Jump to content

Paris is Under Attack.


Tsuujou
 Share

Recommended Posts

You'd be surprised how many different kinds of terrorist/extremists want to fuck up Europe. It's really sad that it was necessary to check various groups for responsibility.

This is especially true when one considers the very long history that France has in dealing with Algeria and it's other former colonies in Northern Africa.  But you have to understand, Clayton is poorly educated, so it doesn't know worldly things like France's prolonged history in Northern Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because unlike other religions a devout follower of Islam has his acts of violence condoned in his scripture. Other religions dont have that, as a religion of peace will directly write against such actions.

Dude, the Babble has just as many passages calling for violence against infidels as the Quran. Hell, the Old Testament says a young son who drinks too much can be stoned to death...

The fact of the matter is the mainstream Christians and Muslims alike don't believe in the "an eye for an eye" rhetoric anymore.

Edited by Gryphoneer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try the Christian bible first.  Ever read that book?  It literally has guidelines on how to treat your slaves.

The Qur'an is basically a plagiarized version of the bible. The only difference is that it hasn't gone through as many revisions like the bible.

 

Anyways, if you guys want to discuss islam and how it is filled with a bunch of murdering hate filled mongrels, start your own thread please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why be a buffet-Muslim or a buffet-Christian??), and Islam is a religion where violence isn't just condoned, it's encouraged, and it's said that as a Muslim, your duty is to kill infidels.

The religion is barbaric, right in it's own holy book's text.

Personally, I hold no pity for buffet-Muslims at this point.

I have looked up every definition of the word 'Buffet' but I can't figure out what in the fuck Clayton is talking about in this quote.  Is there an alternate definition for 'Buffet' that means 'Moderate' that I've never heard of or is he just using random words despite their meaning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, the Babble has just as many passages calling for violence against infidels as the Quran. Hell, the Old Testament says a young son who drinks too much can be stoned to death...

The fact of the matter is the mainstream Christians and Muslims alike don't believe in the "an eye for an eye" rhetoric anymore.

A lot of your extremist Christians are in Africa, which is funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty.

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know

And fight them until there is no more fitna, and religion is all for Allah…

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is especially true when one considers the very long history that France has in dealing with Algeria and it's other former colonies in Northern Africa.  But you have to understand, Clayton is poorly educated, so it doesn't know worldly things like France's prolonged history in Northern Africa.

And the Middle-East. That whole Sykes-Picot thing is largely responsible for a lot of this mess. You Kurds, Assyrians, and Arabs? Congratulations, you and your conflicting religions and ethnicities are now Iraqi.

Clayton's knowledge aside, it can't be denied this whole situation was fucked a century ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Qur'an is basically a plagiarized version of the bible. The only difference is that it hasn't gone through as many revisions like the bible.

 

Anyways, if you guys want to discuss islam and how it is filled with a bunch of murdering hate filled mongrels, start your own thread please. 

You just said hate speech won't be tolerated here. :|

Stop being inconsistent, stop it with the thinly veiled threats and take some fucking action because right now I can't take you mods seriously and find myself wondering what the hell my reports are even good for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Christians have the excuse of having the Second Amendment, but there is no Second Amendment for the Quran, and it's far too late for there to be one.

While we're at this, can someone help me out with this one?  Firstly, why is Clayton, a Canadian, talking about France, evoking the United States Constitution in this conversation?  Does he not understand that all other nations are sovereign from the United States and that the second amendment holds no power outside of it's borders?

While we're at this, I want to look at the second amendment carefully for a moment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What does this have to do with Christians or Muslims? Is he just guessing at random laws now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try the Christian bible first.  Ever read that book?  It literally has guidelines on how to treat your slaves.

Context. Slavery in those does is not t slavery we have had in America. Slavery was a way poor people could work of debt, and there was an expectation between slave and owner on proper treatment. After a certain amount of time the slave would be given a portion of wealth and land. Of course, humans are human and much like in Egypt this was abused.

