CHOULO19

Yes, of course. People interpret religion the way they like and use it the way that suits them. It's an incredibly powerful tool that is capable of enabling a great deal of violence and disasters as it has done many times in history and is doing at the time being. But it IS still just a tool. Even if by some magical ability you could remove religion from the world, violence and terrorism won't cease to exist because new tools would be used to enable them like we've seen nationalism do, racism do, even atheist ideologies likes Stalinism do. Until the root causes of the problem of extremist Islamic terrorism are seriously addressed, it won't magically go away, no matter how long you sit here screaming at it till you're blue in the face.

False on every account, my friend. 1- Under the internationally agree definition of terrorism, which is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political reasons, there are terrorists in literally every single major religion in the world, as well as among atheists. 2- Minor point, but Lebanon is NOT in a majority Muslim country. We have EIGHTEEN different major religious sects, about 44% of the population identify as Christian, and I happen to be an atheist. 3- Why are a lot of people (I assume you mean in the west) are scared of Islam? Mostly bigotry, but also a mainstream media and politicians that paint all Muslims with the same brush to create fear which they can benefit from. The people who are committing those terrorist acts are Muslim extremists: Several groups and militias, who have embraced the extremist Wahabi doctrine of Islam and contain members who have been radicalized for all sorts of reasons, mostly political. Those have about 30 to 40 thousand members of more than 1.5 billion Muslims. So yes, blaming the 1.5 billion Muslims for the acts committed by those extremists today and that are only representative of those extremists groups, is wrong and bigoted.

That's like asking "Is it true that all Indians hate the color blue?" You want Islam, to be one thing so you can have an easy time making generalizations about it. However, reality always resists simplicity. Nothing is ever just one thing, certainly not a religion of a billion and a half human beings. The answer to all of the questions in your post is that you'll find all sorts of varying opinions and beliefs among Muslims on all of those issues. Unfortunately, you're going to have to to deal with the complexity of treating every single person of the Muslim faith based on their individual merit.

Yeah, I know mate. It looked very much like an ISIS attack from the start. We were talking about whether or not the attackers were refugees.

What you think they look like proves very little. Let's wait for actual information.

Has there been any info about the identity of the attackers? Why are people talking about migrants?

Hope all our Belgian members are safe.

I would actually be okay with letting JT go if it is a step to bring back Christensen and give him a genuine chance.....but I know it won't happen. Btw, Christensen i homegrown. Ake is not only homegrown but also 'club trained'. I don't see how those two would weaken our current XI. Just have to have some balls.

No point. If we're not going to give him a chance now when he's the best LB we have then we'll never actually give him a chance.

Who wants to bet that we actually go ahead with this?

Well if those minorities are going to vote for him against anyone, surely it would be against Trump....plus he overwhelmingly has the support of Arabs and Muslims. It's what won him Michigan. Mate, I don't mean to be dismissive of your well written response, but your analysis is completely through the lenses of the political 'game' and not at all about the substance of the policies. That's not politics, at least not to me. Politics is about what is choosing actually good for the community. When your argument against something has nothing to do with its substance but just that those other guys won't ever make it happen, then you're probably rooting for the wrong candidate... I've read, and actually know, progressive people who would rather vote for Trump over Hillary, particularly Arab-Americans who are handy with her work in the middle east. Certainly that number has gone up today with her speech at AIPAC. Trump, who flip-flops on everything, has been consistently way more progressive than Hillary on trade agreements and foreign policy; impact wise on the world, probably the two most important issues. But she'd probably get a centrist supreme justice instead of a right wing one like Trump would... As I've said in this thread before, if I were an American citizen, I'd probably not vote (or vote Jill Stein), but pressed between Hillary and Trump, I'd take the small-handed maniac any day.

That's based on what, though? At the moment, on average of all the national polls that have been done, Bernie beats Trump by TEN points, which is four more than Hillary would. And it makes sense, because independents would overwhelmingly vote for Sanders while very few would vote for as establishment candidate like Hillary.

