Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The terrorist apparently crashed in a white Lorry into a crowd on Bastile Day, Ben opened fire and was killed in a gunfight.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/livecoverage/breaking-news-now/lc-BBulngS

I haven't seem any reports other than some ISIs accounts about it. Does anyone know who claimed responsibility?

Now its 73 dead, 100 injured.

A truck also ran though a crowd.

Piece of shit terrorists.

Witnesses say he accelerated as he ran over more people.

Where does it say it was ISIS related?

It was a few good AMP tweets I saw while on Google/HEAVY article, I wouldn't put much stock in them we don't know ATM.

We know its terrorism, who cares who did it at this point.

Terrorism is the starting point.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We know its terrorism,

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/117/814/are-you-wizard.jpg

Originally posted by carthage
It was a few good AMP tweets I saw while on Google/HEAVY article, I wouldn't put much stock in them we don't know ATM.

No actual claim of ISIS but, we can put stock in the result of terrorism though as its being reported as terrorism and this was an act of terror.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/isis-islamic-state-bastille-day-july-14-nice-france-promenade-des-anglais-terrorism-amaq-news/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/truck-crashes-into-crowd-at-bastille-day-celebrations-in-nice2/

And the US will continue to say "you bad terrorists!" while simultaneously making deals with Saudi Arabia (whose Wahhabi sharia law is the ideology for ISIS and Al Qaeda) and refusing to work with Assad to get boots on the ground, because it's not like we've worked with enemies before (*cough* Stalin in WWII *cough*)

Really though, lets not pretend ISIS exists for any other purpose than for geopolitical manipulation. If the US Government Really wanted, we could send a force that would wipe them out in days. Instead we hit them with drone strokes that often miss their targets and blow up hitting civilians, and of course those orphans will go to ISIS for vengeance.

Lets stop phucking around and get some troops on the ground

Yea, you let Obama know that you've pinpointed them....To somewhere in the desert...

Originally posted by Lestov16
And the US will continue to say "you bad terrorists!" while simultaneously making deals with Saudi Arabia (whose Wahhabi sharia law is the ideology for ISIS and Al Qaeda) and refusing to work with Assad to get boots on the ground, because it's not like we've worked with enemies before (*cough* Stalin in WWII *cough*)

Really though, lets not pretend ISIS exists for any other purpose than for geopolitical manipulation. If the US Government Really wanted, we could send a force that would wipe them out in days. Instead we hit them with drone strokes that often miss their targets and blow up hitting civilians, and of course those orphans will go to ISIS for vengeance.

Lets stop phucking around and get some troops on the ground

I think Obama just put more troops on the ground, but not many. But as I posted earlier he is actually helping ISIS.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

Looks like somebody is spreading peace again.

I've never heard Wahhabism be referred to as the religion of peace. Sufi and Shiite Muslims hate Wahhabism, which is why ISIS slaughters them

Originally posted by Lestov16
I've never heard Wahhabism be referred to as the religion of peace. Sufi and Shiite Muslims hate Wahhabism, which is why ISIS slaughters them
Shi'ite Islam is now almost as badly tainted by Wahhabism as Sunni Islam. Sufis are still holding out, but for how long?

Hopefully, the French will wake up after this tragic event and start deporting lowlifes that don't integrate into the country. I wouldn't put my hopes up, maybe more sacrifices are needed to motivate citizens there to stand up to terrorism.

http://i68.tinypic.com/6szw9x.jpg

Sadly that picture is accurate.

I need to know what scheme to colour my Facebook profile with to make it look like I have any inkling what solidarity is.


So what are the Nice's flag colours? I've never even heard of this country. Is it in America?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Shi'ite Islam is now almost as badly tainted by Wahhabism as Sunni Islam. Sufis are still holding out, but for how long?

I won't disagree with you about Shiites, considering Irans theocracy is run by them, but Sufis are different than the other two sects. My dad is a Sufi, and as he explains it Sunnis and Shiites are far more dogmatic and fundamentalist than Sufis.

So even if we get rid of the Sunnis and Shiites, can we at least keep the Sufis?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Sadly that picture is accurate. Honestly, yeah...

Unfortunately, putting more troops on the ground is probably one of the best options at this point.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

So what are the Nice's flag colours? I've never even heard of this country. Is it in America?
No, Nice is a country on the continent of Franconia. Silly American.

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=814_1468533717

Not for the squeamish

Word on the street is Dalsh has claimed credit for the attack.

Careful, some idiots here think its not terrorism.

Can we ban semi-trucks now?

No point in even talking about this stuff anymore. Nothing will ever chance, its only going to get worse. This is the new world order we live in ushered in by liberal progressives like Obama.

This is just going to keep happening daily, weekly, monthly, for the rest of our life. And thats just the way it is.

Its not even ISIS fault anymore, its the fault of the world for allowing ISIS to exist. ISIS is just doing what they have been allowed to do.

French President: It cannot be denied that Nice, France attack was Terrorism.

A plus for creativity, f minus for man's humanity to man.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No point in even talking about this stuff anymore. Nothing will ever chance, its only going to get worse. This is the new world order we live in ushered in by liberal progressives like Obama.

This is just going to keep happening daily, weekly, monthly, for the rest of our life. And thats just the way it is.

Its not even ISIS fault anymore, its the fault of the world for allowing ISIS to exist. ISIS is just doing what they have been allowed to do. [/QUOT

Kinda like bad cops ben allowed to harass folks. Been allowed for such a long time.

Relevance?

Originally posted by SayWhat
A plus for creativity, f minus for man's humanity to man.

I wonder what the liberal progressive narrative will be here.

They can't blame this one being gay or struggling with it, workplace violence, racism, guns.

