ISIS - To Attack or Not?

[moof]

It’s only racism when you blatantly refer to their skin colour. There’s no such thing as underlying/covert racism 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, moof said:

It’s only racism when you blatantly refer to their skin colour. There’s no such thing as underlying/covert racism 

Thank God. I can start posting negative things about Muslims - saying how they are to be judged all the same (you know, prejudging them. Without prejudice) - and Trans issues. Relentlessly. With nothing positive at all. I can also defend blatant racism and use of calling people 'nigger' with no hint of any sort of issue with anybody else. 

 

Thanks moof.

 

 

[cloggypop]

1 minute ago, Hank Moody said:

Thank God. I can start posting negative things about Muslims - saying how they are to be judged all the same (you know, prejudging them. Without prejudice) - and Trans issues. Relentlessly. With nothing positive at all. 

 

 

Time to stop listening to those Sam Harris podcasts, NV. 

[A Red]

wrong thread 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

32 minutes ago, moof said:

It’s only racism when you blatantly refer to their skin colour. There’s no such thing as underlying/covert racism 

That's both logically and legally incorrect.

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That's both logically and legally incorrect.

I think you might find he is being sarcastic

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That's both logically and legally incorrect.

*cough*

 

AoT

 

*cough*

 

 

[A Red]

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That's both logically and legally incorrect.

[moof]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That's both logically and legally incorrect.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

 

[Jairzinho]

[Pureblood]

3 hours ago, Dave D said:

You and TK keep referring to skin colour- no one else does

I've referred to skin colour once in this thread.  I don't think Nelly-Torres has mentioned it at all.

 

Don't lie. 

[Pureblood]

3 hours ago, belarus said:

Also, why when tracing reason to actions back does that process always end with UK actions?

 

If you have listened to her interviews and still honestly think she should come back, I’m at a loss. We should just disband all our national security measures in that case - what’s the point detecting potential danger entering the country when we allow people who are totally open about it in?

First question - it doesn't "always end with UK actions".  It hadn't been mentioned at all until I referred to foreign policy as a contributory factor.  Expert opinion in this area refers to foreign policy, so why don't we listen to the experts...

 

Second paragraph, the point you are missing is that this is a homegrown threat.  She is a British citizen.  The 7/7 bombers, all British.  That's why we need to examine our own actions. 

[Pureblood]

3 hours ago, belarus said:

The difference is that no other religious group is currently waging a terror war on us. 

Interesting phraseology here.  You don't think it's the other way around, and we're the main aggressors in the so called war on terror?  At the very least it's a two way street, yeah?

 

This can all be traced back to 9/11 and probably long before that, but let's take 9/11 as a starting point.  There needs to be a fresh inquiry into 9/11, in my opinion.  The official version of events does not stack up and so much Western foreign policy has flowed from it that it needs looking at again. 

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Interesting phraseology here.  You don't think it's the other way around, and we're the main aggressors in the so called war on terror?  At the very least it's a two way street, yeah?

 

This can all be traced back to 9/11 and probably long before that, but let's take 9/11 as a starting point.  There needs to be a fresh inquiry into 9/11, in my opinion.  The official version of events does not stack up and so much Western foreign policy has flowed from it that it needs looking at again. 

 

Oh, so you were just trolling. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

11 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I've referred to skin colour once in this thread.  I don't think Nelly-Torres has mentioned it at all.

 

Don't lie. 

I said brown kids or something, once. There's a lot of lying on here of late. People don't want an honest discussion anymore. 

 

An innocent child slaughtered is an innocent child slaughtered. I was just having a stab at why we seem to elevate one above the other. A child getting ripped to pieces by shrapnel and ball beatings from a crudely made bomb is just as shocking as a child getting blown up by a missile fired from a fighter jet. 

[Pureblood]

Just now, SasaS said:

 

Oh, so you were just trolling. 

Eh?  Fuck off. 

[SasaS]

Just now, TK421 said:

Eh?  Fuck off. 

 

Really? The official version of 9/11?

[Dave D]

22 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I've referred to skin colour once in this thread.  I don't think Nelly-Torres has mentioned it at all.

 

Don't lie. 

You have more than once young man. And young Nelly did only but one page ago.

 

Now back to your room

[Pureblood]

Just now, SasaS said:

 

Really? The official version of 9/11?

Yes, the NIST report and all that.  I don't understand how a steel framed skyscraper can fall to the ground by fire alone with no impact from a plane (WTC 7).  I'm not saying I know what the cause was, just that it needs looking at again.  It's actually quite a popular opinion in the USA, a lot of people don't believe the official reports.  On this side of the pond you get called a troll.   

[Pureblood]

Just now, Dave D said:

You have more than once young man. And young Nelly did only but one page ago.

 

Now back to your room

Show me the quotes, then.  

[SasaS]

8 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Yes, the NIST report and all that.  I don't understand how a steel framed skyscraper can fall to the ground by fire alone with no impact from a plane (WTC 7).  I'm not saying I know what the cause was, just that it needs looking at again.  It's actually quite a popular opinion in the USA, a lot of people don't believe the official reports.  On this side of the pond you get called a troll.   

 

No, you are introducing conspiracy theories about 9/11 into a discussion about Islamic terrorism as a reaction to Western foreign policy. That's trolling.

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

No, you are introducing conspiracy theories about 9/11 into a discussion about Islamic terrorism as a reaction to Western foreign policy. That's trolling.

It's called a conversation. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

13 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Yes, the NIST report and all that.  I don't understand how a steel framed skyscraper can fall to the ground by fire alone with no impact from a plane (WTC 7).  I'm not saying I know what the cause was, just that it needs looking at again.  It's actually quite a popular opinion in the USA, a lot of people don't believe the official reports.  On this side of the pond you get called a troll.   

I think that was conclusively tackled in the Conspiracy thread, if you're interested. As an aside, lots of Americans do think there was something up with 9/11. I just read 50%. That's almost as many as believe angels walk among us, at 80%. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

No, you are introducing conspiracy theories about 9/11 into a discussion about Islamic terrorism as a reaction to Western foreign policy. That's trolling.

 

 

I don't think he's trolling at all, mate. He's just linking things that - in my view - don't need linking.