Spike

Perkele.

But he didn't 'steal' anyone's wife because a woman isn't an object owned by a man and Maxi shouldn't have been fucking whores on the side. She chose to leave Maxi for another person. Hardly stealing. Yeah, it doesn't sound nice when they two were friends but Maxi should have been a better husband.

Sorry. I don't see a point in doing it as I didn't go through the American education system. Sorry!

I saw my grandmother for the first time in months and the first thing she tells me is that I look like a terrorist.

Yes, but were they killed simply because they were Muslims or were they killed because they stood in the way of the French taking advantage of the nation's wealth and nature resources? Was it inspired purely by theological reasons or did the French see an opportunity to take advantage of a group of people that had less wealth, resources and weapons then them? I think throughout history leaders have used religion, race and culture as a means to justify taking advantage of the weak. The motivation isn't due to xenophobia but due to a lust for power and exertion of will over the weak. Relgion, race and culture is a just a smokescreen used by the powers that be to justify their lust for power to the hoi polloi. It is much easier for the masses to accept an 'us vs. them' agenda over simply 'let's kill these people and take their stuff so I can personally fill my coffers with blooded bars of gold'. Well, this is how I feel this is the reason events in the last 200 years or so have been perpetrated. Specifically colonialisation; not for and ideology but for a profit. A tragedy both ways but the motivations are very different. Even the original Crusade wan't entirely motivated by a theological desire to control the Holy Lands. I've read that knights when not at war have nothing to do, soldiers without a casus belli to fight for tend to fight amongst themselves. Barons fight Earls, Counts fight Viscounts, et al. The Crusades were a clever reason to stop Europe's rowdy nobility from infighting and bandy them together against a common enemy, easing tensions in Europe. The Muslims of the Levant. Not to mention this was a nice way to introduce many treasures into Europe by robbing the Islamic nobility of the Levant. Hehe, there is always cash to be made.

Some dude murdered his wife/parter/whatever at local college. Geez, university is a place of higher learning and higher murder rates in this country.

Those are they types of people that say they are a part of Anonymous on Facebook. Haha, the irony.

What does that even mean? Bloody hell, that is weird thing to say. Thierry Henry was a winger, as was Del Piero and Messi at certain points in their careers. So Jas, but that is just silly semantics you are worried about.

In my opinion more guns escalate the situation. It's the loophole in deterrence. A logical creature would know not to shoot for the risk of being shot in retaliation is too high. However, humans aren't logical beings, the fear of being shot first can be crippling and lead to a preemptive attack. On the other hand an attacker knows there is a chance that there won't be retaliation due to incapability or human nature not being destructive enough to retaliate. The concept of mutual destruction isn't perfect, fear and doubt plague the hearts of men too much for it to be a logical answer. This is the loophole that plagued the Cold War and nuclear deterrence. It applies to people with guns too.

The fuck is an 'out-and-out-striker'? He plays as a CF doesn't he? IS THAT NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YE?

CUT INSIDE WITH THE LEFT This guy is so damn good it is ridiculous. Everyone defender how he plays but it doesn't help them. I really disliked this guy for a while but right now he is one of my favourites again.

For instance most Muslims from North Africa and the middle-east are Caucasian. Caucasian is often used in exchange with 'white person' but people of middle-eastern descent are considered 'white' for some reason. I'm Caucasian and white but Zidane isn't?I don't get the pointless semantics of it. Why not just say 'western-European' since most of the time that is what people are referring to as 'white people'. On another not 'people-of-colour' is one of the stupidest terms I've ever head. I'm not a coloured person? There is something different about me to the others? Why make another us vs them term? It is so stupid, my GF is South-East Asian which is a PoC if I'm correct but can't relate to Afro-Americans another PoC in the slightest manner in terms of racial and cultural prejudice. To me it is just another term that exasperates the difference and divide between races. I think at the end of the day it is less about us vs them but how the strong can take advantage of the weak, it just happens it conveniently can be manipulated by those in power as 'us vs them'. Look at all the black on black violence in Africa that serves no purpose other than to give more power to those on top of the dog pile. At the very core of all these issues, it is the strong taking advantage of the weak. This was smashed out in a few minutes so I'm sorry if it comes off abrasive or hypocritical in any manner, I'll adress those issues later. EDIT: More examples of terrorism carried out by people that aren't white or Muslim Japan Imperialism of the 20th century Chinese Imperialism, Tibet, Taiwan, etc North Korea's facist regime Che Guevara (was he white or native American?) in Bolivia and Cuba Bombings in Bombay 2008 Christmas Massacre Muslim Massacre in the Central African Republic General Butt Naked Ghenghis Khan's invasion of essentially the whole world Yanghzou Massacre Polynesian Cannibalism in New Zealand (I think?) There is so much evidence of terrorism in world history. Terrorism isn't limited to Muslims or whites. Anybody, anywhere throughout life and history could be a terrorist. To make assumptive remarks like '90% of terrorists are white people or Muslims' is a very harmful statement to make.

Thanks for yours too. Very insightful.

I find both of your claims incredibly stupid. Way to shoehorn a religion and a 'race' into something as asinine as 'terrorist'. People can barely agree what constitutes 'terrorism' let alone what constitutes a white person.

I am deeply saddened by people trying to justify these attacks. While there are some deeply troubling reasons that lead up to the attack, I don't believe under any circumstances they justify the destruction of human life. Same goes for any incident of a similar nature.

Ibrahimovic just said a few days earlier that [he] 'put France and Sweden on the map'. STOCKHOLM NEXT?

There are people trying to justify these attacks by stating that since Muslims are poor and discriminated against it gives them a right to murder. In the in the exact words but the implication of it.

Hardly a World War. Fighting would have to break out in East Asia and Africa on a global scale.

Stay safe friends.

What does that even mean? You think this is a set up? If that means what I think it means, I've half a mind to smack down the banhammer right now.

There are just as many that contradict that passage. Just like the Bible and Torah, the Quran isn't a perfect piece of scripture.

True Muslim or not they are still murdering people for their beliefs. They have interpreted the Quran and acting on how they see fit. For some people it is. They are the majority and the vocal minority. I've met many fine Muslims but the few ruin it for the many.

Fuck the little keyboard warriors on social media. They are the least of the problem. The problem is that insane people out there are murdering and destroying lives for no reason.

Is is confirmed? There have been several conflicting reports on the matter.

Nonsense knee-jerk reaction. I have several issues with this: It is not known if the perpetrators are Muslims. There are about 4,000,000 innocent Muslims in France that don't deserve to be punished for their religion. I thought France had equality of religion?