So what will they blame this one on?

Troop deployment will be inevitable. Turkey just got on board with Syria and Russia and U.S. needs to follow suit. That is why I feel this is the worst election ever and probably the starting point of an insurgent revolution to come.

I feel that Trump is far too unintelligent, obstinate, and inexperienced to run what will probably be the hugest international military campaign in the past few decades, but the only alternative is Hillary, who practically started ISIS herself, as their creation was the combination of the Iraq War (which she voted on), the anarchy of Libya (which she personally spearheaded), and the civil war of Syria (whose insurgents are given weapons by her, which then get into ISIS hands).

Now, I know this goes against your beliefs, but I believe Trump is a plant by Hillary to sabotage the election in her favor, because she knew that when she ran for office, all of her dirty laundry would be exposed and she needed somebody so reprehensible that even her dirt would seem tame by comparison, which is why people will vote for her in November. However Bernie Sanders pulled back the curtain, and now, even after his concession to her, a lot of liberal voters are considering voting third party. So Trump might win, but as I told you, I dislike many of his domestic policies, so I do not envy his election.

Which leads to Sanders. I think what cost him this election is the fact that he has never really had any personal dealings in military operations. Matter of fact, his constant bringing up of his opposition to Iraq may have hurt him, and even his own page says he's highly reluctant to deploy forces and wants to cut defense spending. People actually want to go to war right now and while he may have marched with MLK JR, MLK's non violence policy doesn't work well in a war, and that is what we are in.

IMO, we should have started mass troop deployment the moment Omar Mateen said he was a member of ISIS, because that means ISIS attacked us on our Homeland in the deadliest attack since 9/11. While the Iraq War was definitely a mistake, one must remember that it was essentially a result of Bush capitalizing on the fact that we already had troops in the Middle East as a result of the War on Afghanistan.

Now the War on Afghanistan ABSOLUTELY was justifiable because their Taliban attacked our homeland in a horrific terrorist attack, and we had troops in Afghanistan in about 1 month . Now ISIS has attacked us on our Homeland, it's been about 1 month, and what are we doing besides drone strikes and a few teams of observers, when we should have infantry battalions stomping them?


We need war. Not a Trumpian war on Islam, but definitely a ground WWIII on ISIS. It's time to go back to Iraq.

So a Clinton war on Islam?
Talking about Sanders is moot, its either Trump of Clinton.

Its either Trump who will bomb the shit out of ISIS, or Clinton who wants to allow them all into America.

Take your pick.

Considering she is the one who enabled this and has been linked to helping ISIS.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

Israeli
Secret
Intelligence
Service

@Lestov, what is your opinion on Jill Stein's domestic policy / foreign policy / military ideas (if you're familiar)?

wait a minute. lestov's mom is making hot pockets for him after he finishes this level of COD

Originally posted by Raisen
Israeli
Secret
Intelligence
Service

Very possible, its all linked in one order.

(Clintons/Mossad/Obama/Soros)

lMUlTSmNu0c

what do you think about that Time?

Originally posted by Raisen
wait a minute. lestov's mom is making hot pockets for him after he finishes this level of COD

Originally posted by quanchi112


my boy quan.
may Khan look well upon you

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So a Clinton war on Islam?
Talking about Sanders is moot, its either Trump of Clinton.

Its either Trump who will bomb the shit out of ISIS, or Clinton who wants to allow them all into America.

Take your pick.

Considering she is the one who enabled this and has been linked to helping ISIS.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

Bomb the shit out of them? As in drone strikes, as the same thing Hillary will do? We need mass deployment of troops.

As far as letting them in, as I stated they are non-Wahhabi Muslims fleeing what is essentially a genocide by ISIS. IMO, there should be better security checks to determine one's Islamic sect, which would MASSIVELY help determine who is a terrorist, as all ISIS members are Wahhabis, meaning they are Sunni. So if we can determine which refugees are Sunni, that would essentially allow us to weed out the potential ISIS members. All we need are loyal Muslim Americans from our federal agencies and intelligence communities who can interpret the sect difference and teach said methods to federal agents.

Trump is not going to fair well internationally because a Muslim ban would essentially be an insult to 1.3 billion people across the globe. We'd get zero help from the Middle East. You think the Turkish, Kurds, Iraqi Shiites, Saudis, or Syrians will help us knowing they aren't allowed in our country and that we let their people die via ISIS genocide by sending them back? If anything will cause ISIS membership to rise larger and faster? We'll be completely alone in unfamiliar territory facing people who live in it and know it like the back of their hand.

But that's assuming he deploys troops. I specifically remember him on Morning Joe ducking Joe's repeated question of if Trump would be willing to deploy troops. As you said, he plans to bomb them more, which essentially means he's just going to continue to do what Obama does, dropping missiles on them, which as we see does nothing more than kill innocents and incite more hatred towards us.

So Trump isn't a good foreign policy option either.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
@Lestov, what is your opinion on Jill Stein's domestic policy / foreign policy / military ideas (if you're familiar)?

IDK, but IIRC, aren't the Green Party doves when it comes to war?

hey les. how was the hot pocket? was it the pizza kind?

Very telling you're joking about hot pockets in a thread about a terrorist attack that just occurred a few hours ago.

so was it the pizza kind bro?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Bomb the shit out of them? As in drone strikes, as the same thing Hillary will do? We need mass deployment of troops.

As far as letting them in, as I stated they are non-Wahhabi Muslims fleeing what is essentially a genocide by ISIS. IMO, there should be better security checks to determine one's Islamic sect, which would MASSIVELY help determine who is a terrorist, as all ISIS members are Wahhabis, meaning they are Sunni. So if we can determine which refugees are Sunni, that would essentially allow us to weed out the potential ISIS members. All we need are loyal Muslim Americans from our federal agencies and intelligence communities who can interpret the sect difference and teach said methods to federal agents.

