Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Spike
 Share
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Fernando said:

While I don't agree with that statement in the context that is being use, this a lone does not create terrorism.

Again if it was the cause of America, then you have to be consistent and use it for every example.

Take example wounded knee massacre, that was one of the biggest terror act in america because of "land".

This did not drive American Indians to world terrorism of innocent victims.

So if your going to use the USA card of creating terrorism then you have to be consistent. It has to happend all over history.

Now I do agree that no one should be buying automatic weapons. There is no need for that. A regular gun is okay but not automatic weapon.

No, of course it doesn't have to consistent. The effects of imperialist crimes vary a lot and are affected by countless factors. That doesn't relieve the perpetrators of the crimes of the responsibility for the effects of their actions. 

What an incredibly simplistic way of thinking it would be to suggest otherwise! 

In the case of the native Americans, they were kind of affected by the fact that they almost fucking wiped out by genocidal maniacs from Europe who committed heinous crimes in the names of kings and churches. 

And shouldn't YOU be consistent? You say the problem is the religion, then how come that the overwhelming majority of the 1.6 Muslims on earth are peaceful? 

 

4 minutes ago, kellzfresh said:

He said that, he talked about it but he didn’t carry a gun and massacre them because he doesn't like them, he leaves it to God. But on the other side, they carry out the massacre of people in USA, France, Belgium, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Libya by themselves after pledging allegiance to ISIS or Taliban. Big difference.  

Are you imply that God was acting through Omar Mateen? But then, wouldn't you be opposing the will of God by criticizing the massacre and its perpetrator?!

No, sorry, inciting violence is just as bad as carrying it out. 

Modern radical jihadism is first and foremost an anti-imperialist movement. Islam is just a tool; an incredibly powerful tool, but just a tool. It can be replaced by any other ideology, be it nationalism, communism, radical left...etc. 

In most of the middle east, the first post WW2 anti-imperialist movements were secular pan-Arabist and nationalist, the first 'terrorists' of the middle east. They were basically destroyed by the US with the help of....radical religious groups(not just Islamic, but Christian as well); an old trick that was frequently used by Britain and France when they believed they owned the region. 

And now you have 'radical Islam' as Trump wants to call it as if that changes any facts, and it's many folds more extremist and dangerous and keeps getting more with every intervention, invasion and bombing campaign. 

Until people start understanding those facts and forcing their governments to act accordingly, you can scream at the problem all you like and blame 'Islam' as if Islam is one easily defined thing with clear effects, but the problem is not going to go away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In Australia (I imagine NZ is very similar) taxes pay for medicare, pension, welfare, infrastructure support (roads, bridges) student loans, disability support, residential aged care, university fundi

He did not know that this gesture was anti-semitic because it is NOT anti-semitic. There's nothing to add — except that you people should start thinking by yourself instead of believing words coming f

When a government wants to control its population, the best way to do so is to fear its people by creating an external enemy. This way, people feel endangered by an outside menace, become more patriot

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, Fernando said:

While I don't agree with that statement in the context that is being use, this a lone does not create terrorism.

Again if it was the cause of America, then you have to be consistent and use it for every example.

Take example wounded knee massacre, that was one of the biggest terror act in america because of "land".

This did not drive American Indians to world terrorism of innocent victims.

So if your going to use the USA card of creating terrorism then you have to be consistent. It has to happend all over history.

Now I do agree that no one should be buying automatic weapons. There is no need for that. A regular gun is okay but not automatic weapon.

No you misunderstand -he is saying if you love someone of the same sex, 'you reap what you sow' -you get killed. Just as the same nutcases said AIDS was Gods revenge. Islam and Christianity are incompatible with modern life,

It turns out now the culprit was homosexual and to my mind couldn't reconcile his feelings towards other men with the ramblings of the Quran.

Many gay serial killers cant cope with the dichotomy. Much of the buggery in the catholic church, the rape of boys, is because homosexuality is pushed underground. Those people died in Pulse nightclub because of  religions stupid denial of homosexuality. Religion is the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

With all due respect, do you see how mental that sounds ??

