Domestic Politics

[NewConvert]

6 hours ago, Tesla said:

While I'm clearly over-exaggerating, everything I said is certainly a possibility.

The government definitely does have my voice print, because I (in a moment of weakness) consented to it for verification purposes when calling the ATO.

As for hijacking the microphones of any mobile or similar device, wasn't that proven to happen in the US via the NSA leaks? (srs question, I didn't pay enough attention tbh, but I remember something along those lines). Do you think Zuckerberg has his macbook's microphone taped up for no reason (wasn't it also proven that FB and Google worked with the NSA on providing data and so someone like Zuckerberg would know what's going on better than most?)

As for the email and social media accounts being hacked by the government, that one was definitely proven (by the NSA leaks I believe, or similar), because it was done via an unreported hole in a common encryption algorithm (which the NSA or w/e agency it was purposely didn't report it so they could continue hacking whoever's email or social media accounts they wanted) and it was a huge thing when the hole was found.

It's funny how, even once they're confirmed, people refuse to believe conspiracy "theories". Don't get me wrong, I'm also usually the first to bag out nutjobs who believe in completely retarded and far fetched conspiracies, but once there is legitimate evidence it's a different story.

Australian security agencies work closely with their US counterparts. So it really isn't a stretch to imagine any of that is happening, and the only reason it wouldn't be happening is because there aren't enough resources to do it (and this is most likely the reality, and pretty much what I believe, that most this stuff probably isn't happening but only because there aren't enough resources). But the way things are going, and as more resources become available or it becomes cheaper to do, it only becomes more likely going forward.

Anyway, even if the risk is small, if I'm getting nothing out of it, why provide information I don't need to? Eg with the ATO and my voice print I was getting something out of it (convenience) so I didn't mind too much (and anyway there is nothing stopping some government department storing our voice print without consent regardless), but I don't get shit out of giving ABS my census data so why take the risk?

It's like how the average moron person trusts the police, so when they commit some minor crime through accident or negligence or because they didn't think it was a big deal, and the friendly police officer invites them for a 'chat' to 'clear up' the issue, they'll go in there and admit everything thinking it's okay because they're "not a criminal". Nekminut they are charged with a crime, because funnily enough a police officer's job is to collect evidence of crimes so they can be prosecuted. It happens every day. Why take the risk and provide them with information you dont have to?

Yes, I am cynical as fuck. Probably even borderline paranoid. But it doesn't hurt to be either of those things.

Way back in Reagan's day the USA passed laws (and forced compliant lackeys around the world to do likewise) that enabled intelligence services to use a backdoor into the telco systems. This was circumvented by PGP but even when I was working in security in the late 90s there was still a backdoor that we had to comply with. Encryption has improved since but I think the whole lots is pretty pointless if they use a distributed communications list that would just flood and overwhelm the intelligence services. After all that is what happened with the 9/11 attacks in the USA - all the data was there but no one could join the dots until after the event.

And I am with you - the census can fuck off.

[Jimmy]

This Trump propaganda is delicious. So much better than our elections.

[GreenSeater]

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

This Trump propaganda is delicious. So much better than our elections.

Gotta disagree with you here. Not because of Trump, but because their elections go for so fucking long and are full of so much shit. Our 8 week campaign was more than enough imo.

[Tesla]

Yeah their campaigns go on way to long, but overall it's definitely more entertaining.

[hedaik]

On 21/07/2016 at 3:59 PM, n i k o said:

I find people that think that everything is as it seems more nuts than these nut job conspiracy theorists. To think there's not even a possibility of something being contrary to what a government and the media spouts is proof of how dumb society can be. That's not to say that there's major plots behind everything that goes on, sometimes shit just happens. Nothing wrong with keeping an open mind though. 

Scepticism is fine, but conspiracy theorists lose their integrity pretty quickly when every single disaster/event in the world is an orchestrated event. 

[n i k o]

5 minutes ago, hedaik said:

Scepticism is fine, but conspiracy theorists lose their integrity pretty quickly when every single disaster/event in the world is an orchestrated event. 

Agree. It's a fine line, people that go over it basically end up getting caught up in it like an avalanche. 

[Shahanga]

1 hour ago, hedaik said:

Scepticism is fine, but conspiracy theorists lose their integrity pretty quickly when every single disaster/event in the world is an orchestrated event. 