Trump is not going to fair well internationally because a Muslim ban would essentially be an insult to 1.3 billion people across the globe. We'd get zero help from the Middle East. You think the Turkish, Kurds, Iraqi Shiites, Saudis, or Syrians will help us knowing they aren't allowed in our country and that we let their people die via ISIS genocide by sending them back? If anything will cause ISIS membership to rise larger and faster? We'll be completely alone in unfamiliar territory facing people who live in it and know it like the back of their hand.

But that's assuming he deploys troops. I specifically remember him on Morning Joe ducking Joe's repeated question of if Trump would be willing to deploy troops. As you said, he plans to bomb them more, which essentially means he's just going to continue to do what Obama does, dropping missiles on them, which as we see does nothing more than kill innocents and incite more hatred towards us.

So Trump isn't a good foreign policy option either.

Dude break your programming. Trump has scared the status quo.

People are scared of him, and they should be.

If you think Trump is doing Clintons bidding it's hilarious.

Since when would he ever let a woman like her, push him the fck around?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Dude break your programming. Trump has scared the status quo.

People are scared of him, and they should be.

If you think Trump is doing Clintons bidding it's hilarious.

Since when would he ever let a woman like her, push him the fck around?

Dude, it's not about women vs men. It's about 1.3 billion people, including several whose help we will need to defeat ISIS, such as the Kurds, Turkish, and Syrians, who will immediately withdraw any support of us if we
A) ban any foreign Muslims from entering, meaning anybody of those nationalities, where Islam is the majority religion
B) send Sufi and Shiite refugees to get slaughtered by ISIS in a mass genocide, meaning not only did we ban Muslims from entering, but we effectively led them to slaughter

ISIS numbers would skyrocket with Muslims angry at the U.S. We would have outright insurgency wars going on right in our backyard from domestic terrorists sympathetic to the plight of the refugees we allowed to slaughter. NOI types will start advocating black Muslims for war. You'll be seeing Micah X. Johnsons everywhere. It would be the powder keg explosion for the race war we all fear. True war in the streets as a result of that Muslim ban.


Again, it's not about man vs woman. It's analyzing the geopolitical situation if a Muslim ban occurred. I don't view this situation with any kind of gender bias. Remember, I supported Sanders over her. It's just Trumps Muslim ban will exacerbate the ISIS situation far beyond anything we can imagine. That's not anything I read from any Hillary article. I read none of her propaganda.

Do you realize you are talking more about Isis and less about uniting America?

Hilary helped created ISIS. We read the same documents.

And Trump will cause ISIS to grow to uncontrollable levels as I explained.

I also explained how the Muslim ban will do the opposite of unite America.

And yes, I know Hillary created ISIS. I explained how three posts before this one.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So even if we get rid of the Sunnis and Shiites, can we at least keep the Sufis?
Depends. What are their views on women, LGBT people, apostates, etc.?

Look what you need to understand us that the media is scaring you. The refugee process here in America is FAR more stringent than those in Europe when it comes to Syrian refugees.
Here is just one article that explains how (with documented sources, so it's not biased):https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/syrian-refugees-in-america-fact-from-fiction-congress

We've had two Muslim terrorist attacks here, but both were homegrown. There's a reason no Syrian refugees have pulled off a terrorist attack here in the past 3 years ISIS took over.

As stated, they are REFUGEES, fleeing from a genocide for not being Sunnis. We haven't been suffered a terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee yet so any fear of Syrian refugees is unjustified.

As stated, they're not even Sunnis, less lone likely to be indoctrinated into Wahhabism. The only thing that would cause them to attack us is, say, if we issued a ban that sent their loved ones home to be slaughtered by ISIS for not being Sunnis, the entire reason they fled in the first place.

And like I said, we aren't Europe. Our Syrian refugee vetting system is WAY better. If a Syrian refugee attacks us, we'll have legit reason to fear. Like I said, so far 3 years and we haven't let one slip in yet. So let's not blame them for the acts of the people trying to kill them.

the fact that we are so scared of ISIS that we're even afraid of the people they're trying to slaughter, to the point of sending them back to said slaughter via ban even though they haven't attacked, only shows that they are succeeding in their goal: Terrorism.

They have terrorised us to the point that we will sacrifice the innocent out of paranoid ignorance. That is why Trump can't win. His Muslim ban isn't America's best hope. It's ISIS's ultimate victory.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Depends. What are their views on women, LGBT people, apostates, etc.?

Essentially they're like Christians. They have a personal dislike for it, but don't think it's the government's job to enforce it. That's the thing about Sufism. Sunnis and Shiites teach sharia law, that religion must be enforced and indoctrinated into people. Sufism believe Islam is a choice that one must make of their own free will and any forced Islam is false Islam.

Just so you know, I'm a Gathic Zoroastrian. My dad is a Sufi Muslim and my mom is a Catholic Christian.

Originally posted by Lestov16
And Trump will cause ISIS to grow to uncontrollable levels as I explained.

I also explained how the Muslim ban will do the opposite of unite America.

And yes, I know Hillary created ISIS. I explained how three posts before this one.

Ok so we on the same page she created them, Trump will destroy them regardless if you don't think he will.

How? I've explained in detail how he doesn't have a plan for regional warfare and how his Muslim ban will help ISIS and make the war against them more difficult.

He says we need to bomb the shit out of them. We already bomb the shit out of them.

You tried to explain What you think about Mr. Trump.

You can't explain him.

He is dominating everything.

Trump will destroy ISIS by taking their oil and robbing them of their money.

