Random Politics & Religion #00

Come now, you don't have to attack him on his physical aspect.

Ohhh. I hadn't thought about it that way.

Attack on a hotel in Mali. Hundreds of hostages, dozens dead. I wonder if the attackers are Christian. I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

Won't lie. This made me laugh out loud.

Just a little bit late on the news.

What's the difference for 500, Alex?

Pretty easy to make that joke when you already know the answer.

Don't mind Aman. He's just trying to establish imagined Christian persecution in the context of perceived Muslimterrorist apologists.

He's not entirely clear on the fact that no one has defended individual Muslim terrorists -- in fact, they've been lambasted soundly all around -- nor has anyone attacked Christianity as a whole, in relationship to these events.

France ain't conceding anything and ain't playing around apparently. Hearing reports of over 170 wpns seized and alot more ppl than just that attack's group in custody atm. Good for them. Securing the borders and your country will go alot further than picking sides in the mideast. bravo

Except for this little fact.

Tighter security? Check. Cracking down on suspected terrorists? Check. Taking more pre-emptive action on tips regarding potential terrorist cells? Check. Seizing weapons? Che...well, check, but the U.S. would have a ***fit if we seized potential terrorists' weapons. That would mean taking guns away from a lot of white supremacists and militia groups that are basically Christian/right wing terror cells of an entirely different stripe.

But closing borders to those fleeing the exact violence and hate the world wants to crack down on? NOPE.

Strangers Have The Best Candy!



you wouldn't eat any M&Ms in any bowl handed to you by nausi...regardless of what he said beforehand, you big fat liar...

at least I sure as hell wouldn't... no offense nausi, I wouldn't eat them from anyone else I don't know well either... but then again I am a paranoid psychotic and I don't eat samples handed out in the supermarket because little kids touch every *** one of them with freshly sneezed on hands that have never been washed....

But M&Ms are inanimate objects and can't fundamentally change their own nature... so then it becomes a question of your own trust in the person handing them to you.

If I bought a sealed bag of M&Ms and Nausi said he heard the green ones were poison, then it's a question of how much do I trust the manufacturer vs the sanity/reliability of the person making the statement.

But if we're talking about refugees that could theoretically change their essential nature and become terrorists like the boston bombers then should we seal up our borders and not let anyone in?

and then why stop there? let's start kicking everyone's door down because timothy mcvey wasn't a syrian refugee or a muslim or an M&M but he was still very much a terrorist and went bat ***crazy and killed a bunch of people.

So the real question is

Do you want to be paranoid? Are you going to be afraid of everyone because some people are ***?

Yeah OK buddy lol

Hopefully they pull it off. Without fail. Hard to not be sympathetic to refugees when you know the vast majority, if not all, just want a better life for thier family.

I find this to be kind of interesting (the article) because the majority of Republican constituents are highly opposed to the Republican Politicians on this, saying that they are not actually representing them on this issue.

Sure, you get people like Aman and Nausi who try to speak in absolutes (as in they know absolutely nothing about what's going on), but they are the fringe minority on the issue of allowing the refugees who need help and shelter come into the US. They also speak as if every single refugee *is* a terrorist simply because of the region they are fleeing.

Yet they hold no regard for native born terrorists, or terrorist converts, and simply assume that each and every refugee are welfare lifers, where as the majority work "like slaves" to repay the kindness and debt they feel is owed to the people/community/nation that helped them.

It's also funny that Nausi would say "poison is poison", because almost all of the arguments he tries to make, are poisonous themselves, and quite dangerous even among the more fringe elements of his idea of conservative values.

I'm afraid of all evil old men in top hats and handle bar mustaches because of Nik.

I'm afraid of men with hats and beards but no moustaches, because the Amish are the true sleeping terrorist threat in this country!

that fear is perfectly justified. we're all evil.

Wtf you talking about dipshit?

Here is my position. Wow that's so absolute. Let in refugees but give us assurances of a good vetting system that's puts our security first. Wow. I am such a hard liner.

I wonder how resolute the cowards at Anonymous really are. They think they are badass attacking ISIS twitter accounts. When ISIS lines up a hundred innocent people, men, women and children; all with Anonymous masks on and shoots them each in the head, dead; I wonder how badass Anonymous will be when that inevitably happens.

That's actually a very good question.

Though you may be downplaying the effectiveness of social media for ISIS.

ISIS is very good at PR. They are very good at swaying disillusioned young people to their cause, and social media is a key tool in this. Anonymous really can *** with them pretty good if they can take over their accounts/disrupt their PR campaigns.

That said, your question remains valid. If ISIS can manage to track down any of these people, I wonder how it will go for them.

Then again, you could say that of any vigilante justice action if the bad guys catch them, I suppose. Playing outside the law certainly limits the protections you're afforded.

They don't need to track them down.

They just need to kill innocent people and call it retaliation for Anonymous.

Yeah, I thought about that.

But the thing is, if they're not tracking down the actual Anonymous peeps, then...what? I mean, you could say they were going to line up and kill innocent people in retaliation for some stupid *** anyhow, because that's what scumsucking terrorists do. That's really their only go-to, you know?

So at that point you're just encouraging more people to target you and you're not deterring anything.

I think Anonymous would immediately back down when their mask becomes symbolic of rows of dead innocent people.

I'll just put it this way. If I were them, that's what I would do. It's a smart play.

Another smart play. Having members with no record pose as Syrian refugees.

Anonymous has always been kind of a Sword of Damocles organization from the get go.

Sometimes their anonymous tips, hacks, etc. do good, other times it's just hanging from a thread ready to metaphorically drop and cut their own heads off.

Again, I get where you're coming from. But I also wouldn't be part of a hacking collective in the first place because that doesn't seem like a smart play to me, either.

Threats to kill innocents before by the Mexican cartel made Annoymous back down before, iirc.

But it can also depend on who controls the narrative. iSIS relies heavily on their recruitment ability (you can only use a suicide bomber once...) and uses modern advertising/social media/magazine very effectively. If annoymous can limit their ability or control how well the message is relayed they could do significant damage to ISIS's potential recruits.

But it depends on how smart they play it...

What kind of assurances do you want?