The conspiracy has to make sense, which 99% of them don't.  On top of that, from hard experience working with people of (in the modern parlance) "different competency" the odds that whatever it is they are going on about is actually incompetency (vs some incredibly complicated conspiracy) are very high.  

Now I'm not saying "trust your government blindly", yes be cynical of their motives, but i think it makes sense to be sceptical of their capability, i mean have you ever worked or dealt with a government department?  

As to other (non government) secret conspiracies - ever told 3 mates a "secret"? - what happened? 

[thisphantomfortress]

My favourite quote on the matter by Alan Moore;

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. 

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. 

The world is rudderless."

[malloy]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

My favourite quote on the matter by Alan Moore;

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. 

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. 

The world is rudderless."

From my experience people who believe every thing is a 'crazy' conspiracy tend to be people who are not really going places in life to which the theory that everything is controlled and you have to be in on it to get anywhere may be comforting as to why they will never really succeed in life. I.e it is just the human trait of trying to blame someone else for their circumstances.

[Tesla]

Strong brainwashing going on ITT, I talk about some proven conspiracies and your minds straight away go to the nutjob conspiracy shit like illuminati etc.

Clearly conditioned to associate the term conspiracy with nutjobs so you automatically dismiss anything that might be a conspiracy.

Stay woke.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tesla

[Jimmy]

I find the people who peddle all the nutjob conspiracy theories to just be massive edgelords tbh. But also a bit of Malloy's theory as well.

Or they're just a massive lefty who thinks conservative governments are out to get you like @Fingman

[Deeming]

I love a good conspiracy theory but if you rally want to be disturbed have a look on Youtube at the number of 'flat earth' conspiracy videos and how popular they are...

[GreenSeater]

1 hour ago, Deeming said:

I love a good conspiracy theory but if you rally want to be disturbed have a look on Youtube at the number of 'flat earth' conspiracy videos and how popular they are...

The best thing ever was when B.O.B. started ranting on Twitter about the Earth being flat and that round Earth was all government lies and shit, and it went viral for like a week and then Neil Degrasse Tyson just came out and repeatedly shut him down and debunked all his "evidence"

[Tesla]

2 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

The best thing ever was when B.O.B. started ranting on Twitter about the Earth being flat and that round Earth was all government lies and shit, and it went viral for like a week and then Neil Degrasse Tyson just came out and repeatedly shut him down and debunked all his "evidence"

His excuse is that he is on a fuckload of drugs.

I used to listen to this guy before he was famous (no hipster), and there were no signs of him being this fried. Give a stoner enough money and free time and next thing you know they're convinced the world is flat.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Anyone know much do I need to donate to one of the major political parties for them to pursue my agenda?

Edited July 25, 2016 by Tesla

[GreenSeater]

9 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Anyone know much do I need to donate to one of the major political parties for them to pursue my agenda?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/political-donations-parties-data-search/7129064 It would appear Clive Palmer really likes himself

[Tesla]

Just now, GreenSeater said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/political-donations-parties-data-search/7129064 It would appear Clive Palmer really likes himself

Pfizer $20k

AWU $20k

Australian hotels Assosciation $20k

Shit, if $20k actually gets me somewhere i'll put up $20k.

This is actually interesting AF, surprised how many poverty donations there are from big companies, but also some interesting ones. Pharmacy Guild lol, no wonder pharmacists have one of the best white collar rackets going on, almost as good as the shit tradies get on account of unions owning the ALP. Crown Resorts not fucking around either, no wonder they get away with so much shit. The fuck are ServCorp donating to every state branch for, what agenda could they possibly be pursuing?

[GreenSeater]

49 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Pfizer $20k

AWU $20k

Australian hotels Assosciation $20k

Shit, if $20k actually gets me somewhere i'll put up $20k.

This is actually interesting AF, surprised how many poverty donations there are from big companies, but also some interesting ones. Pharmacy Guild lol, no wonder pharmacists have one of the best white collar rackets going on, almost as good as the shit tradies get on account of unions owning the ALP. Crown Resorts not fucking around either, no wonder they get away with so much shit. The fuck are ServCorp donating to every state branch for, what agenda could they possibly be pursuing?

Just goes to show how massive the difference between Aussie politics and US politics is. A 20k donation to the Democrats or the Republicans would barely be acknowledged.