Isis is a mercenary army.

Hey, did you guys here that dozens of people were violently murdered in France?



But the real question is how we can make this about our political leanings.

Who are you, the PC brigade?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Essentially they're like Christians. They have a personal dislike for it, but don't think it's the government's job to enforce it. That's the thing about Sufism. Sunnis and Shiites teach sharia law, that religion must be enforced and indoctrinated into people. Sufism believe Islam is a choice that one must make of their own free will and any forced Islam is false Islam.
So, as I understand it, Sufis reject Sharia law?

I bet France is real happy they have a large Islamic minority.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Just so you know, I'm a Gathic Zoroastrian. My dad is a Sufi Muslim and my mom is a Catholic Christian.

I don't believe you. If that was the case, you wouldn't be so ignorant about religion in general, claiming it's used as an excuse for hate. Anything's used as an excuse for hate.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Where does it say it was ISIS related?

It couldn't of been ISIS, they are just like a JV team. How could they ever commit acts of terror? They are too busy making one of the prettiest sounds on Earth: their call to prayer.

I hear the democrats are going to stage a sit in to ban trucks. Was this a truck free zone this happened in? That matters.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So, as I understand it, Sufis reject Sharia law?

SUFISM EMANATES FROM THE SHARIA

I find that the word Sharia seems to scare non-Muslims for they associate it with medieval laws. ... Little wonder that most people simply do not relate the rigidity of Sharia with Sufism, which is perceived as a compassionate ideology.
Suffis strictly follow the Sharia, Islamic laws based on the Quaran, Hadith and Imla, consensus of the Muslim community.

...

The Sufi philosophy is classified into three stages: Sharia, the outward law, Tareeqa, the Way and Haqeeqa, the Truth. Prophet Muhhamed said, 'The Sharia law is my word, Tareeqa my actions and Haqeeqa my inner state'.

^
Taken from Sufism: Heart of Islam by Sadia Dehlvi.


In short, Sufis embrace the Sharia.

Ehh. Christians twist the Bible to accept homosexuality when they should be stoning gays according to Leviticus. Obviously Muslims do the same. That's the thing about religion. It's all in the subjective interpretation.

Do you believe that all 1.3 billion Muslims of the world are fundamentalists?

Surely I'm mistaken though because it sounds like this guy had plans to kill a lot more people and it was a gun that stopped him. Surely this is false and he was defeated via hand to hand combat.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Ehh. Christians twist the Bible to accept homosexuality when they should be stoning gays according to Leviticus. Obviously Muslims do the same. That's the thing about religion. It's all in the subjective interpretation.
Leviticus was already discussed in other thread. In short, it does not hold binding for Christians. I am too lazy to find the thread.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Do you believe that all 1.3 billion Muslims of the world are fundamentalists?
Obviously not. But a very large part is, according to research studies such as Pew or CNN.

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely I'm mistaken though because it sounds like this guy had plans to kill a lot more people and it was a gun that stopped him. Surely this is false and he was defeated via hand to hand combat. Gun stopped a terrorist? Nah. That's bollocks.

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely I'm mistaken though because it sounds like this guy had plans to kill a lot more people and it was a gun that stopped him. Surely this is false and he was defeated via hand to hand combat.


Who are these loony liberals you are talking to who say this wasn't terrorism and that the terrorist shouldn't have been shot?

Originally posted by Stigma
Leviticus was already discussed in other thread. In short, it does not hold binding for Christians. I am too lazy to find the thread.


Obviously not. But a very large part is, according to research studies such as Pew or CNN.

"does not hold binding"= subjective interpretation

Originally posted by Lestov16
Who are these loony liberals you are talking to who say this wasn't terrorism and that the terrorist shouldn't have been shot?

The same ones that come out of the woodwork whenever there is a shooting.

A gun saved lives. While this evil truck took them. Ban trucks, did nobody here see Maximum Overdrive?

Get the democrats some pillows for their sit in.

So you're using this attack in France to vent your rage at the entirely separate subject of US gun control?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you're using this attack to vent your rage at gun control?

Wait didn't you use Orlando to vent rage about Christians?

But I'm not actually enraged, I'm just pointing out typical liberal responses to this. They need to ban some shit dude, and dag nabbit they gonna ban it.

But on a serious note yeah, a horrible loss of life and only further loss was prevented by a well timed gun shot. Thank you to whoever fired that shot.

That's the republican response too. They need to ban Muslims, and dag nabbit they gonna ban it.

Muslims who cant be vetted, but hey details details.

Also Republicans don't stage "Let's ban Muslim" sit ins last I checked.

just like guns can't be vetted (terrorists are killing us with legally purchased firearms), but hey details details

Yeah, they stage "Lets Ban Muslims" presidential rallies last I checked.

Originally posted by Lestov16
"does not hold binding"= subjective interpretation reading a quote without context=literal interpretation. That almost never holds true for anything other than the 10 commandments and even those have books of explanations. For someone who claims to have a Muslim father and christian mother, you know next to nothing about either religions.

You misunderstand, some want to ban literally all guns.


Now as for the other thing, if I type in "Let's Ban Muslims presidential rally" into google I will find these so called rallies, right? No I do not mean a rally where it is merely mentioned, but rallies specifically just dedicated to banning Muslims.

They don't exist

That can't be the case Lestov just said they exist. He wouldn't lie to us just to make a point.

Granted I am searching for ban muslim rallies and can't find any but I just think google is racist.

Originally posted by Surtur
You misunderstand, some want to ban literally all guns.


Now as for the other thing, if I type in "Let's Ban Muslims presidential rally" into google I will find these so called rallies, right? No I do not mean a rally where it is merely mentioned, but rallies specifically just dedicated to banning Muslims.

