What about US violence. Will that end? Do you care about other sorts of violence or are you just limited to Isalmic violence?
What about all those Hindu extremists that are killing hundreds annually in India for eating meat?
What about all the thousands of people dying in Africa because of Chritistian extremists who are slaughtering everyone that does not believe in their religion?
What about all the thousands of Muslims being killed in Myanmar because they do not follow the same ideology as the government?
This whole argument on Terrorism is ridiculous.
It's just like gun crime in America. 1 terrorist who kills 5 people grabs global attention.
However, 1 gunman who kills 20 people is reported merely by local news networks.
How pathetic is that?
All murders are wrong. So why does one murder get more attention over the other?
Islamic extremism accounts for probably around a few dozen deaths in America every year.
Compare that to gun crime, which is over 30,000 people dying.
So pathetic honestly. People only care about the 0.1% of people dying and ignore the rest because it is "NORMAL".
"MEN are monsters. They are responsible for rape, murder and domestic abuse. They need to be locked away, or better yet, killed.
They are destroying the planet because MEN are greedy and filthy. The time of MEN is nearing an end.
It's time for WOMEN to take the planet".
Here is an argument used by radical feminists to ban MEN because they despise them for what they stand. They want to wipe out half the population.
Now most of you will laugh at this argument. But I'll ask this, is their argument any different than ones used by some here who want to see the banning of Islam and the removal of Muslims etc who have a population of almost 2 Billion?
If you despise Islam and Muslims and want to see them banned, then surely you must see this argument by radical feminists as very logical and acceptable to promote.
Right?
If you on the other hand think they are a bunch of idiots who need to grow up, I suggest you take a long look in the mirror and ask yourselves the same question.
You are justifying this terrorist attack. You are.
But when it comes to Islamic terrorists there can apparently be no justification. They just hate our values. They are attacking us for no reason.
Right?
Let's just ignore the fact that the West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq which gave birth to dozens of terrorist groups who swore to "destroy the invaders".
Yeah. Let's just pretend none of that happened. These Islamic terrorists have no other motivation other than to kill senselessly because they don't agree with a view point.
Yeah. That seems like the only justification.
But when white terrorists attack, we should expect this sort of thing as a retaliation. Yeah. White people are just retaliating.
Despicable. I cannot believe you made excuses for this terrorist.
If you did any research at all, you will find the vast majority of perpetrators responsible for the persecution of Christian Palestinians are Israeli Zionists.
There are numerous cases of mosques and churches being burnt down by extremist Jews.
It's blatantly clear that your thread is not aimed at helping Christians in Palestine but rather to bash Muslims further for being oppressive.
And the facts on the table are evidence of this. Christians and Muslims are both being subjected to abuse and persecution by the state of Israel and it's extremist supporters.
To suggest that Muslims are the sole and main cause of persecution of Christians, as you are insinuating, is an utter disgrace and devoid of any truth and the reality on the ground.
Christians and Muslims are standing together against the oppression and terror they are subjected to by Israel. The illegal blockade and the continued expansion of Israel into Christian and Muslim Palestinian homes is what is the source of oppression in the region.
Just goes to show how irresponsible the media is and how stupid some people are for believing anything immediately without using their own brain.
The lies that were told about this case by right wing tabloids is absolutely disgusting and vile.
Heck. Why do people still read these pathetic tabloids anyways in the first place. I know they are targeted at a section of society that is considered less educated, but come on...
You might as bloody well call in our damn military to police our nation. Our Air Force will do a superb job in killing drug dealers and murderers with their deadly drones.
Better yet, you say you want to save on budget. Then why don't you bloody recall all our American soldiers who are dying in the Middlea East in petty oil and power wars and bring them home to police our nation.
Recall our troops from Afghanistan and Europe LIKE YOU PROMISED and give them a better job to do by keeping Americans safe in their own country!!!
I thought you were arguing Trump does not represent the Republican Party since the post you quoted declared Trump to be an embodiment of the Republican Party, something I presumed you were refuting.
When actually, you are arguing Trump is not a Republican. Something separate.
But the Republican Party did endorse Trump as their candidate and President.
Which means they condoned his behaviour and character.
Which also means that at the end of the day, the Republican Party would also be content with having Hitler champion their cause for them as long as they are certain it would lead to them winning the ultimate prize...
Power.
This is not a dig at the Republican Party by the way, though it may seem like that.
US politics and politics in general is a disgrace. It is all about power. Power and money.
Leadership, values and dignity are the first to be flung out of the window when it comes to politics.
Personally, I don't see how utilising military grade equipment will change anything in terms of law and order.
If anything, we will likely see a rise in fatalities involving police operations. This step is retrograde.
It solves nothing and simply creates more problems.
Just imagine the headlines in the press if Putin were to sign into law a similar bill allowing Russian police to utilise military gear and tactics for law and order purposes.
That will pretty much explain to you why such a move by Trump is not a very good idea.
It's not only Christians that are unsafe in Arab countries. Muslims are also unsafe.
Thousands upon thousands of Muslims have been killed because of their faith. Compare that with the few hundreds of Christians.
So we should ignore the millions of Muslims being oppressed by extremists and dictators (WHO THE WEST ARE FUNDING) and pretend that the only victims are Christians, right?