[jw1739]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/political-donations-parties-data-search/7129064

[Jimmy]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

Anyone know much do I need to donate to one of the major political parties for them to pursue my agenda?

A donation as small as $500k can make you a lead senate candidate

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-cash-for-candidacy-leaked-documents-show-500000-offer-to-become-liberal-democratic-senate-candidate-20160603-gpazt5.html

[Tesla]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

A donation as small as $500k can make you a lead senate candidate

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-cash-for-candidacy-leaked-documents-show-500000-offer-to-become-liberal-democratic-senate-candidate-20160603-gpazt5.html

lol, I really doubt you have to donate $500k to become lead senate candidate at the LDP.

Also this fits perfectly with LDP philosophy so makes him a good choice for lead senate candidate  

[Shahanga]

Bot sure this is politics, more law and order. How long before someone is killed in these home invasions?

1.Surely the courts have got to stop the "tag and release" policy they have right now. How can these kids get their lives on track if they can't see consequences.

2. What's happening to the stolen cars? They being sold to the heavy duty Crims or what?

[NewConvert]

25 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Bot sure this is politics, more law and order. How long before someone is killed in these home invasions?

1.Surely the courts have got to stop the "tag and release" policy they have right now. How can these kids get their lives on track if they can't see consequences.

2. What's happening to the stolen cars? They being sold to the heavy duty Crims or what?

1. When in my yoof there were a core group of kids that went on to become career crims (indeed I remain a friends with one of them). Your question regarding the consequences does not wash with me - they do see the consequences but they are just born that way.

2. My general impression was that they were burnt at some remote or isolated spot but I could be wrong.

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

How long before someone is killed in these home invasions?

 

Hopefully soon. As long as it is the intruders that is. Shit will get real if it's one of the residents. 

Ideally I would like to see an intruder killed and then the purpotrater arrested so that there is a huge amount of outrage and finally something is done about giving people a right to defend themselves / their property. The outrage has already been there with a few similar incidents recently, but with the icnreased amount of attention these Apex incidents generate, I think it could be a big enough amount of outrage that something happens.

On another note, serious question, but if we're going to profile and target people based on religion or race or similar, what's with the obsession with muslims when there is fuck all chance any of us is going to be hurt in a terrorist attack whereas there is a decent chance we could be hurt in a home or car invasion? This whole terrorisim shit has been going on for 15 years and like 10 people have been hurt/killed in Australia? And when the percentage of muslims committing terrorist attacks is like 0.001% whereas it's probably a decent percentage of South Sudeanese in the community committing these attacks? Not too mention there would be way less opportunity for the South Sudanese to defend themselves compared to Muslims since there are less prominent South Sudanese in our community and are less integrated and therefore would receive less support from the average Australian.

Seems if you wanted to pursue some sort of anti-multicultural agenda, reevaluating the target would bear more fruit.

I understand I'm assuming a certain level of logic/rationale/intelligence here on a class of people who most likely lack it, but even Pauline Hanson figured out she needed to change from anti-Asian to anti-Muslim, is it time to switch up to anti south sudanese?

Edited July 26, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

1.Surely the courts have got to stop the "tag and release" policy they have right now. How can these kids get their lives on track if they can't see consequences.

 

Just to rustle some jimmies with a fun fact:

A guy I went to high school with killed someone at the time and think he only did like 1 year behind bars.

Meh, decent bloke and I've seen many worse people in our society, and really the whole thing seemed to turn his life around so all in all probably a case in support of the light sentences young offenders receive.

Dunno wtf that kid in the NT did that he has been behind bars since he was 11 and is 17 or something now, probably less but clearly the NT isn't soft on crime.

[thisphantomfortress]

25 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Just to rustle some jimmies with a fun fact:

A guy I went to high school with killed someone at the time and think he only did like 1 year behind bars.

Meh, decent bloke and I've seen many worse people in our society, and really the whole thing seemed to turn his life around so all in all probably a case in support of the light sentences young offenders receive.

Dunno wtf that kid in the NT did that he has been behind bars since he was 11 and is 17 or something now, probably less but clearly the NT isn't soft on crime.

A guy I went to school with did time for armed robbery, he thinks he's a rapper now. He's still offending committing crimes against music.... I'll see myself out.