So some means all to you? So if I said all white people are racists, you're going to say it's true because some are?

Well I just typed in "Lets Ban Guns Sit In" into Google and nothing substantial came up.

I never said some means all. I was pointing out some want all guns banned, that is a thing. While people like Trump spoke of temporarily stopping Muslims who can't be vetted from coming in here.

In other words I'm talking about the level of extremism and you still didn't tell me where these "Ban Muslim" rallies are held.

Weird, some cops shot black people but you say the entire cop culture needs to change. Your double standards are impressive.

You make it sound as though all liberals are extremists

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said some means all. I was pointing out some want all guns banned, that is a thing. While people like Trump spoke of temporarily stopping Muslims who can't be vetted from coming in here.

In other words I'm talking about the level of extremism and you still didn't tell me where these "Ban Muslim" rallies are held.

Well considering we've went 3 years and America's Syrian refuge vetting process hasn't failed us yet, why have such rallies?

It's funny that republicans find Syrian refugees more dangerous than guns even though we haven't been attacked by terrorists who posed as Syrian refugees but we have been attacked by terrorists who use legally purchased firearms.

He lest, how many idiots here did we have denying it was terrorism?

You mean MS? Dude is just a contrarian troll attention whore. He has nothing to substantial to add to the discussion. That's why I put him on ignore.

Originally posted by Lestov16
You mean MS? Dude is just a contrarian troll attention whore. He has nothing to substantial to add to the discussion. That's why I put him on ignore.



Originally posted by Lestov16


Lets stop phucking around and get some troops on the ground

How about we hire mercenaries to fight mercenaries instead of sending US troops in?

Provided we monitor those mercenaries to make sure they're not committing any war crimes, then absolutely.

But any kind of ground campaign will be impossible if Trump attempts his Muslim ban, which will lose us all support in the region.

He said he is not longer going to do the Muslim ban.

Originally posted by Lestov16
You mean MS? Dude is just a contrarian troll attention whore. He has nothing to substantial to add to the discussion. That's why I put him on ignore. You've been embarrassing yourself on here for weeks with your psychotic world views. The only reason i or anyone else is responding to you now is out of pure amusement at your ignorance.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He said he is not longer going to do the Muslim ban.

Hmm...

Also, I was going to say I changed my mind on the mercenaries. I think we should officially go over there. When Al Qaeda attacked our homeland it was personal. When Japan attacked our homeland it was personal. Now ISIS has attacked our homeland. Sending mercenaries downplays the offense they have committed against us. We had troops on the streets of Afghanistan in a month after 9/11. It's been a month since the Pulse Orlando Massacre and where are our troops? They need to be on the streets of Raqqa.

They personally came here (yeah Mateen was homegrown but both he and ISIS say that he was ISIS, so technically he is one of theirs) and attacked us on our soil, so it's time for us to do the same to them.

Having been over there a few times, and seeing all my friends die and get their legs blown off, I cannot condone sending more.

We might try to ban trucks now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Having been over there a few times, and seeing all my friends die and get their legs blown off, I cannot condone sending more.

Well in that case, I would go with mercenaries, but they would have to be elite, equipped and honorable, and subjected to a thorough background check available to the American public, as they will be representing us in the field on the international stage.

Hiring mercenaries is a risky proposition due to the tendency of mercenaries to commit war crimes and human rights violations. We will have to take every safeguard to make sure they do not.

FFL

They aren't mercenaries though.

I dont want to see more Americans mauled in the middle east either. How about we just don't let any refugees in. How about we use our tax money to help the homeless and spend more on prison rehabilitation and help children with cancer.

Gee. Ultimately our government is here to protect us. That's the original intent right? So how about we just remotely bomb the shit out of these guys and spend American money on america.
We can sit back and tell France and Germany I told you so and warch their people slowly become pissed off and envy us.
sounds like a plan

How will banning the refugees help? Syrian refugees have posed no threat to us in America. Unlike Europe, our vetting system is beastly.

Doesn't matter anyways. Trump called off his Muslim ban.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well considering we've went 3 years and America's Syrian refuge vetting process hasn't failed us yet, why have such rallies?

It's funny that republicans find Syrian refugees more dangerous than guns even though we haven't been attacked by terrorists who posed as Syrian refugees but we have been attacked by terrorists who use legally purchased firearms.

You said they have Ban Muslim presidential rallies. Was that a lie or did you just assume it was a thing people did only to find out you were wrong?

Originally posted by Lestov16
How will banning the refugees help? Syrian refugees have posed no threat to us in America. Unlike Europe, our vetting system is beastly.

Doesn't matter anyways. Trump called off his Muslim ban.

Because dude. It's American tax money going to non Americans
that money could be used on a sick American child. What is so hard to grasp. It's not just refugees either lest. We pour tons of money into Africa when we have tons of homeless American here. We need to fix our own problems and help our own people first right? Or would you rather have a refugee here oved saving a homeless child from the street. Sick

Well no it's not, not anymore. Trump came to his senses and called off his Muslim ban.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well no it's not, not anymore. Trump came to his senses and called off his Muslim ban.

Lol nope. Trump did say ban Muslims, but he never held a rally where it was specifically just to talk about banning Muslims, which is what you said republicans did. You understand the difference between mentioning an issue at a rally and having a rally specifically dedicated to just one issue, right?