...Context is the same reason why I dont support a lot of biblical belief today. Its value was inteded for the past. I.E Trying to have sex before marriage likey meant having sex with someone <14, you know, because arranged marriages.

There isnt really anythingcondoning violence in Christianity, even stoning was chastised "he who is without sin may cast the first stone". If a person who claims to be Christian was not a good person, it wasbecause they werent following their value, same with any other religion that doesnt condone violence or hate. Its on the individual bearingthe label, not the label.he

Edited by WolfNightV4X1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know little about Islamic religion or politics,

But from what I have heard. ALL Islam is dangerous? Why? Because unlike other religions a devout follower of Islam has his acts of violence condoned in his scripture. Other religions dont have that, as a religion of peace will directly write against such actions.

I have never picked up a Qu'ran and verify it as a fact that the entire religion condones murder, its simply what I have heard. And from what I heard all the ones who we believe to be peaceful are hiding the truth, that they do support these kind of actions.

Pretty awful stuff...Islamaphobia runs pretty far and deep. I really dont have a side to take though except I do know it sucks that tons of Muslims are being harmed, by others and their own religion...

Don't know the Koran either, but i'd expect it to be the usual, conflicting and inconsistent, like the local 'religion of peace'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence

 

edit:

While we're at this, can someone help me out with this one?  Firstly, why is Clayton, a Canadian, talking about France, evoking the United States Constitution in this conversation?  Does he not understand that all other nations are sovereign from the United States and that the second amendment holds no power outside of it's borders?

While we're at this, I want to look at the second amendment carefully for a moment:

What does this have to do with Christians or Muslims? Is he just guessing at random laws now?

 

Maybe he meant the sixth commandment?

Edited by Toboe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said hate speech won't be tolerated here. :|

Stop being inconsistent, stop it with the thinly veiled threats and take some fucking action because right now I can't take you mods seriously and find myself wondering what the hell my reports are even good for.

No.

There are like a ton of reports coming from this thread and I have been up since 2 AM keeping an eye on things from home and work. Screw you guys, I am taking a nap.

Edited by Ozriel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context. Slavery in those does is not t

e slavery we have had in America. Slavery was a way poor people could work of debt, and there was an expectation between slave and owner on proper treatment. After a certain amount of time the slave would be given a portion of wealth and land. Of course, humans are human and much like in Egypt this was abused.

...Context is the same reason why I dont support a lot of biblical belief today. Its value was inteded for the past. I.E Trying to have sex before marriage likey meant having sex with someone <14, you know, because arranged marriages.

There isnt really anythingcondoning violence in Christianity, even stoning was chastised "he who is without sin may cast the first stone". If a person who claims to be Christian was not a good person, it wasbecause they werent following their value, same with any other religion that doesnt condone violence or hate. Its on the individual bearingthe label, not the label.

The First Amendment of Christianity was barbaric, but they changed that up for the Second Amendment, which is equally stupid but at least nobody is being killed anymore in the name of Christianity -- in the first world at least.
Islam has never changed and never will, it's rotting at the roots and the plant will eventually turn black and die.
First Amendment Christianity was as barbaric as current-day Islam. Notice how the Christians left stoning in the dark ages, where it belongs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're at this, can someone help me out with this one?  Firstly, why is Clayton, a Canadian, talking about France, evoking the United States Constitution in this conversation? 

The American revolution and constitution directly inspired the french revolution. If I remember correctly a lot was borrowed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zeke locked this topic

The thread is reopened, but here are a few ground rules:

Any anti-Islamic rhetoric or racist comments will be hidden and the user warned/infracted.

Shitposts will get an infraction (posts with just gifs, image macros, etc)

Insulting other users will also earn the offender an infraction/warning

Remember, what the Jihadists consider "apostate" Muslims also died in the attack too and were also targeting them as well.