(For anyone who wants to see how bad he really is search for Freewyo)

[jw1739]

 

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

Hopefully soon. As long as it is the intruders that is. Shit will get real if it's one of the residents. 

Ideally I would like to see an intruder killed and then the purpotrater arrested so that there is a huge amount of outrage and finally something is done about giving people a right to defend themselves / their property. The outrage has already been there with a few similar incidents recently, but with the icnreased amount of attention these Apex incidents generate, I think it could be a big enough amount of outrage that something happens.

On another note, serious question, but if we're going to profile and target people based on religion or race or similar, what's with the obsession with muslims when there is fuck all chance any of us is going to be hurt in a terrorist attack whereas there is a decent chance we could be hurt in a home or car invasion? This whole terrorisim shit has been going on for 15 years and like 10 people have been hurt/killed in Australia? And when the percentage of muslims committing terrorist attacks is like 0.001% whereas it's probably a decent percentage of South Sudeanese in the community committing these attacks? Not too mention there would be way less opportunity for the South Sudanese to defend themselves compared to Muslims since there are less prominent South Sudanese in our community and are less integrated and therefore would receive less support from the average Australian.

Seems if you wanted to pursue some sort of anti-multicultural agenda, reevaluating the target would bear more fruit.

I understand I'm assuming a certain level of logic/rationale/intelligence here on a class of people who most likely lack it, but even Pauline Hanson figured out she needed to change from anti-Asian to anti-Muslim, is it time to switch up to anti south sudanese?

IMO we should stop referring to people as "terrorists." Using that word seems to give them some form of legitimacy in that it can be thought that they are acting in the name of some cause or other. In reality they are criminals, just criminals, and many of them are mass murderers.

In terms of what to address first, or give first priority? Well, use quantitative risk assessment. Risk is the probability of the event occurring multiplied by the magnitude of the likely consequence if it does occur. 

[Tesla]

27 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

 

IMO we should stop referring to people as "terrorists." Using that word seems to give them some form of legitimacy in that it can be thought that they are acting in the name of some cause or other. In reality they are criminals, just criminals, and many of them are mass murderers.

In terms of what to address first, or give first priority? Well, use quantitative risk assessment. Risk is the probability of the event occurring multiplied by the magnitude of the likely consequence if it does occur. 

Completely agree with both points.

What's the average amount of deaths from a 'terrorist' attack, like 5 people? And there is probably about a 10% chance yearly of a terrorist attack in Australia. So we can expect about 1 death every 2 years due to 'terrorism'. Greater chance of being hit by lightening and dying. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

Guys aren't serious? Theres a very good reason why people are categorised as terrorist rather than criminals. 

 

[thisphantomfortress]

Just now, HeartFc said:

Guys aren't serious? Theres a very good reason why people are categorised as terrorist rather than criminals.

 

Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist" now he's praised as a freedom fighter. This is the issue, terrorism gives them some sort of legtimacy that they may one day be considered on the right side of history.

[HeartFc]

35 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist" now he's praised as a freedom fighter. This is the issue, terrorism gives them some sort of legtimacy that they may one day be considered on the right side of history.

My concern is not with the potential of mincing words to fit a narrative but from a preventative point of view. 

A terrorist commits the act due to ideology, if we categorise them with people who commit murders of passion, or because of mental illness or for finanical gain then we're not doing ourselves any favours. If you find the specific reason why someone commits a mass killing then you're already at the first step to helping prevent that act being committed again. General murder has certain randomness to it, its not going to be completely eradicated. Even then we categorise murder to find why they've happened and how to find a solution to them.

Now you could argue that its just about language and its simply a matter of people not needing to know, this then takes away the power from the individual terrorist. I for one don't want to live a world where things are not specifically named and I'm not as informed as I could be. As a tax paying citizen I should know what happened, who did it and why. I can then make an informed decision on where id like to live, travel or socialise. 

Its this leftwing agenda that want muddy the waters to not upset people:

Lets not call islamic terrorism, Islamic. No fuck that, lets not call terrorism, terrorism, its just murder. No no fuck that. Lets not even name the guy who did, coz who really cares about his (muslim) name. No no we can go further. Lets not call him a male or female, he could be a trans-pan-demi-lunar-bianry-fluid-fucking-flying-billygoat.