Originally posted by Raisen
Because dude. It's American tax money going to non Americans
that money could be used on a sick American child. What is so hard to grasp. It's not just refugees either lest. We pour tons of money into Africa when we have tons of homeless American here. We need to fix our own problems and help our own people first right? Or would you rather have a refugee here oved saving a homeless child from the street. Sick

WTF do you mean? Isn't the whole republican ideology about shutting down federal aid programs so that homeless Americans can't use tax money to be welfare moochers and thus must find jobs? You say we can use the tax money to aid the sick and homeless, but republicans don't want universal healthcare to aid the sick or welfare programs to aid the homeless. Where's that tax money really going to go?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol nope. Trump did say ban Muslims, but he never held a rally where it was specifically just to talk about banning Muslims, which is what you said republicans did. You understand the difference between mentioning an issue at a rally and having a rally specifically dedicated to just one issue, right?

Yes, He actually did call of his blanket Muslim ban.

why the phuck are you mentioning political shit. republicans are generally garbage just like democrats.
i'm talking about American money dude. i'm a phucking registered libertarian.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes, He actually did call of his blanket Muslim ban.

AFAIK he got more specific and said it was just for Muslims who couldn't be vetted. But either way he never held a "Let's Ban Muslims" rally.

He actually did call for a complete Muslim ban to all non Americans coming here.

No I know that, and then later on he changed it to the "no non-vetted muslims". What is being said is he did not organize a specific event just to talk about Muslim banning. Which is what Lestov said republicans did. He certainly mentioned it at events, but he mentioned other things too.

Originally posted by Raisen
why the phuck are you mentioning political shit. republicans are generally garbage just like democrats.
i'm talking about American money dude. i'm a phucking registered libertarian.

My apologies. What I'm saying is that even if we banned refugees, republicans in congress would make sure that the leftover tax money wouldn't go to anything helpful.

Originally posted by Surtur
No I know that, and then later on he changed it to the "no non-vetted muslims". What is being said is he did not organize a specific event just to talk about Muslim banning. Which is what Lestov said republicans did. He certainly mentioned it at events, but he mentioned other things too.

At least his predictions are right, we got some idiots here who said this wasn't terrorism though.

He said last to declare war which we do along with our oldest allies the French, and Hilary said we don't.

Typical.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
At least his predictions are right, we got some idiots here who said this wasn't terrorism though.

He said last to declare war which we do along with our oldest allies the French, and Hilary said we don't.

Typical.

His predictions are both right and wrong. He was right about Europe's refugee crisis, but wrong about ours.

How so, they are coming here via refugees.

Obamas own administration said so.

Like I said, our refugee vetting system is WAY better. We don't need to worry about monitoring the refugees we have here because we already are. There's no reason to be afraid of them like Trump is.

But You can't vet these people. Isis occups all of Syrian's government offices, they can print passports now.

We bring these people here we will have generations of terrorism.

Look at what immigration has done to France.

Yeah we can. We've been doing so smoothly for the past 3 years. Again, we are not France or any other European country. We are the U.S.

Like I said, we've been vetting them for 3 years and a terrorist hasn't slipped through yet.

Wait till it starts, who will you blame then? This is coming here, and Clinton will allow it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
My apologies. What I'm saying is that even if we banned refugees, republicans in congress would make sure that the leftover tax money wouldn't go to anything helpful.

Probably. But would you rather see our money spent on things that I mentioned rather than taking in refugees. Does it make sense to you that perhaps we could have close to a utopia if we didn't spend money abroad. Expanding upon that, does it appear that our politicians are not serving our best interests by sustaining foreigners and giving foreign aid

I will blame the government for not doing a thorough background check. BUT that's IF it starts.

Instead of focusing on the refugees fleeing ISIS, why not examine these homegrown terrorists that ISIS seems to keep indoctrinating? They're the ones who have attacked us TWICE while the refugees have attacked us NEVER.

Originally posted by Raisen
Probably. But would you rather see our money spent on things that I mentioned rather than taking in refugees. Does it make sense to you that perhaps we could have close to a utopia if we didn't spend money abroad. Expanding upon that, does it appear that our politicians are not serving our best interests by sustaining foreigners and giving foreign aid

Well that's the thing. IMO a true utopia would be worldwide, and we wouldn't be bound by social constructs like nation states

The thing is we have to take care of our own first. I know that sounds harsh, but we have things here that need funding.

It has always sounded strange to me that a country that isn't bereft of homeless people would send millions of dollars to aid other people that are homeless,etc. in other countries. I'm not even talking about any specific place, just anywhere.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/neighbours-of-nice-truck-suspect-describe-a-loner/ar-BBumSgi?li=BBnb7Kz?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Terrorist was a Franco-Tusnian, not a Syrian refugee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

He did drugs and alcohol, ate pork, and beat his wife. This is a perfect of example of how Islam itself isn't inherently violent, but used as an excuse ideology used by inherently violent people.

Yet you said religion is an excuse to hate when any ideology applies.

Originally posted by Surtur
The thing is we have to take care of our own first. I know that sounds harsh, but we have things here that need funding.

It has always sounded strange to me that a country that isn't bereft of homeless people would send millions of dollars to aid other people that are homeless,etc. in other countries. I'm not even talking about any specific place, just anywhere.

Exactly why I'm a libertarian

No religion is inherently violent or peaceful. It is all based on the subjective interpretation. Hell, there are actually Buddhist terrorists out there. Any religion can be twisted to bring hate or cultivated to bring love.

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/neighbours-of-nice-truck-suspect-describe-a-loner/ar-BBumSgi?li=BBnb7Kz?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Terrorist was a Franco-Tusnian, not a Syrian refugee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

He did drugs and alcohol, ate pork, and beat his wife. This is a perfect of example of how Islam itself isn't inherently violent, but used as an excuse ideology used by inherently violent people.

Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right? If you are going to say Islam isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people tend to gravitate toward it more than any other religion as an excuse to act out..well, that doesn't actually make the religion itself look good.