LMAO Hillary just decided to out flank Donald Trump from the right on Palestine. She actually blasted him for being too dovish! But yeah, sure, 'progressive'.... Now add a third column of what the average family from each income bracket is already spending on health care and education... Not sure what you are trying to prove when every single poll shows that Bernie would not only win but do WAY better than Hillary against every republican candidate. A LOT of actual progressive would never vote for Hillary Clinton. Some will even vote for whoever is running against her, even if it's Donald Trump.

Take it down a notch, Pappy, take it down.

Fixed. I get why you'd want an unbeaten spell inside a season to help morale and gain momentum, but what's the point of it in a run-in, particularly when we have nothing to play for anymore..

Did it work, though? Having watched the replay this morning, I thought Remy's and certainly Oscar's market values probably went down after that match... Hopefully we get to see a bit different approach to matches after the break, then.

What exactly was the point of starting Remy instead of Traore when Loic is almost certainly gone at the end of the seasons? Why was Oscar played instead of RLC who has gotten much less playing time this season than promised? Why not start Mizaga (is that his name?!) when the match result has very little significance? Don't know about everyone else, but I would have gladly taken zero points yesterday instead of (an undeserved/lucky) one to see those three start. Also, since result wise our season is basically over, why not have a couple of players from the academy on the bench just for motivation and maybe a cameo? I'm genuinely beginning to believe that Guus is more worried about his unbeaten league record more than the future of this club...

Proud to have actually said from the start that Andreas (along with RLC) are our most important prospects. Probably the only one I got right, though!

HAHA Fuck off. I'm watching the Leicester match...

Liked it much better when the images were broken, tbh....sigh.

Somehow, for the second time in the past few seasons, our best LB is out on loan while we suffer for choices here. Happened with Bertrand and now with Ake. I just hope we don't make the same mistake of selling him..

3 billion dollars, man. Three BILLION dollars! Here, watch this:

Maybe he's upset that the images are broken...

Those reasons being? I personally can't think of any legitimate reasons other than getting benefits in return. Whichever way you look at it, it is undeniable legalized bribing. It's not a matter of perspective. Giving money to people in power for benefits you would not get otherwise is the very definition of bribing. Read an article a while back on how the positions of candidates poll against each other on each of the major issue and Sanders beats her on almost everything. And even her own supporters say he is more trustworthy than her. What the actual voting goes down to, like all modern democracies, misinformation and lack of awareness, name recognition and branding, and perceived ideas drawn by the mainstream media. If you consider that few had ever heard of Sanders before his nomination, the fact that he has no Super PAC, that he identifies as a socialist, and that he's running against almost all the powerful lobbies that basically control Washington while she has the entire establishment on her side along with the mainstream media running story after story against Bernie, it's actually quite embarrassing for her that he's even managed to get this close to her and actually win states. It says sooo much about the state of the establishment and the two parties and the disenfranchised public and particularly youth that Bernie has done so well. Same goes for Trump.

Haven't really answered my question there. And I don't just mean speeches, I mean 'donations' to her campaign and her foundation. They make those donations because they expect her to make decisions that will make/save them more money than they have invested in her. And those decisions will inevitable conflict with the best interest and the general consensus of the public. It's that simple. If your point is that everyone else is corrupt, then you'll find no objections here. The system is broken and corrupt and allows legal bribing worth trillions each year and almost everyone in it is corrupt and represents only the interests of the bribers. And Hilary Clinton is one of the, if not THE, most corrupt and bribed politician. Now let me dispel the notion that Hilary reflects the opinions of her voters: - Fracking: She's said she won't ban it despite 75% of democrats opposing it. - Super PACs: She's taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations despite 84% of democrats opposing it. - Wall Street: 87% of democrats think that her Wall Street buddies should be in jail for their criminal roles in the 2008 melt down. She invites them to her parties and takes their money. - NSA Spying: She's for it and defended her decision to vote for it. 64% of democrats oppose it. - Assad: She wants to overthrow him. 68% of democrats don't. - Netanyahu: She went out of her way and wrote and Op-ed on how she will do whatever it takes to please him, despite the fact that just 17% of democrats view him favorably (46% view him unforably). Then there are the issues she flip-flops so much on, which probably means that she'll likely go with the interest of her donors than the public like Guantanamo Bay, ground troops against ISIS, TTP...etc. So, NO, she does NOT represent her voters on A LOT of issues...