 

[GreenSeater]

Surely there's a way to prevent terrorism that actually makes sense. The right's obsession with banning Islam or stopping muslims from coming to Australia is ridiculous and will just makes things worse, and the left's idea to just listen to uncle Waleed and type in a hashtag to stop extremists from wanting to massacre people is equally as ridiculous and clearly not going to acheive anything more than maybe gaining you a few more Twitter followers. As with most things, this is not a one or the other situation. There is a solution in there somewhere in the middle. Now I'm no geopolitical expert or religious expert, but plenty of people are, and it's about time they started working together to come up with a real solution. (Fwiw I can't see any solution to ISIS that would actually work, but again I'm not an expert)

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, HeartFc said:

My concern is not with the potential of mincing words to fit a narrative but from a preventative point of view. 

A terrorist commits the act due to ideology, if we categorise them with people who commit murders of passion, or because of mental illness or for finanical gain then we're not doing ourselves any favours. If you find the specific reason why someone commits a mass killing then you're already at the first step to helping prevent that act being committed again. General murder has certain randomness to it, its not going to be completely eradicated. Even then we categorise murder to find why they've happened and how to find a solution to them.

Now you could argue that its just about language and its simply a matter of people not needing to know, this then takes away the power from the individual terrorist. I for one don't want to live a world where things are not specifically named and I'm not as informed as I could be. As a tax paying citizen I should know what happened, who did it and why. I can then make an informed decision on where id like to live, travel or socialise. 

Its this leftwing agenda that want muddy the waters to not upset people:

Lets not call islamic terrorism, Islamic. No fuck that, lets not call terrorism, terrorism, its just murder. No no fuck that. Lets not even name the guy who did, coz who really cares about his (muslim) name. No no we can go further. Lets not call him a male or female, he could be a trans-pan-demi-lunar-bianry-fluid-fucking-flying-billygoat.

 

 

You're right there is a 'left wing agenda' along the lines of what you describe. But jut the same I find your post very contradictory, and I put it to you that there is a 'right wing agenda' of blatant desperation to label anything you can as Islamic terrorism to further some sort of anti-Islam agenda.

As much as there are cases of people indoctrinated by extreme or fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, which can't be denied, it seems recently there are probably more cases of people who are just deranged. It's nothing new, it used to be shooting up schools that got the media's attention, so that's what they'd do, now it's ISIS etc so they'll be like 'oh yeah isis' before taking someone hostage or shooting them or whatever. You were right in saying we need to categorise people committing crimes correctly, and I think there needs to be a distinction between those two sets of people.

Anyway, the idea about not treating it differently from other crime, for me at least it's more about removing the emotion in the debate and instead introducing more rationale. Frankly this obsession and fear with 'terrorism' is only making it worse, both extremists and those who are just deranged are further incentivised to commit an attack while the attention and fear is there. It really is disproportional to the threat posed.

 

14 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

Surely there's a way to prevent terrorism that actually makes sense. The right's obsession with banning Islam or stopping muslims from coming to Australia is ridiculous and will just makes things worse, and the left's idea to just listen to uncle Waleed and type in a hashtag to stop extremists from wanting to massacre people is equally as ridiculous and clearly not going to acheive anything more than maybe gaining you a few more Twitter followers. As with most things, this is not a one or the other situation. There is a solution in there somewhere in the middle. Now I'm no geopolitical expert or religious expert, but plenty of people are, and it's about time they started working together to come up with a real solution. (Fwiw I can't see any solution to ISIS that would actually work, but again I'm not an expert)

Honestly, it looks to me like the only solution is Donald Trump. 100% srs. Not the BS about banning muslims or w/e, that won't happen just like the rest of his crazy ideas, just like when far left governments got elected in Greece, France, etc and they realised they can't actually implement their crazy lefty ideas. But if he leads to better US-Russian relations that would be huge for combating ISIS and similar groups, as well as world peace in general. ISIS could easily be destroyed, but competing US and Russian interest don't allow it, eg Russians want to put their ally Assad back in power, while the US started this whole mess in the first place trying to overthrow him. If they found a mutually acceptable way to proceed, IS could be destroyed in a week.

[GreenSeater]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

 

You're right there is a 'left wing agenda' along the lines of what you describe. But jut the same I find your post very contradictory, and I put it to you that there is a 'right wing agenda' of blatant desperation to label anything you can as Islamic terrorism to further some sort of anti-Islam agenda.