Originally posted by Surtur
The thing is we have to take care of our own first. I know that sounds harsh, but we have things here that need funding.

It has always sounded strange to me that a country that isn't bereft of homeless people would send millions of dollars to aid other people that are homeless,etc. in other countries. I'm not even talking about any specific place, just anywhere.

Again, the stuff that needs funding will be shot down by congressional republicans. They don't want our tax money going to progressive agendas like health or homelessness. The homeless need to make their own way, says GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

I agree that it is odd that we have such a huge homeless problem, but that's what happens when the GOP shut down any potential welfare programs because they're "socialist".

Originally posted by Lestov16
Again, the stuff that needs funding will be shot down by congressional republicans. They don't want our tax money going to progressive agendas like health or homelessness. The homeless need to make their own way, says GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

I agree that it is odd that we have such a huge homeless problem, but that's what happens when the GOP shut down any potential welfare programs because they're "socialist".

I never said the republicans were on the side of the angels. I have things both parties do that I disagree with.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right? If you are going to say Islam isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people tend to gravitate toward it more than any other religion as an excuse to act out..well, that doesn't actually make the religion itself look good.

Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right. If you're going to say the Confederate flag isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people such as Dylan Roof tend to gravitate toward it as an excuse to act out...Well, that doesn't actually make the flag itself look good.

See how that argument doesn't work. You're committing a logical fallacy by generalizing the entirety of Islam as savage fundamentalists. You must be very smart to know the collective behavior of 1.3 billion people across 200 countries if you're going say they're all dangerous, because if the religion is inherently dangerous, that means all 1.3 billion Muslims are dangerous for practicing it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
No religion is inherently violent or peaceful. It is all based on the subjective interpretation. Hell, there are actually Buddhist terrorists out there. Any religion can be twisted to bring hate or cultivated to bring love.
Someone watches too much Reza Aslan

Originally posted by Lestov16
Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right. If you're going to say the Confederate flag isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people such as Dylan Roof tend to gravitate toward it as an excuse to act out...Well, that doesn't actually make the flag itself look good.

See how that argument doesn't work. You're committing a logical fallacy by generalizing the entirety of Islam as savage fundamentalists. You must be very smart to know the collective behavior of 1.3 billion people across 200 countries if you're going say they're all dangerous, because if the religion is inherently dangerous, that means all 1.3 billion Muslims are dangerous for practicing it.

I wasn't saying all Muslims are dangerous. What my point was either way you look at it if someone is saying Islam is inherently violent or someone saying it is not inherently violent it just attracts violent people...that is a no win situation. You aren't listing any options that portray it in a positive light.

Originally posted by Kurk
Someone watches too much Reza Aslan

I don't watch television period, so no.

Originally posted by Surtur
I wasn't saying all Muslims are dangerous. What my point was either way you look at it if someone is saying Islam is inherently violent or someone saying it is not inherently violent it just attracts violent people...that is a no win situation. You aren't listing any options that portray it in a positive light.

Look, you have to realize I'm only trying to argue from the perspective of an Abrahamic religious practitioner. Personally I hate Islam and all Abrahamic religion.

If it were up to me, all world religions from African tribes on up would be replaced with Zoroastrianism. But sadly Abrahamic religions are what the world practices, so I'm just trying to figure out how they can co-exist with the least amount of violence.

Don't blame me. Abraham's the little punk bytch who decided sacrificing his son to an invisible man (setting the precedent that inflicting suffering is okay if one believes God ordered it) was righteous, thus giving Christians, Jews, and especially Muslims the excuse to be intolerant to anybody who defies their dogma.

(... If they choose to be intolerant. Like I said, the Abrahamic religions can be used to spread good, but it all depends on the subjective belief of the practitioner)

Look, I would LOVE it if every Muslim was a violent terrorist. It would make it so much easier to just go over and mow them down. Unfortunately for my subjectivity, I grew up with a tolerant Muslim father who was not only tolerant enough to marry a Catholic woman, but also tolerant enough to be accepting of homosexuality. My brother is gay, and both him and his boyfriend were at my Muslim dad's 4th of July cookout a couple of weeks ago. My Muslim dad is the one who told me we should have invaded Iraq to crush ISIS.

So you can't tell me all Muslims are violent and it is an inherently violent and intolerant religion, because I've personally seen with my own two eyes that it isn't. Unfortunately it is not as simple as Islam=evil. I would love it if it were, but I know and have seen for a fact that it isn't.

Islam isn't evil, but a lot of evil done in the world today is done in the name of Islam. Is that a fair thing to say?

ex-Muslim here who believes all religions are flawed in some way or another and honestly have no purpose in the 21st century other than give insecure people an excuse to be moral. How many people are there alive who worship the Aztec or Mesopotamian Sun gods? Not many; why? Because it's unreasonable to rip out a persons heart to save them. More and more with Christianity, Islam, etc. people are picking and choosing which parts of their traditional teachings to ignore based on what they think is reasonable. So in the end, it is subjective to other environmental conditions not just what is written in a thousand year old book. By definition all interpretations are valid, however some are more reasonable than others. The cultural and environmental factors determine what is reasonable. Stoning women to death might be unthinkable in a developed western country while it is completely acceptable in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Female genital mutilation is widespread through parts of Africa; both Christian and Muslim countries alike. There are many other factors to account for.

SO will France now be trying to enforce Truck Control Laws?

The lengths some people will go to to catch a pokemon are horrifying.

