorist.
Maybe, but you're a little easier to figure out than Jet. Typically I just try to picture the most PC way of thinking imaginable, and that about covers most of it.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-09-18 23:05:11
I'll take the cheap jab as an acknowledgement that you agree but still want to appear contrary. Whatever.
 Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-09-19 02:53:44
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 05:58:53
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-09-19 07:36:03
To clarify, I don't think Islam is to blame for IS. I think they're a bunch of psychotic, power-hungry, blood-thirst, weak-willed men following leaders of the same mindset who give them an excuse to be terrible people by justifying it with religion and trumped-up talk about how the "west" is evil.
I don't care for Islam in general the same way I don't care for most religions. It's not specific just to Islam.
It's just unfortunate for the regular people who happen to be Muslim that the world's current most egregious fanatics happen to share a religion with them.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-09-19 07:37:16
Quote: ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it
I would bet a not-insubstantial-amount of money that if the U.S. dealt with it in a unilateral fashion which we find satisfactory to our own safety, you would find a reason to ***.
 Leviathan.Xsoahc
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 107
By Leviathan.Xsoahc 2014-09-19 07:39:31
Nuke Australia.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-09-19 07:45:18
Great idea, genius.
Because super mutant kanagaroos is just what we need.
Think these things through!
PLUS
EQUALS
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-09-19 08:06:32
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »What this problem needs is more sunshine and rainbows!
Heroin? Need some Super Heroin. Nope.avi!
What this, and all problems, can be solved with is alcohol!!
Now, now. Their text strictly prohibits intoxicants. And they're the truly devout. Clearly they would never partake.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 08:06:35
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
Not really, they're radicals and that's the only way you deal with combatants based on an idealism, there's no other way.
I don't like it one bit, that's for sure.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 08:08:47
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 08:19:57
To clarify, I don't think Islam is to blame for IS. I think they're a bunch of psychotic, power-hungry, blood-thirst, weak-willed men following leaders of the same mindset who give them an excuse to be terrible people by justifying it with religion and trumped-up talk about how the "west" is evil.
I don't care for Islam in general the same way I don't care for most religions. It's not specific just to Islam.
It's just unfortunate for the regular people who happen to be Muslim that the world's current most egregious fanatics happen to share a religion with them. wow Ramy - thank you for making that clear. This might be the first time I've ever +1'd a post by you.
I guess I had you misunderstood.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 08:23:51
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex.
Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-09-19 08:30:41
To clarify, I don't think Islam is to blame for IS. I think they're a bunch of psychotic, power-hungry, blood-thirst, weak-willed men following leaders of the same mindset who give them an excuse to be terrible people by justifying it with religion and trumped-up talk about how the "west" is evil.
I don't care for Islam in general the same way I don't care for most religions. It's not specific just to Islam.
It's just unfortunate for the regular people who happen to be Muslim that the world's current most egregious fanatics happen to share a religion with them. wow Ramy - thank you for making that clear. This might be the first time I've ever +1'd a post by you.
I guess I had you misunderstood.
I'm vehemently against IS. As I think any reasonable person of any belief should be; it's a group comprised of -- or, at least, led by -- terrible human beings.
I dislike religions as a whole, not just Islam. And I'm quite vocal about what I perceive as the problems with them (here, at least).
I can see where the two made bleed together when reading my feelings on the topics, but rest assured. I don't hate anyone because they practice religion. In most cases it's because they were raised into a religion and know no differently, or because they found religion because it filled a void in their life.
As long as they're not mistreating others because of their religion, I'm very much about "live and let live".
But when they start using their religion to justify encroaching upon others' lives in any way...I tend to get pretty fired up about it.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 08:35:57
To clarify, I don't think Islam is to blame for IS. I think they're a bunch of psychotic, power-hungry, blood-thirst, weak-willed men following leaders of the same mindset who give them an excuse to be terrible people by justifying it with religion and trumped-up talk about how the "west" is evil.
I don't care for Islam in general the same way I don't care for most religions. It's not specific just to Islam.
It's just unfortunate for the regular people who happen to be Muslim that the world's current most egregious fanatics happen to share a religion with them. wow Ramy - thank you for making that clear. This might be the first time I've ever +1'd a post by you.
I guess I had you misunderstood.
I'm vehemently against IS.
I dislike religions as a whole, not just Islam. And I'm quite vocal about what I perceive as the problems with them (here, at least).
I can see where the two made bleed together when reading my feelings on the topics, but rest assured. I don't hate anyone because they practice religion. In most cases it's because they were raised into a religion and know no differently, or because they found religion because it filled a void in their life.
As long as they're not mistreating others because of their religion, I'm very much about "live and let live".
But when they start using their religion to justify encroaching upon others' lives in any way...I tend to get pretty fired up about it.
I'm very much about keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion. I'm very much about freedom of choice to practice w/e religion one chooses as long as their faith doesn't infringe upon others' rights.
My concern has always been that Islam is unfairly persecuted and will result in the long term of isolating Muslims. I see this manifesting by radicals on both sides, being douche bags and idiots.
I hold both equally at fault. Western idiots like Jekt and radicals who join ISIS.
I just go the extra step of analyzing the source of the problem. That isn't being an apologist (aimed at Jekt, not Ramy). It's how any challenge should be approached; by analyzing and establishing the cause, and not the simply dealing with the face value symptoms.