As much as there are cases of people indoctrinated by extreme or fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, which can't be denied, it seems recently there are probably more cases of people who are just deranged. It's nothing new, it used to be shooting up schools that got the media's attention, so that's what they'd do, now it's ISIS etc so they'll be like 'oh yeah isis' before taking someone hostage or shooting them or whatever. You were right in saying we need to categorise people committing crimes correctly, and I think there needs to be a distinction between those two sets of people.

Anyway, the idea about not treating it differently from other crime, for me at least it's more about removing the emotion in the debate and instead introducing more rationale. Frankly this obsession and fear with 'terrorism' is only making it worse, both extremists and those who are just deranged are further incentivised to commit an attack while the attention and fear is there. It really is disproportional to the threat posed.

 

Honestly, it looks to me like the only solution is Donald Trump. 100% srs. Not the BS about banning muslims or w/e, that won't happen just like the rest of his crazy ideas, just like when far left governments got elected in Greece, France, etc and they realised they can't actually implement their crazy lefty ideas. But if he leads to better US-Russian relations that would be huge for combating ISIS and similar groups, as well as world peace in general. ISIS could easily be destroyed, but competing US and Russian interest don't allow it, eg Russians want to put their ally Assad back in power, while the US started this whole mess in the first place trying to overthrow him. If they found a mutually acceptable way to proceed, IS could be destroyed in a week.

Agree fully with the first part of your post, but I certainly don't think Donald Trump is the answer. Whilst a lot of his crazy ideas wont get through, I feel as though some of them will, particularly the ones that are likely to damage the relationship between Islam and the West even more. But aside from that, as much as the Russians are saying that they like him, they will hate him the second they begin trying to negotiate with him. Both him and Putin are as stubborn and uncompromising as shit, and I can actually see Trump making US-Russia relations worse overall tbh

[HeartFc]

Tesla I dont disagree but why is the Islamic discussion always framed around terrorism. Maybe I'm against other aspects of the ideology too.

Lack of freedom of speech and/or humour, no ability to criticise doctrine or muhammad, treatment of women, treatment of homosexuals, treatment of religious minorities, sharia practices in family court and food preparation, child marriage etc etc. 

Those are all problems which plague the islamic world. Now I trust most Muslims are against those practices but the question still remains, can western secular values and islamic sharia co-exist. Objectively speaking, 100% no. They will clash eventually and the blood will be on the hands of those who pandering to the nut bag imam's pushing their crazy ideology. 

Now its weird coz those Muslims who I said were mostly against sharia law will view me as a racist or *shutter*... "islamophobic" (lol what fucking gay word) Thats odd, aren't I just pointing out what they say they also believe? Let me guess: george bush, crusades, not all muslims, 0000000.000000000000001% etc.

When I tell my parents that the old testament is a book of violent fairy tales, gays are not mentally ill and the eurichrist is not literally the body of 2000 year old jew, is that also racist or Cathlophobic??

I treat everyone equally, I promise to hate you all the same.

[NewConvert]

6 hours ago, Tesla said:

 

You're right there is a 'left wing agenda' along the lines of what you describe. But jut the same I find your post very contradictory, and I put it to you that there is a 'right wing agenda' of blatant desperation to label anything you can as Islamic terrorism to further some sort of anti-Islam agenda.

As much as there are cases of people indoctrinated by extreme or fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, which can't be denied, it seems recently there are probably more cases of people who are just deranged. It's nothing new, it used to be shooting up schools that got the media's attention, so that's what they'd do, now it's ISIS etc so they'll be like 'oh yeah isis' before taking someone hostage or shooting them or whatever. You were right in saying we need to categorise people committing crimes correctly, and I think there needs to be a distinction between those two sets of people.

Anyway, the idea about not treating it differently from other crime, for me at least it's more about removing the emotion in the debate and instead introducing more rationale. Frankly this obsession and fear with 'terrorism' is only making it worse, both extremists and those who are just deranged are further incentivised to commit an attack while the attention and fear is there. It really is disproportional to the threat posed.

 

Honestly, it looks to me like the only solution is Donald Trump. 100% srs. Not the BS about banning muslims or w/e, that won't happen just like the rest of his crazy ideas, just like when far left governments got elected in Greece, France, etc and they realised they can't actually implement their crazy lefty ideas. But if he leads to better US-Russian relations that would be huge for combating ISIS and similar groups, as well as world peace in general. ISIS could easily be destroyed, but competing US and Russian interest don't allow it, eg Russians want to put their ally Assad back in power, while the US started this whole mess in the first place trying to overthrow him. If they found a mutually acceptable way to proceed, IS could be destroyed in a week.