Let me put it this way. If I don't like someone, I can insult him, I can curse him but under no circumstance I'm I allowed to kill him just because I don't like him. So no matter what that guy says, he doesn't tell anyone to go and kill somebody, and he doesn't commit murder like Omar did.  His actions are completely different from the massacre that Omar did so it's wrong to put them in the same boat like they're similar. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kellzfresh said:

Let me put it this way. If I don't like someone, I can insult him, I can curse him but under no circumstance I'm I allowed to kill him just because I don't like him. So no matter what that guy says, he doesn't tell anyone to go and kill somebody, and he doesn't commit murder like Omar did.  His actions are completely different from the massacre that Omar did so it's wrong to put them in the same boat like they're similar. 

I don't think anyone was comparing - its the fact that the Texan Governor was condoning the slaughter of those people, by stating that because their sexuality was not heterosexual, their murders have occurred because 'they have reaped what they have sown'.

Its as crystal as an unmuddied lake, as an azure sky of deepest Summer that is what he meant. Disgraceful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

No, of course it doesn't have to consistent. The effects of imperialist crimes vary a lot and are affected by countless factors. That doesn't relieve the perpetrators of the crimes of the responsibility for the effects of their actions. 

What an incredibly simplistic way of thinking it would be to suggest otherwise! 

In the case of the native Americans, they were kind of affected by the fact that they almost fucking wiped out by genocidal maniacs from Europe who committed heinous crimes in the names of kings and churches. 

And shouldn't YOU be consistent? You say the problem is the religion, then how come that the overwhelming majority of the 1.6 Muslims on earth are peaceful? 

Yes but are the native American now retaliating? Are they killing innocent people because of their religion? 

If anything was worse, then what USA did to Japan with the nuclear bomb is the biggest ever. 

Much bigger then anything that Israel has ever done to the Palestinian or USA to the middle east...

Yet you don't see Japanese going all jihad and killing innocent people because of this effect. 

Sorry I don't buy your ideas, this is deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fernando said:

Yes but are the native American now retaliating? Are they killing innocent people because of their religion? 

If anything was worse, then what USA did to Japan with the nuclear bomb is the biggest ever. 

Much bigger then anything that Israel has ever done to the Palestinian or USA to the middle east...

Yet you don't see Japanese going all jihad and killing innocent people because of this effect. 

Sorry I don't buy your ideas, this is deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. 

I don't give a fuck if you 'buy' my ideas or not :lol: They're not MY ideas to begin with, I certainly didn't come up with them. Majority of people who know history and the middle east share those views.

On Japanese 'jihad', meet Kozo Okamoto, a hero of anti-imperialist struggle. You won't like him much. 

Also, google 'The Japanese Red Army' because it would be nice if you had any idea about what you are talking about before making nonsense claims...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fernando said:

Yes but are the native American now retaliating? Are they killing innocent people because of their religion? 

If anything was worse, then what USA did to Japan with the nuclear bomb is the biggest ever. 

Much bigger then anything that Israel has ever done to the Palestinian or USA to the middle east...

Yet you don't see Japanese going all jihad and killing innocent people because of this effect. 

 

The reason why there is no widespread 'Japanese Jihad' is that the people ruled under Hirohito and that imperialist regime saw later that they were ruled by an iron glove, as were the Germans, and Russians under Stalin. The US and allies weren't having a go at the people so much, as the regime they were under, and they were seduced by the rebuilding of an economy under corporate capitalism

If you take the Palestinian situation though for example, the Palestinians are identified with by Muslims all over the World because of the same religion

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

I don't give a fuck if you 'buy' my ideas or not :lol: They're not MY ideas to begin with, I certainly didn't come up with them. Majority of people who know history and the middle east share those views.

On Japanese 'jihad', meet Kozo Okamoto, a hero of anti-imperialist struggle. You won't like him much. 

Also, google 'The Japanese Red Army' because it would be nice if you had any idea about what you are talking about before making nonsense claims...

Nope still nothing compare to the Islamic Radical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA must have some really exceptional people working for them if they can somehow shift the blame from how easy it is to buy a gun in the US and how a country with 5% of the worlds' population accounts for almost 1/3 of mass shootings. Maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't feel the tiniest little bit safer if everyone around me was armed. It would be the opposite really. And sadly there has been a rise in conservative agenda recently here in Brazil. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was funding this in the background again. We have enough gun killings already as it is, we don't need more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

 

In the case of the native Americans, they were kind of affected by the fact that they almost fucking wiped out by genocidal maniacs from Europe who committed heinous crimes in the names of kings and churches. 

