DescentBB

...it's never going to happen to me, so why should I care?

more people will die in the Sudan and Somalia this year from ★■◆●ing starvation than in ALL COMBINED terrorist attacks over the past 20 years, and you persist with this bogus narrative?

Brits know the truth, and handle it so much better:

callmeslick wrote:more people will die in the Sudan and Somalia this year from ★■◆●ing starvation than in ALL COMBINED terrorist attacks over the past 20 years, and you persist with this bogus narrative?

Starvation isn't at war with your secular western civilization. islam is.

The few Irish nationalist 'cunts' were merely seeking liberation from the United Kingdom. They were not out to take over the world.

islam is.

no, 'Islam' is NOT at war with Western Civilization. You are an idiot to persist at thinking so. As the Brits note, it's a few cunts(sorry ladies). Get that through your head, [Deleted - Personal Shot]

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:more people will die in the Sudan and Somalia this year from ★■◆●ing starvation than in ALL COMBINED terrorist attacks over the past 20 years, and you persist with this bogus narrative?

Starvation isn't at war with your secular western civilization. islam is.

The few Irish nationalist 'cunts' were merely seeking liberation from the United Kingdom. They were not out to take over the world.

islam is.

And there lies the bias.

callmeslick wrote:no, 'Islam' is NOT at war with Western Civilization.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

I think one important distinction here is…the IRA was at least able to be reasoned with. I don’t see any of the Islamist groups showing any such promise, or any way to end the attacks in any meaningful timeframe.

the hardcore IRA was hardly 'able to be reasoned with'. That hard core simply got marginalized, and the moderates got some of their greivances addressed. Same could easily happen with the rifts, largely the outgrowth of European colonialism, between the Islamic world and the West, if we actually accepted that there WERE grievances that are valid. Far too few of us do, and as Ferno suggests, that probably has a lot to do with the Irish being white Europeans.

Of course, of course, that’s all true, especially considering most of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

never happened with those Irish, right?

perspective:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... terneurope

Narrowing these things down to numbers, is where people go off of the rails.

callmeslick wrote:the hardcore IRA was hardly 'able to be reasoned with'. That hard core simply got marginalized, and the moderates got some of their greivances addressed. Same could easily happen with the rifts, largely the outgrowth of European colonialism, between the Islamic world and the West, if we actually accepted that there WERE grievances that are valid. Far too few of us do, and as Ferno suggests, that probably has a lot to do with the Irish being white Europeans.

The IRA had goals that ultimately got addressed. Just what goals are the Islamo-terrorist proposing...other than world domination?

woodchip wrote:Just what goals are the Islamo-terrorist proposing...other than world domination?

That we stop intervening in their countries.

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:Just what goals are the Islamo-terrorist proposing...other than world domination?

That we stop intervening in their countries.

Then perhaps they should stop intervening in ours and other western countries...unless of course you don't count terrorism as intervening. Iraq is the perfect example of what happens when we completely stop intervening. Like to see the same in Afghanistan?

I see that our new stepped up military campaign currently in going in Mosul is really going to go over well with the civilian population there. Who do you think that they'll blame for this one, ISIS or the U.S.?

http://www.newsweek.com/us-confirms-air ... sul-574221

woodchip wrote:Then perhaps they should stop intervening in ours and other western countries...

I wonder, would you have the same perspective if it was Iran that overthrew Eisenhower? Or if it was Saudi Arabia who opened military bases in the US? Or if Iraq had toppled GeeDub? Or if any one of these nations were constantly dropping bombs on one US state or another for decades? Wouldn't you think it's ★■◆●ing ridiculous that these people were going around saying that YOU were the one who wanted world domination?

I am just going to start dropping this on every NS thread to save time in the hope that NS might read it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... ?CMP=fb_gu

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:Just what goals are the Islamo-terrorist proposing...other than world domination?

That we stop intervening in their countries.

I really wish it was that easy, but most global terrorism is driven by idealism based on superstition, and the desire to impose their will on others.

I would really like to ask the average Muslim why some of them hate the west, and see just how many say “colonialism” vs. “the great Satan” or such thing.

callmeslick wrote:I am just going to start dropping this on every NS thread to save time in the hope that NS might read it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... ?CMP=fb_gu

"Muslims are constantly expected to offer apologies for terrorist acts. Muslims, notes Hashmi, are “held to a different standard than other minorities: 1.6 billion people are expected to apologise and condemn [terrorism] on behalf of a couple of dozen lunatics"

She lost me right there.

Couple of dozen...huh.

Spidey wrote:

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:Just what goals are the Islamo-terrorist proposing...other than world domination?

That we stop intervening in their countries.

I really wish it was that easy, but most global terrorism is driven by idealism based on superstition, and the desire to impose their will on others.

Isn't that what the Europeans have been doing since their times of colonial expansion and what we've been doing since mostly during and after WWII?

Perhaps in some over generalized way.

Ahhhh, I think it's far more than "overgeneralized". The era of European colonization and conquest of the Americas, Asia and the Middle East was in no part a small insignificant undertaking and it definitely had a huge impact on local borders, local religion and local identity in a large part of the world. Afghanistan is a good example of a manufactured "buffer state" that was created specifically to separate the British Indian Empire and the Czarist Russia Empire. The area has been fraught with conflict ever since.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/art ... chapter-13

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:Then perhaps they should stop intervening in ours and other western countries...