 

In short:

BEHAVE OF BEHEAD

You can still be critical of something without being a dick. Don't be a dick!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zeke unlocked this topic

Pandora's box has been reopened.

So, I noticed the day after the first attacks, Miiverse was full of posts about it. "Pray for Paris" was a viral phrase in many of the posts. As it's a social media platform accessible to children, who might not have the strongest grasp of what a "terrorist" is, the overwhelming support on it was very surprising to me. Human kindness blossoms in some of the strangest places.

Edited by Eggdodger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pandora's box has been reopened.

So, I noticed the day after the first attacks, Miiverse was full of posts about it. "Pray for Paris" was a viral phrase in many of the posts. As it's a social media platform accessible to children, who might not have the strongest grasp of what a "terrorist" is, the overwhelming support on it was very surprising to me. Human kindness blossoms in some of the strangest places.

Exactly - it is just such a shame that it takes the most tragic thing to bring out the best in people  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the thread was closed, here's some interesting stuff that occurred:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-doesnt-want-you-to-pray-for-paris/

Right now, #PrayForSyria is/was trending on Twitter because people are spreading old pictures and falsely condemning France for bombing civilians (they bombed ISIS)... lol

Someone apparently from 4chan pranked a vigil by igniting firecrackers, causing widespread panic
 

Edited by Phausk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing with "Prayforparis" went from "I feel bad for them" to "Annoying fucking shit" thanks to all the # and flag overlay.

A minor grievance in relative scale to the calamities that brought about all the posts, I would say.

Edited by Eggdodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing with "Prayforparis" went from "I feel bad for them" to "Annoying fucking shit" thanks to all the # and flag overlay.

I understand and appreciate the whole "I'll pray for you" thing, even if it's used in a condescending manner 99% of the time, but I think the last thing Paris wants to hear about atm is religion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems there was inside help. It's a real shame this happens to a country that tries to be liberal and accommodating to personal freedoms like religion. I think most of the western world has become similar to varying degrees and I wonder how far these scum will have to push us before we all close our doors to outsiders.

Unfortunately, with political correctness gone rampant it will most likely be too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it kinda bothers me because i see a lot of people wear the filter as a supposed "remembrance", but is it actually on their mind at all? i find the mixture of going on with our daily lives as though nothing happened while simultaneously wearing the colors of a country having just experienced a critical attack a little offputting.

to me it just seems as though people want to say they cared or actually contributed thought towards the gravity of the situation, when in reality most of us moved on in our complacency boxes that is our lives. like, did i actually involve myself in the remembrance of this country? no, but i can have a facebook filter to act like i did. 

i'm not necessarily saying that the filter needs to be exclusive or something; understanding the nature of tragedy shouldn't be rated on a scale of who cares the most, but even then it just bothers me that the representation of our support is so complacent and attached to such a valueless object.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it kinda bothers me because i see a lot of people wear the filter as a supposed "remembrance", but is it actually on their mind at all? i find the mixture of going on with our daily lives as though nothing happened while simultaneously wearing the colors of a country having just experienced a critical attack a little offputting.

oh ffs get over yourself mate! Really???

Pathetic. People on the other side of the world who don't personally know the victims or even the county still want to express their support, because there IS little they can do! Honestly this kind of narrow minded bs really pisses me off 

Edited by GemWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh ffs get over yourself mate! Really???

Pathetic. People on the other side of the world who don't personally know the victims or even the county still want to express their support, because there IS little they can do! Honestly this kind of narrow minded bs reality pisses me off 

i'm going to look past the insults here...

i just mean to say that there are two options for us as bystanders; to take something that allows us to view an event with as little understanding as possible, but be represented as someone who can say they "supported" the country (when, to your point, we had no power or control), or to actually look at information about the event, and look to see if there is actionable support to be taken. there are people who take the filter as permission to say "i was part of this event", and that's what i'm against. i think your perspective of their usage makes sense, it's just more often than not that's not what this is really about. 

i'm against death and destruction being a trend for us to say we had any part in. that's my perspective.

to your point, i'm restricting the definition of supporters to those who are capable of expressing a large amount of emotions/resources to the event. but, at the same time, if our only support is the one we provide ourselves, are we actually supporting them? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spreading awareness via flag and hashtag won't do crap when the thing is already known throughout the whole world. If you want to truly express support, send donation or something instead of shouting at people for not hashtagging and putting on flag overlay.