I agree with this.

5 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

Agree fully with the first part of your post, but I certainly don't think Donald Trump is the answer. Whilst a lot of his crazy ideas wont get through, I feel as though some of them will, particularly the ones that are likely to damage the relationship between Islam and the West even more. But aside from that, as much as the Russians are saying that they like him, they will hate him the second they begin trying to negotiate with him. Both him and Putin are as stubborn and uncompromising as shit, and I can actually see Trump making US-Russia relations worse overall tbh

I don't know what to think of Trump. He could be the most corrupt American leader in my life time or the most inept or whatever. But there is also a logic to his madness which worked once before.

First in my lifetime there have been plenty of terrorist groups which I normally classify as state sponsored (Red Army, FLMN, UNITA, etc) or none state sponsored (November 17, SLA, IRA). Only the state sponsored groups were ever in a position to topple a state with one exception the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka who almost did without support from any government. The IS as reported in the Washington Post were initially funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The Saudis provided finance and intelligence whilst Turkey allowed weapons and logistics to flow through to the IS. Hence their ability to grab a slice of Iraq and Syria. So what would Trump do knowing that these two nations are still supporting IS? He is crazy enough to nuke SA and Turkey, and he is the Commander in Chief who does not need approval of the Senate or the House. IS without support will wither relatively quickly if the Russians and the Syrians continue the pincer movement. Why would it work? Two specific examples come to mind when in 1979 the Iranians students took the Americans embassy as hostages there was also a break away group to take on the Soviet Union's embassy but Brezhnev through the ambassador let the students know that the response will be a swift nuclear bombardment and the dead Soviet staff will be hailed as heroes of the Communist revolution. The Ayatollah Khoimeni knew enough about Brezhnev to believe that would happen and the students withdrew. The second example was Ronald Reagan who went on a massive weapons spending spree (screw the budget) which forced the Soviets to compete and they went broke (actually even broker). With the death of Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko (I still don't believe he was alive when he became secretary general) in quick succession leading to the arrival of Gorbachov and the rest is history. Having someone who you believe to be capable of mass murder will bring Saudi Arabia and Turkey to heal quite quickly.

Of course I don't know how Trump is going to react but then again neither do the Saudis and the Turks. As for Putin, they understand one another the way gangsters do. This is my turf and that is your turf.

[Tesla]

4 hours ago, HeartFc said:

Tesla I dont disagree but why is the Islamic discussion always framed around terrorism. Maybe I'm against other aspects of the ideology too.

Lack of freedom of speech and/or humour, no ability to criticise doctrine or muhammad, treatment of women, treatment of homosexuals, treatment of religious minorities, sharia practices in family court and food preparation, child marriage etc etc. 

Those are all problems which plague the islamic world. Now I trust most Muslims are against those practices but the question still remains, can western secular values and islamic sharia co-exist. Objectively speaking, 100% no. They will clash eventually and the blood will be on the hands of those who pandering to the nut bag imam's pushing their crazy ideology. 

Now its weird coz those Muslims who I said were mostly against sharia law will view me as a racist or *shutter*... "islamophobic" (lol what fucking gay word) Thats odd, aren't I just pointing out what they say they also believe? Let me guess: george bush, crusades, not all muslims, 0000000.000000000000001% etc.

When I tell my parents that the old testament is a book of violent fairy tales, gays are not mentally ill and the eurichrist is not literally the body of 2000 year old jew, is that also racist or Cathlophobic??

I treat everyone equally, I promise to hate you all the same.

The discussion is around terrorism because that's what we were talking about.

As for the rest of what you've said, well I've made me position clear before. Organised religion seems pretty retarded to me, because 95% of people who apparently subscribe to one of these religions just pick and chose what aspects of it they follow, when AFAIK it's supposed to be an 'all or nothing' thing. My favourite one is Muslims who have no issue drinking alcohol, but when it comes to pork/bacon "wow no I cant have that". Or pretty much every religion and gay marriage, all your fucking books say that shit is not allowed but apparently 75% of Australians support it (I don't actually  believe that stat, doubt it would even get 70% in plebiscite) and I know 70-75% of Australians aren't atheist/agnostic/communists/weirdreligionthatallowsgaymarriage.

