A horrific week so far

Casper - stop putting words in my mouth. You talk rubbish - it is not anti-Islamic Rhetoric to want extremists removed. Nowhere did i say Muslims...i said terrorists and extremists.
I don't think any Muslim would object to the eradication of these extremists.
I also find your assumption that everyone "lumps all Muslims together as terrorists" to be highly insulting - you do not know what "most people think" - you only know what YOU think, and you certainly can't prove that "most Muslims" feel victimised or singled out - that statement is in essence a sweeping generalisation that paves the way and endorses the "do nothing, left wing hand-wringers" policy.
time has come for action...and EVERY single right thinking, peace loving, decent human being will want these extremists removed - by any means necessary.

I really hope for YOUR sake, that YOU never lose someone close to you in one of these atrocities. because Casper, unfortunately - that's the only way you'll every see a different viewpoint. It's a pity you can only ever see your own naive viewpoint as being the only valid one. especially when, in this instance decades of world govts appeasing various terrorists groups is proven to achieve nothing...all this approach has ever done is allow these factions to gain momentum and get bigger and stronger.

You talk about Nazis...and how exactly would YOU have stopped the Nazis Casper? - thru Dialogue and education? not a f**king chance - and YOU KNOW IT.

these current "Nazis" IS/ISIL/ISIS - will only be defeated by the same means that defeated Hitler.

Can't we use here the Godwin's law?

[QUOTE] [b]BETA215 wrote:[/b]

Can't we use here the Godwin's law?[/QUOTE]

usually, yes.
But as Casper said "N***" and I then used the term again then the second cancels out the first.
that's my fault, wholly - as i didn't react to his using it the way i should've.
therefore until a third reference occurs - the thread is still live. apols.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

i agree with you completely. but there is an important caveat.
if you're diagnosed with cancer - your consultant will remove/eradicate it first and then address the causes afterward. you cannot address the cause while the cancer spreads/grows and destroys life.

the Muslim extremest terrorism campaign is a cancer, it needs wiping out first and foremost. full stop.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I agree that the first thing to do is to stop the cancer from existing and spreading.

We need to get to the cause of the terrorism (we won't ever get there completely actually, because it suits the powers that be to keep the status quo), but before that, the threat has to be dealt with.

There's no dichotomy between the West and the extremist Muslims. George Bush may have been less evil than Bin Laden, but they're far from black and white. It's all different shades of grey. And we the citizens have so little of a clue. This is all about money and power. No Western leaders really give a shit about the common people, and the real power behind the curtain and behind the leaders give even less of a shit.

Don't want to go rambling on... but there really are invisible people in the background, behind the curtain, who control everything. I don't think they're any specifically organised or named group (e.g. I don't believe they necessarily have a name like the Bilderberg group, etc.) - but there are extremely powerful and wealthy people who pull the strings. This is a fact. It's not a conspiracy theory. And we have no power - all we can do is discuss things without even having half of the facts. Extremist Muslims are bad, of course, and they must be stopped. But the West (not the citizens, the people in charge) commits atrocities which are just as bad.

And speaking about the N****, do you think Hitler really wanted to fight with France and Britain? Of course he didn't. What resulted from WWII? The bloody cancerous Communist Soviets destroyed Eastern Europe and killed millions. And Churchill and Roosevelt made a criminal pact with that devil, Stalin. Who was behind all this? The same people who are behind all we are discussing now. Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and yet the West shook hands with him. Why? Leaders don't give a shit about people getting killed, all they care about is power, and the people behind them, pulling their strings, hold all the power.

^^^^ Aaaaaaaaand that didnt take long!!!

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]BETA215 wrote:[/b]

Can't we use here the Godwin's law?[/QUOTE]

usually, yes.
But as Casper said "N***" and I then used the term again then the second cancels out the first.
that's my fault, wholly - as i didn't react to his using it the way i should've.
therefore until a third reference occurs - the thread is still live. apols.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]

^^^^ Aaaaaaaaand that didnt take long!!!

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]BETA215 wrote:[/b]

Can't we use here the Godwin's law?[/QUOTE]

usually, yes.
But as Casper said "N***" and I then used the term again then the second cancels out the first.
that's my fault, wholly - as i didn't react to his using it the way i should've.
therefore until a third reference occurs - the thread is still live. apols.[/QUOTE]




[/QUOTE]

+1
XD

Admins, please. Apply the law!

XOXO, your dear BETA tester.

you do also realise don't you that Godwin's law only applies until someone makes a point of requesting Admin/Moderators action upon it.

Your request has now removed the existence of GL to this thread ad infinitum. well done, lol

Abusing "Godwin's Law" is simply a form of censorship, a convenient way to look the other way when forced to consider a comparison to the situation in nazi Germany. Denouncing a comparison offhand for no reason other than an empty phrase like "Godwin's Law" (which, if you were to read up on it, doesn't say anything about the veracity or relevance of nazi-comparisons, but simply about the frequency of occurrance. Using Godwin's Law as a means of dismissing a comparison only proves that the person using it in such a way is actually ignorant of Godwin's Law) is nothing short of instating a taboo. Rendering a comparison taboo is a very dangerous move to make. If a politician were to arise tomorrow, wearing a uniform with a red arm band, having a funny moustache and ranting about how a certain religious group is to blame for all society's problems, together with their communist friends, and should be locked up in special camps away from society, people would still scream "GODWIN'S LAW!!!!" when someone suggested this might be rather similar to occurrances in the 1930s.