The Social Media Savior are the worst kind of supporter.

Edited by Zeitzbach
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm going to look past the insults here...

i just mean to say that there are two options for us as bystanders; to take something that allows us to view an event with as little understanding as possible, but be represented as someone who can say they "supported" the country (when, to your point, we had no power or control), or to actually look at information about the event, and look to see if there is actionable support to be taken. there are people who take the filter as permission to say "i was part of this event", and that's what i'm against. i think your perspective of their usage makes sense, it's just more often than not that's not what this is really about. 

i'm against death and destruction being a trend for us to say we had any part in. that's my perspective.

to your point, i'm restricting the definition of supporters to those who are capable of expressing a large amount of emotions/resources to the event. but, at the same time, if our only support is the one we provide ourselves, are we actually supporting them? 

firstly, there was no insults. I said "get over yourself" if you find that insulting them you have issues. Secondly, what about people who don't have the money to  give resources? Or the means to travel and give big hugs? What about teens who can't do that either? There are many ways of showing support. You can't judge people like that. It's terrible and I'm disgusted 

Spreading awareness via flag and hashtag won't do crap when the thing is already known throughout the whole world. If you want to truly express support, send donation or something instead of shouting at people for not hashtagging and putting on flag overlay.

The Social Media Savior are the worst kind of supporter.

hmmm a small and full of furfags say this ....

meanwhile 100's and 1000's of people world wide disagree. Sorry.  

Edited by GemWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

firstly, there was no insults. I said "get over yourself" if you find that insulting them you have issues. Secondly, what about people who don't have the money to to give resources? Or the means to travel and give big hugs? What about teens who can't do that either? There are many ways of showing support. You can't judge people like that. It's terrible and I'm disgusted 

also pathetic and narrow minded, and now you feel that if i'm offended by any of those things i have issues. if that's just how you talk to people and describe them, then whatever. i just detect hostility either way.

 

i'm not trying to discredit that reality so much as i am asking why we choose the option of least resistance and highest self-reward as a collective. i am certain that those issues you mentioned mean that there are only so many ways to support the situation, but you do have to keep asking yourself why facebook's form of social action is a strictly temporary layover for your profile picture. it's analogous to getting a temporary tattoo for free. 

i realize the purpose. but i also think that the people who really care are doing way more than just changing their profile pic. that's something they appreciate, but it is by no means equivalent to what they feel is necessary to respect those lost.

also, just realize that your misspelling of pray ("prey", to consume) is extremely amusing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also pathetic and narrow minded, and now you feel that if i'm offended by any of those things i have issues. if that's just how you talk to people and describe them, then whatever. i just detect hostility either way.

 

i'm not trying to discredit that reality so much as i am asking why we choose the option of least resistance and highest self-reward as a collective. i am certain that those issues you mentioned mean that there are only so many ways to support the situation, but you do have to keep asking yourself why facebook's form of social action is a strictly temporary layover for your profile picture. it's analogous to getting a temporary tattoo for free. 

i realize the purpose. but i also think that the people who really care are doing way more than just changing their profile pic. that's something they appreciate, but it is by no means equivalent to what they feel is necessary to respect those lost.

also, just realize that your misspelling of pray ("prey", to consume) is extremely amusing.

meh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this isn't very different from your apology in your previous thread, where you decided that your own personal emotions were enough to dictate your actions as valid and compassionate, even where the people who were receiving your apology did not remotely appreciate it.

you feel you're supportive because you said you are. that's enough for you to move on with your life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zeke locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...