And all those confused individuals, they're the good religious people. The other 5% are nutcases.

Also I love the faith people  put in some distant ancestor of theirs making the correct choice in religion. Like he was a fucking religious scholar who dedicated his life to analysing each religion to determine which is best. The cunt probably just picked it out of a hat.

All you need to know about organised religion is simple. Look at why Orthodoxy and Romanism split, and then why Romanism and Protestants split, and why Sunnis and Shia split. Each time it was about power/authority/money.

And don't get me started on atheists, they're the worst cunts of all. Fuck me, I'd even vote for Pauline Hanson if she chose to target Atheists.

But, as always, if you're not hurting anyone you do whatever the fuck you want.

 

[Tesla]

8 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

Agree fully with the first part of your post, but I certainly don't think Donald Trump is the answer. Whilst a lot of his crazy ideas wont get through, I feel as though some of them will, particularly the ones that are likely to damage the relationship between Islam and the West even more. But aside from that, as much as the Russians are saying that they like him, they will hate him the second they begin trying to negotiate with him. Both him and Putin are as stubborn and uncompromising as shit, and I can actually see Trump making US-Russia relations worse overall tbh

Well if you think a Clinton is going to make any inroads into terrorism you have a short memory. Old mate Bill went out of his way to create a terrorist state. Not just a terrorist state either, but a criminal state as well. A state where the leaders, apart from being terrorists, were also found to be using their new found state to conduct an organ trafficking ring. The organs of the victims of their terrorism/genocide of course. For real, the prime minister had nothing better to do with his days than organise organ trafficking. you couldn't make this shit up. Last I heard there was finally going to be some prosecutions into the matter so it might come up in the news again in then near future.

And no I'm not saying the other side were good blokes, they were fucked too, but it doesn't change the above facts.

While on Hillary, I'm the last person you'd classify as a feminist, but am I the only one who thinks her being the first Female US President is an insult on women's rights etc? The wife of a former president, who will always be seen as just a puppet of her husband? It's even worse than the fact that the firs black US president had to be half white and comically play up common black stereotypes.

I also don't understand why she isn't in jail TBH. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by Tesla

[GreenSeater]

28 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Well if you think a Clinton is going to make any inroads into terrorism you have a short memory. Old mate Bill went out of his way to create a terrorist state. Not just a terrorist state either, but a criminal state as well. A state where the leaders, apart from being terrorists, were also found to be using their new found state to conduct an organ trafficking ring. The organs of the victims of their terrorism/genocide of course. For real, the prime minister had nothing better to do with his days than organise organ trafficking. you couldn't make this shit up. Last I heard there was finally going to be some prosecutions into the matter so it might come up in the news again in then near future.

And no I'm not saying the other side were good blokes, they were fucked too, but it doesn't change the above facts.

While on Hillary, I'm the last person you'd classify as a feminist, but am I the only one who thinks her being the first Female US President is an insult on women's rights etc? The wife of a former president, who will always be seen as just a puppet of her husband? It's even worse than the fact that the firs black US president had to be half white and comically play up common black stereotypes.

I also don't understand why she isn't in jail TBH. 

Please don't confuse my dislike of Trump for liking Clinton. I personally think she would make an awful president. She should be probably be in prison, she's uninspiring and she only got to where she is by fucking Bill. If she wins it will be a shame that she will go down as the first woman to be president, as I think there are probably much better female choices for president in the US. All that being said, I still think she'd make a better president than Trump. Pretty sad that the choice for most powerful person on Earth is out of Bill Clinton's wife and a real estate developer. 

[NewConvert]

6 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

Please don't confuse my dislike of Trump for liking Clinton. I personally think she would make an awful president. She should be probably be in prison, she's uninspiring and she only got to where she is by fucking Bill. If she wins it will be a shame that she will go down as the first woman to be president, as I think there are probably much better female choices for president in the US. All that being said, I still think she'd make a better president than Trump. Pretty sad that the choice for most powerful person on Earth is out of Bill Clinton's wife and a real estate developer. 

P J O'Rourke who has a long history of hating and deriding the Clintons will vote for Hilary purely to prevent Trump from becoming president. You are in good company.