 

Come now, you know that most North Americans died due to Europeans having in/active diseases such as small pox and that it's categorisation as a 'genocide' is debated. It wasn't simply a methodical extermination like the Jewish and Armenian Genocides, there is much, much more to the colonisation of North American than that. There were massacres and there was violence but I'd wager the vast, vast majority died because some guy sneezed and the wind carried it. It all happened over such a long time with so many different incidents, causes and motivations. Maybe it was a genocide but when that word comes to mind I think of the two aforementioned examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dion said:

NRA must have some really exceptional people working for them if they can somehow shift the blame from how easy it is to buy a gun in the US and how a country with 5% of the worlds' population accounts for almost 1/3 of mass shootings. Maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't feel the tiniest little bit safer if everyone around me was armed. It would be the opposite really. And sadly there has been a rise in conservative agenda recently here in Brazil. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was funding this in the background again. We have enough gun killings already as it is, we don't need more.

Question, once you ban guns do you think that will stop the terrorism?

What will you do with homemade suicide bombers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spike said:

Come now, you know that most North Americans died due to Europeans having in/active diseases such as small pox and that it's categorisation as a 'genocide' is debated. It wasn't simply a methodical extermination like the Jewish and Armenian Genocides, there is much, much more to the colonisation of North American than that. There were massacres and there was violence but I'd wager the vast, vast majority died because some guy sneezed and the wind carried it. It all happened over such a long time with so many different incidents, causes and motivations. Maybe it was a genocide but when that word comes to mind I think of the two aforementioned examples.

Good question and of course it does not. What are the tests of morality in which people of faith score higher than others? I don't know any other than made up ones created and judged by the faithful themselves. They believe themselves to be morally superior because they tell themselves they are morally superior. 

On 28/03/2016 at 8:36 PM, Fernando said:

Wait a moment, what about survival of the fittest?

Doesn't that concepts apply here? or that gets thrown away?

I'd be interested to know what you understand the phrase 'survival of the fittest' to mean. Your question appears to impute undesirable characteristics to those who survive and then to extrapolate a judgement from it. I'd rather not rely on assumptions however so I hope you'll clarify for me. I raise this because Darwin's phrase, and its implications, are very widely misunderstood or at least misrepresented. Sometimes wilfully so.

On 28/03/2016 at 8:36 PM, Fernando said:

How evolution beats creationism? If you have major faults in your transnational species. Not to mention the dating test that you use for measuring age of something is so wrong. Giving that you don't take into account the acceleration of radio active decay. You guys "assume" that this was constant all the time. And that's a wrong assumption to go by.

Some evidence, a massive amount in fact, beats no evidence all day long. Worse, from a creationist point of view, the evidence just keeps piling up. Now that we (clever people, not me) understand the role of what was once termed junk DNA we have a deeper understanding of how evolution happens.

There is some work which suggests there may have been changes in rates of decay and perhaps in the speed of light too but not anywhere near enough to reconcile biblical time and geological time. The difference in scale is simply vast. To imagine that the Earth is less than ten-thousand years old, is equivalent to believing that North America is about 2.5 metres wide; to calculate the conversion rate required to make light which has been travelling for 13 billion years before entering the lenses of our instruments, complete the journey on a biblical time scale, is beyond the power of most calculators.

5 hours ago, Spike said:

Come now, you know that most North Americans died due to Europeans having in/active diseases such as small pox and that it's categorisation as a 'genocide' is debated. It wasn't simply a methodical extermination like the Jewish and Armenian Genocides, there is much, much more to the colonisation of North American than that. There were massacres and there was violence but I'd wager the vast, vast majority died because some guy sneezed and the wind carried it. It all happened over such a long time with so many different incidents, causes and motivations. Maybe it was a genocide but when that word comes to mind I think of the two aforementioned examples.

What about the intentional and systematic destruction of the buffalo in the full knowledge of its vital economic importance to the indigenous peoples of the continent? Destroy a population's means of living and their lives are destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

 

What about the intentional and systematic destruction of the buffalo in the full knowledge of its vital economic importance to the indigenous peoples of the continent? Destroy a population's means of living and their lives are destroyed.