How about you take issue with the main issue. And that's your bloody country funding and supporting brutal regimes and terror groups across the world who are responsible for the oppression of both Christians and Muslims!
Why don't you take issue with that?
You think these extremist Muslims just popped out of nowhere do you? No. It comes from the ****ed up and evil Wahabbi state that is called Saudi Arabia.
A country the West unofficially recognises as a state sponsor of terrorism, all the while it continues to send it billions of dollars of weapons.
But I guess you have no issue with that do you?
Maybe it's time you realise the real source of extremism and terrorism is not Islam and the Quran, it's America's buddies in the Middle East.
Of course there will be hypothetical arguments. And of course I will use them as they are relevant to this topic. Just stop with the Apple and Orange comparison. That is far off the mark.
The fact that you could not even substantiate your own argument is telling.
What's really sad is that you can't have a mature discussion with anybody here. You always have to resort to name calling and expletives.
"Everyone didn't go around ****ing 9 year olds. Back then people were married of into a family as trade deals between 2 families. This was for strengthening ties and bulding relations economicaly and socially. Didnt mean they went around having sex with kids".
AND LET'S PUT SOME CONTEXT IN.
This was my question to you:
"So everyone living in Britain before the 1930s are sick and twisted people for believing marriage between a man and a "girl" is fine?"
YOU responded by saying British people didn't go around ****ing girls randomly. And then you said girls were sold off to men so long as it led to better family ties!!!
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S BETTER TO SELL YOUR GIRLS OFF TO MEN AS LONG AS IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE FAMILY.
YOU DID NOT EVEN CRITICIZE BRITISH PAEDOPHILIA!
NO!
YOU MADE EXCUSES FOR THEM. YOU MADE EXCUSES BY PORTRAYING SUCH MARRIAGES AS SOMEHOW CIVILIZED!!!
IF YOU DIDN'T DEFEND PAEDOPHILE HERE, THEN WHY ON EARTH DID YOU POST THAT ENTIRE PIECE OF GARBAGE?
IT IN NO WAY RELATES TO MY QUESTION. AND IN FACT, YOU SOFTENDED BRITISH PAEDOPHILIA BY MAKING JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IT.
WHY DIDN'T YOU OUTRIGHT CONDEMN IT? WHY DID YOU MAKE UP A FAKE STORY?
BECAUSE THAT IS A FAKE STORY? SINCE WHEN WERE GIRLS SOLD OFF TO MEN FOR BETTER RELATIONS?
And for the icing on the cake, you said this:
"Didnt mean they went around having sex with kids".
THAT'S BULLSHIT!!!!
SO WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL BRITISH PEOPLE DIDN'T RANDOMLY **** GIRLS. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL THAT GIRLS WERE FIRST SOLD OFF!!!
AND YOUR STATEMENT IS A COMPLETE LIE. IT'S TOTAL BS!
OF COURSE MEN IN BRITAIN WENT AROUND ****ING AND MARRYING GIRLS.
The internet is a very big place. Why should I be the one to look up and corroborate what you say. That's not how a debate works. If you can't defend your argument with actual evidence why bother engaging in the first place?
Your line of "look it up" is simply an excuse because you can NO longer defend that argument.
I'm not going to do the hard work for you. If you can't debate sensibly don't bother at all. Seriously, why bother? I said from the beginning I didn't want this to turn into some shit argument, so why did you make it into such.
"Everyone didn't go around ****ing 9 year olds. Back then people were married of into a family as trade deals between 2 families. This was for strengthening ties and bulding relations economicaly and socially. Didnt mean they went around having sex with kids".
HERE YOU ARE DEFENDING WHITE MEN MARRYING GIRLS!!! AS LONG AS IT LEADS TO BETTER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL TIES, THERE IS NO PROBLEM!!
YOU ARE DEFENDING PAEDOPHILIA HERE!!!!
I'm the one that said it was okay for men to marry girls before the 1930s. And I asked you did you think that was wrong?
How did you respond? YOU RESPONDED WITH EXCUSES!
You made up excuses to defend such marriages!!!
YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!! YOU JUST DEFENDED PAEDOPHILIA!!
He condemns paedophilia and calls Muhammad a pedophile. Yet at the same time he makes excuses for "British paedophilia" by saying it was okay for British men to marry girls before the 1930s as long as it led to the strengthening of economic and social ties between families.
LOL
So it's okay for girls to be sold to men. That means it's not paedophilia.
But it is wrong for an Arab to marry a girl. That's paedophilia.
"Everyone didn't go around ****ing 9 year olds. Back then people were married of into a family as trade deals between 2 families. This was for strengthening ties and bulding relations economicaly and socially. Didnt mean they went around having sex with kids".
So it's acceptable for British people to sell their girls off to marry a man as part of a family agreement to strengthen family ties. Absolutely disgusting. You are defending patriarchy and paedophilia!
It's okay for a girl to marry a man, as long as it leads to better social and economic ties between families LOL!!!!
AND YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION. ARE YOUR GRAND PARENTS NOT SUPPORTERS OF PAEDOPHILIA SINCE THEY LIVED IN A TIME WHERE IT WAS FINE FOR MEN TO MARRY GIRLS?