But it's perfectly obvious that a meaningful discussion is impossible here. We've got a red-baiting madcap with a questionable knowledge of 20th century history, brENsKi who's convinced he holds the moral highground but simply resorts to claiming his words are taken out of context every time a conclusion is drawn that makes him look like less than the embodiment of reason. The worst thing is - it's actually possible that brENsKi honestly believes that I am really spinning his words, that he really believes he is perfectly reasonable and not heavily slanted at all.

I certainly don't feel the least desire to continue a meaningless discussion, in which all the points I raise are ignored and instead I get accused of being insensitive for not grabbing my pitchfork and torch. Fortunately, people more civilized than brENsKi do see that the #illridewithyou campaign did a lot more good than screaming for violence and retribution. I'm going to return to a more pleasant and reasonable approach - totally ignoring rightist hate-baiters and warhawks.

I don't like to keep talking about this cause I'm not talking about the main theme, but brENsKI... man... WTF happens with you.

At least for my part, I'm not trying to censorship. But you know how discussions are here. If they didn't get out when they are fresh, you will be very fucked.

Case closed.

Casper, I didn't bring up Godwin's Law - check your facts. I actually joked about it's use here.
getting a little sick of you misquoting and putting words in my mouth - my words were not open to "interpretation" they are exactly as stated - there is no hidden meaning. and don't call me a hater again, ok?
I've not insulted you, so kindly don't insult me.

but let's state some facts here. your misquoting of me is nothing short of a lie, you may be able to use clever words like "spin" to hide the truth...but you have lied about me. the decent thing to do would be to retract.

I doubt very much that you will.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

Casper, I didn't bring up Godwin's Law - check your facts.

[/QUOTE]

I never said that you did. In fact, I find it a little disturbing that you assume that everything in a post of mine that mentions you in the second half is referring to you.

One other thing, though you didn't reference it, I will concede: I should have phrased one sentence differently, namely "We've got a red-baiting madcap with a questionable knowledge of 20th century history, brENsKi who's convinced he holds the moral highground", where it would have been clearer if I had replaced the comma with the word "and" to further emphasize that here, too, I am talking about two DIFFERENT people. As it stands, those phrases are lacking in clarity.

thank you

[QUOTE]

[b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote: [/b] [...] We've got a red-baiting madcap with a questionable knowledge of 20th century history, [...][/QUOTE]

Sorry, but how did you come to that conclusion? I'm supposing you are talking about me.

Anyway, I didn't get all the history classes I should have to know all the basics. So, to me, that isn't an humiliation or a way to treat me like an ignorant.

Also, with the phrase "XOXO, your dear BETA tester.", it's very obvious that I'm joking. I was joking with brENsKi.
If you are some kind of embittered or serious guy, you can always stop commenting or ignore us. It's more easy than discuss with us.

We come to this place to relax, to talk about a great band or anything, to forget all our daily problems. not to criticize or discuss not in a healthy way.

[QUOTE]
[b]thomasquinn wrote:[/b]
Are you people really this daft? You're giving ISIS EXACTLY what they want!!! ISIS wants Muslims to believe that the world hates them and wants to destroy them. Right now, the Danes seem to be the only people who realize this, and their policy towards Jihadists is, not coincidentally, by far the most succesful. By means of anti-Islamic rhetoric and by attacking ISIS-types through slurs against Islam, you are driving more Muslims right into their arms. Not because they like ISIS, but because they're increasingly scared of Western Islamophobes. The same kind of thing happened in Germany in the 1930s - an enormous rise in the number of Jews who joined communist groups. Not because they sympathized with communism per se, but because they were scared shitless by the nazis, who kept saying that the communists were a front for Jewish interests.

What we need is more of the #illridewithyou, and less of the racism. Fighting hate with more hate is as stupid as it gets. The past two weeks, there have been two lethal shootings near where I live (fully doubling the annual homicide rate, I might add). This is part of a recently escalated but decades old feud between two groups of orthodox protestants (Christian fundamentalist nutjobs). How would you think regular orthodox protestants and even moderate protestants would respons if we started a campaign saying Christianity = Violence, out with Christian terrorists and the likes? Do you think that would drive them away from these extremists? Or do you think they'd close ranks a little further?[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with this opinion. The extremists rely, largely, on their own interpretation of scripture, to motivate their cadre and brainwash and recruit new members. It does not matter to them what the west thinks, or what are the views aired about terrorism on a discussion on a fourm. They did not attack Pakistani kids/civilians because they (the victims) held anti-Muslim sentiments. They looked for the justifications in the scriptures.

I am also not of the opinion that the situation of the Jews in 1930s and those of the Jihadis of today is the same. The domination of Muslims in Islamic societies is total and complete. They are cannot be "scared shitless" of themselves.

There virtually no mainstream campaign anywhere in the world, to my knowledge, to the effect Islam = Violence. The opposite is true, infact. Whenver a Jihadi attack happens anywhere we get an irritating overdose of "Islam is the religion of Peace".