You do know that the Native Americans weren't exactly tactful with their own techniques of preserving the buffalo? They'd driven entire hoards off the side of a hill to kill them sometimes just for a single cut of meat.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/buffalo.htm

Besides that happened two hundred years after first colonisation, I'm not saying what the Americans did with the buffalo in the 19th century was in any way okay, I'm just simply stating there is simply a lot more to the demise of the Native American peoples than massacres/genocides/slaughter and whatever other synonyms you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spike said:

Come now, you know that most North Americans died due to Europeans having in/active diseases such as small pox and that it's categorisation as a 'genocide' is debated. It wasn't simply a methodical extermination like the Jewish and Armenian Genocides, there is much, much more to the colonisation of North American than that. There were massacres and there was violence but I'd wager the vast, vast majority died because some guy sneezed and the wind carried it. It all happened over such a long time with so many different incidents, causes and motivations. Maybe it was a genocide but when that word comes to mind I think of the two aforementioned examples.

Diseases were by far the leading cause but there were plenty of massacres. Even in the first few years after Colombus arrived. If I remember my Howard Zinn correctly it was something like 250,000 in the first 2 years (first voyage) and then up to 8 million people in the next 6 years (second and third voyage). That's genocidal. 

And let's not forget the millions who died from slavery in the mines or on the journey back to Europe to serve as slaves. 

As for north America, even the US has officially come to admit that what they did amounts to ethnic cleansing. 

Bottom line, however you want to define genocide, the crimes of colonialism be it in America or Africa are some of the worst in human history. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fernando said:

Question, once you ban guns do you think that will stop the terrorism?

What will you do with homemade suicide bombers?

No banning can ever completely negate anything. What it does is make it harder. If you really wanna kill another person you can always find a way. But guns make it easier. Isn't that the purpose of guns anyway – making killing easier? Homemade bombs take a lot more effort and knowledge to be used. You don't even need to ban guns for good, here in Brazil you can buy and keep one, as long as you meet certain requirements.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2016 at 8:28 PM, Spike said:

You do know that the Native Americans weren't exactly tactful with their own techniques of preserving the buffalo? They'd driven entire hoards off the side of a hill to kill them sometimes just for a single cut of meat.

Yes this behaviour is regularly mentioned in histories, as it should be. The indigenous peoples had been rubbing along with buffalo for millennia and yet, invading Europeans were able to observe great herds of bison stretching as far as the eyes could see across the plains. Unlike what was done by the invading Europeans, the impact of this behaviour was clearly sustainable. That's not the key difference however. Native people's acted either in ignorance or, at worst, laziness. What  a contrast with the motivation of the invaders.

On 15/06/2016 at 8:28 PM, Spike said:

Besides that happened two hundred years after first colonisation, I'm not saying what the Americans did with the buffalo in the 19th century was in any way okay, I'm just simply stating there is simply a lot more to the demise of the Native American peoples than massacres/genocides/slaughter and whatever other synonyms you have.

I would put it a little differently and say that there were many factors contributing to the demise of the indigenous populations but that there was only one cause; the European invasion. Ensuring the success of the invasion is precisely why this deeply selfish method was devised.

The invasion had achieved many of its goals but, after two centuries, there were still some hold outs among the native populations. Times had changed. The Europeans no longer were able to cast the indigenous ethnicities as one dimensional bad guys.  A gentler form of colonisation by stealth, treaties, had been tried but these proved unequal to the task. They left natives in possession of some highly desirable resources and worse, gave them legal rights to their territory. Many treaties had been broken by the Europeans of course but it was a slow and awkward business. The destruction of the buffalo weakened the native economy fatally and solved the problem. While resistance lingered on into the 1920s, pushing bison to the edge of extinction was, in effect, game over.

The invaders achieved in the west of 'their' continent, what a later invading force failed to do in the east of theirs between 1941 and 1945.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Labor MP shot and critically injured in what sounds like a terrorist attack. 

Hope she pulls through. 

I'm afraid she didn't. Mother of two young kids as well just senseless on every level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

I'm afraid she didn't. Mother of two young kids as well just senseless on every level.

So sad. It's just horrible on so many levels. Thoughts with her family and friends and those poor kids. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...