Originally posted by Kurk
ex-Muslim here who believes all religions are flawed in some way or another and honestly have no purpose in the 21st century other than give insecure people an excuse to be moral. How many people are there alive who worship the Aztec or Mesopotamian Sun gods? Not many; why? Because it's unreasonable to rip out a persons heart to save them. More and more with Christianity, Islam, etc. people are picking and choosing which parts of their traditional teachings to ignore based on what they think is reasonable. So in the end, it is subjective to other environmental conditions not just what is written in a thousand year old book. By definition all interpretations are valid, however some are more reasonable than others. The cultural and environmental factors determine what is reasonable. Stoning women to death might be unthinkable in a developed western country while it is completely acceptable in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Female genital mutilation is widespread through parts of Africa; both Christian and Muslim countries alike. There are many other factors to account for.
These are some very good points and I share (to a degree) your postion.

In the light of your post, the argument I've heard a numer of times and I think is very reasonable and is that while Christianity had its Reformation a few centuries ago that purified it of the most radical aspects (kinda like catharsis after 16th and 17th century religious wars in Europe, Lutheranism, etc.), Islam remains in a dire need of reformation nowadays.

Originally posted by Stigma
These are some very good points and I share (to a degree) your postion.

In the light of your post, the argument I've heard a numer of times and I think is very reasonable and is that while Christianity had its Reformation a few centuries ago that purrified it of the most radical aspects (kinda like catharsis after 16th and 17th century religious wars in Europe, Lutheranism, etc.), Islam remains in a dire need of reformation nowadays.
I agree with that as well

Originally posted by Surtur
Islam isn't evil, but a lot of evil done in the world today is done in the name of Islam. Is that a fair thing to say?

All evil is done in the name of something. Rather than attacking the name, let's just single out the evil and attack that. Hell, the Refugee Ban essentially means those refugees get slaughtered by ISIS, so that's evil done in the name of national security. Like I said, let's just attack the evil directly.

Originally posted by Kurk
ex-Muslim here who believes all religions are flawed in some way or another and honestly have no purpose in the 21st century other than give insecure people an excuse to be moral. How many people are there alive who worship the Aztec or Mesopotamian Sun gods? Not many; why? Because it's unreasonable to rip out a persons heart to save them. More and more with Christianity, Islam, etc. people are picking and choosing which parts of their traditional teachings to ignore based on what they think is reasonable. So in the end, it is subjective to other environmental conditions not just what is written in a thousand year old book. By definition all interpretations are valid, however some are more reasonable than others. The cultural and environmental factors determine what is reasonable. Stoning women to death might be unthinkable in a developed western country while it is completely acceptable in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Female genital mutilation is widespread through parts of Africa; both Christian and Muslim countries alike. There are many other factors to account for.

Not all religions. Gathic Zoroastrianism is essentially the perfect monotheistic religion (and the oldest). It is very heavily focused on human rights and doesn't advocate any kind of intolerance or ignorance. Shame it got replaced by Islam.

Originally posted by Lestov16
All evil is done in the name of something. Rather than attacking the name, let's just single out the evil and attack that. Hell, the Refugee Ban essentially means those refugees get slaughtered by ISIS, so that's evil done in the name of national security. Like I said, let's just attack the evil directly.
TBH the problem is that the situation is far too complicated now and the solution seems to be more of a lose-lose rather than win-win scenario.

For example, I've seen articles claiming that up to 80 per cent of migrants are not even refugees, because they come from countries that have no war, or even ISIS.

Sure, they may come from some (PC MODE OFF) sh1tholes but that does not mean Europe is obligated to host them.

On the other hand, ISIS claims, and even some European officials confirm, (all in the European Migration thread) that ISIS puts terrorists within the masses that come to Europe.

On the other, other hand, some genuine refugees are in danger of getting killed when they go back or even getting recruited and brainwashed by ISIS.

Like I said, it's a tough call.

It's like Western countries are a guy that has to decide if he get his hand chopped off or his two legs cut off. Both options suck, but we all know what we'd choose if we were in such a position.

Originally posted by Stigma
TBH the problem is that the situation is far too complicated now and the solution seems to be more of a lose-lose rather than win-win scenario.

For example, I've seen articles claiming that up to 80 per cent of migrants are not even refugees, because they come from countries that have no war, or even ISIS.



Well that really sucks then, because Trump said he was only banning migrants from terrorist states, so those 80% are going to get let in.

However, as I've stated before, the U.S. refugee vetting process is leagues above any in Europe, so we don't have to worry like they do.

And they can't be recruited by ISIS. The entire reason they left is because they are Shiites, which to ISIS is like Tutsis to a Hutu.

Judaism is older than zoroastrianism..

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well that really sucks then, because Trump said he was only banning migrants from terrorist states, so those 80% are going to get let in.
These are essentially people who want money and governmental support for doing nothing. However, the US has poor social programs compared to Germany or other EU countries, so no fear, they're not coming. At least, not in huge numbers.

Originally posted by Lestov16

However, as I've stated before, the U.S. refugee vetting process is leagues above any in Europe, so we don't have to worry like they do.
Perhaps.

Funny thing. When I was applying for the US visa one of the questions was "are you a terrorist?" That is some tight security control.

Originally posted by Lestov16
And they can't be recruited by ISIS. The entire reason they left is because they are Shiites, which to ISIS is like Tutsis to a Hutu.
Not sure if all of them. Probably not.

Well I can only speak about the refugees as far as they pertain to the U.S.. I have no idea how to solve the clusterphuck that is the Euporean Refugee Crisis.

Like I said, the U.S. has a vetting system that is far better than Europe's, so we don't have attacks from terrorists posed as refugees like European countries do. That's why we in the US shouldn't be trying to ban them.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Judaism is older than zoroastrianism.. Hmmm... you're sure?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Judaism is older than zoroastrianism..
No it's not. Zoroastrianism was the first religion to differentiate between a "good" and "bad" entity. Some consider it to be the roots of monotheistic religion