 Caitsith.Zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-09-19 09:08:27
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it.
Just in case anyone else is trying to figure out Jetackuu's way of thinking, here's a summary:
Death penalty for child murderers: No! Killing is bad!
Death penalty for foreign terrorists and civilians who live where the terrorists live: Yes! Casualties in war are okay!
You forgot a couple.
Guns are great for deterring people who seek assistance, and by "deterring" I mean with a killshot.
Teens are...(Well, we can't talk about objections to that here anymore.)
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4307
By Asura.Ackeronll 2014-09-19 09:15:20
Think Jetackuu needs to change his/her avatar. You can't use a robot who wants to kill all humans and be against the killing of humans.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 12:48:41
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 12:49:27
Think Jetackuu needs to change his/her avatar. You can't use a robot who wants to kill all humans and be against the killing of humans.
He says he wants to, he doesn't actually want to. There's a difference :P
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 13:04:53
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 13:09:08
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 13:38:32
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 13:47:20
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
Your analogy fails even at that.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen), and I'm anything but a hypocrite. I can certainly see how several of you would think that, but you would all be wrong.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists.
The New Zealand Herald said: Gruesome execution plot at the heart of terror raids
A plot to behead a random member of the public in Sydney has been thwarted by the biggest anti-terror police raids Australia has seen, with one man charged over the plan to "horrify" the community.
Omarjan Azari, 22, who was remanded in custody at Central Local Court, allegedly conspired with Mohammad Baryalei, the most senior Australian member of Isis (Islamic State) to commit the terror act.
Prosecutor Michael Allnutt told the court that Azari was accused of plans designed to "shock" and "horrify" the community.
The plan involved the "random selection of persons to rather gruesomely execute", he said.
Last night a heavy police presence was expected at a snap protest in Sydney's west against the raids. The protest, promoted under a banner featuring the hardline organisation Hizb Ut-Tahrir, called on the Muslim community to "stand as one" against "government aggression" at Lakemba.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was briefed before raids on Wednesday night, indicated intelligence showed public beheadings were urged by leaders of Syria-based Isis.
"The exhortations, quite direct exhortations, were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in [Isis] to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country," Abbott said. "This is not just suspicion, this is intent."
Azari, from Guildford in Sydney's west, will face court again on November 13. He was one of 15 people detained during the raids which included 25 search warrants on homes and vehicles.
More than 800 New South Wales and Australian Federal Police raided properties across the suburbs of Beecroft, Bella Vista, Guildford, Merrylands, Northmead, Wentworthville, Marsfield, Westmead, Castle Hill, Revesby, Bass Hill and Regents Park.
Three more raids occurred in Queensland yesterday morning.
Australian Federal Police acting commissioner Andrew Colvin said the raids in Underwood, Logan and Mount Gravatt East southeast of Brisbane were linked to raids in the area last week in which two men were arrested and charged with terrorism-related offences.
One of the Queensland suspects, Omar Succarieh, was seeking bail.
The Sydney plot has raised comparisons with the attack on British soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death on a London street by Muslim extremists last year.
It emerged yesterday that death threats against Christians outside a school and church in Sydney's west have struck fear into parents and churchgoers. Police say two men in a red hatchback hurled abuse as they drove by Maronite College of the Holy Family in Harris Park and Our Lady of Lebanon church on Wednesday. They threatened to "kill the Christians" and slaughter their children while brandishing an Isis flag, a priest said.
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione warned against any public backlash in the wake of the dawn raids. He said more than 220 police would participate in high-profile Operation Hammerhead, covering transport hubs and important and iconic sites.
The operation followed Australia's outgoing spy chief, ASIO director David Irvine, raising the terror alert level to "high" amid fears of an attack on home soil last Friday.
Chief of Defence Mark Binskin said the defence force was constantly reviewing security at its bases and may adjust the level of security over coming days.
Australia has estimated about 60 of its citizens are fighting for the Islamic State group and Jabhat al-Nusra in Iraq and Syria. Another 15 Australian fighters had been killed, including two young suicide bombers. The Government has said it believes about 100 Australians are actively supporting extremist groups from within Australia, recruiting fighters and grooming suicide bomber candidates as well as providing funds and equipment.
Western governments are facing an uphill battle trying to squeeze the finances of Islamic State jihadists, as the extremists operate like a "mafia" in territory under their control in Syria and Iraq, experts say.
Unlike the al-Qaeda network, which has relied almost exclusively on private donations, Isis holds a large area in Syria and Iraq that allows it to generate cash from extortion, kidnapping and smuggling of both oil and antiquities, analysts say. As a result, the group's funding presents a much more difficult target for Western sanctions compared to al-Qaeda's finances, said Evan Jendruck, an analyst at IHS Jane's consultancy.
Even conservative estimates portray Isis as the world's richest extremist organisation, raking in at least a million dollars a day.
The group is "merciless in shaking down local businesses for cash and routinely forces drivers on roads under its control to pay a tax", a US intelligence official said. "Its cash-raising activities resemble those of a mafia-like organisation."
- AAP, AP, AFP
So now the ISIS is using its international volunteers to extend its reach into western nations. Awesome.
|
|