I wonder, would you have the same perspective if it was Iran that overthrew Eisenhower? Or if it was Saudi Arabia who opened military bases in the US? Or if Iraq had toppled GeeDub? Or if any one of these nations were constantly dropping bombs on one US state or another for decades? Wouldn't you think it's ★■◆●ing ridiculous that these people were going around saying that YOU were the one who wanted world domination?

Well thank god Trump got elected or the liberal safe room thumb sucking crowd would of made America so weak that your scenario would of come true.

woodchip wrote:Well thank god Trump got elected or the liberal safe room thumb sucking crowd would of made America so weak that your scenario would of come true.

what the actual ★■◆● do you think the Orange Buffoon has done, dramatically? Look at the faces and other body language of world leaders. They are alternately revulsed and derisive of him. Through every President in my lifetime, Eisenhower to Obama, there was NEVER A MOMENT in which the overwhelming consensus was that the POTUS was the nominal 'Leader of the Free World'. That is clearly not the case now, possibly never again, thanks to this bumbling dolt. Hell, given this ever more documented tie in with Putin and his inner circle, it is unclear if they even wish us to be part of the 'free world' We have Russian spy ships off Assateague(next to Wallops Island, NSA, NASA, NOAA), no Coast Guard or Navy response? We are cutting Coastal Defense funding? We are watching the Japanese lock in a massive chunk of the coming automation wave under their designs and manufactured products. We are on the verge of losing a massive produce crop at great expense to our own populace, cutting funds for Civil Preparedness for disasters, cutting ameleoration funding for both climate change(affecting our military, greatly, especially naval facilities and Marine training bases) and Lake and Bay cleanup which have reestablished economically important seafood and recreation income. All this,. and we are gutting the State Department, our very positive presence in the world. And you have the absolute nerve, or is it sheer stupidity, to blather on about 'liberals' Give me a break!

woodchip wrote:Well thank god Trump got elected or the liberal safe room thumb sucking crowd would of made America so weak that your scenario would of come true.

Trump wants to lock the doors tight and raise military spending even more. Who needs a 'safe room?'

You asked "what goals are the Islamo-terrorist proposing." I gave you an answer you seem to avoid acknowledging. But hey, I'm sure more bombs will fix it.

woodchip wrote:Well thank god Trump got elected or the liberal safe room thumb sucking crowd would of made America so weak that your scenario would of come true.

The saddest part about the ★■◆● you're smoking is that you won't share it with the rest of us.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well thank god Trump got elected or the liberal safe room thumb sucking crowd would of made America so weak that your scenario would of come true.

The saddest part about the ★■◆● you're smoking is that you won't share it with the rest of us.

This little ditty and some choice and very descriptive comments, coming from someone outside our country looking in, may explain things a bit. Unfortunately, only sane people not looking through orange-colored glasses will understand that the threat to this country is now from the madman all those insane people voted for, Dictator Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... his-castle

The Guardian wrote:Nearby a sort of anarchist-improv group did a skit satirizing the Trump phenomenon, which ended with this ditty:

If I can get you to fear,
I can get you to hate,
If I can get you to hate,
You won’t think straight,
If you don’t think straight,
That’ll make you a chump,
And then you’ll wind up with Trump.

Well, there’s nothing new about that. Fear has been the driving force of the GOP since the start of the cold war – fear of Commies, fear of black people, fear of Mexicans, gay people, feminists, Muslims, terrorists, feds and so forth, the fear-mongering cultivated to a high art form in the years since 9/11. The difference this time around is economic. The Republican establishment told the base to do one thing, and the base, at long last, did the opposite. “Pluck the chicken but don’t make it scream,” a long-ago New World dictator once told his cronies, but in America in the year 2016, after 35 years of supply-side economics, wholesale globalization, and the biggest redistribution of wealth – not trickle down, but vacuum up – in history, the chicken is screaming.

Lol, they blame the GOP for globalization, then have the nerve to call someone else crazy.

Well…you know, the lunatics running the party is what we deserve when we helped the extremists drive the moderates out of the party, when they tried to reform it.

And by “we” I mean you liberals.

If you're referring to the so called "liberal elites" in Washington, then you're right. If you're referring to most liberals in general, then you're very wrong.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... tudy-finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ervatives/

No I’m referring to how the left made fun of the people trying to reform the party. Those people were made fun of and ridiculed, leaving the door open for the wackos we see now. (who don’t care about being ridiculed)

Spidey, can you cite an example or two of these folks making fun of the poor, reform-minded conservatives/Republicans?? I'm unclear on what you are referring to there. And, also, can you clarify how outsiders making light of the process caused the whole party to dive into the arms of sheer lunatics, because I don't get that one at all.

Lol…maybe you could reframe the question in an even more asinine way and expect me to answer it.

the question seems pretty ★■◆●ing straightforward to me. Don't care to answer it? You're the one making an assertion.

Spidey wrote:No I’m referring to how the left made fun of the people trying to reform the party. Those people were made fun of and ridiculed, leaving the door open for the wackos we see now. (who don’t care about being ridiculed)

Are you talking about the "Compassionate Conservatism" movement?

Yes

who made fun of THAT attempt? It failed, pathetically, of lack of traction within the GOP. It's not like anyone made that happen except the direct players.

Spidey wrote:Yes

OK, then please enlighten me with a few examples of actual compassion resulting from that movement that's currently part of the Republican party platform. It HAS been around for a long time since it was essentially coined by historian and politician Doug Wead in 1979, so I'd think that something has to have come out of it by now and at least become somewhat enshrined.