Muuuuuuuslim Baaaaaan! But don't call it that!

Crni Vuk said:
Ah yeah, so a small little mass killing here and there, as long it hits gypsis is ok I guess, eh. As long the 'real' Slovaks aren't hurt, right?
Click to expand...
The point is that you're trying to paint any crime as a "terrorism", which is lame and dumb. As for real Slovaks, don't worry! Let me introduce you Irena Cubirkova, one of our most famous serial killers. She decapitated one of her victims and send the head on long trip by a train. Would you call her a terrorist too, dear Vuk?

[redacted]archive photo removed[/redacted]
 
Last edited:
valcik said:
Hartman tried to resolve his situation by a couple of legal ways before, with no luck. The authorities didn't pay any attention to his official complaints, so he went insane and took care of it by himself. This is not how terrorists operate, is it?

Breivik was very different, and he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia..
Click to expand...
Do you apply this same reason of tought to EVERY muslim attacker that you've seen and heard on the news? Or does this classification and definition of yours only apply to European people?
 
Last edited:
Yes I do. The moment any terrorist organization claim the responsibility for any attack, it is terrorist attack for me. Be it IRA or ETA half a century back, or DAESH nowadays. Hartman was not a terrorist, no matter how hard you're trying.
 
valcik said:
The point is that you're trying to paint any crime as a "terrorism", which is lame and dumb. As for real Slovaks, don't worry! Let me introduce you Irena Cubirkova, one of our most famous serial killers. She decapitated one of her victims and send the head on long trip by a train. Would you call her a terrorist too, dear Vuk?

x
Click to expand...


Not to be backseat moderating, but I'm pretty sure you shouldn't post this.
 
valcik said:
The point is that you're trying to paint any crime as a "terrorism", which is lame and dumb. As for real Slovaks, don't worry! Let me introduce you Irena Cubirkova, one of our most famous serial killers. She decapitated one of her victims and send the head on long trip by a train. Would you call her a terrorist too, dear Vuk?

OHiJVVd.jpg
Click to expand...
Depends. Has she done it to 'terrorize' males? Like what was her motivation? This matters a lot for me, in my decision in who I call a terrorist and who not. Or has she done it indiscriminately to everyone she came across - I hate people, but I hate them all equally!

As I said, one goal of terrorism is to strike fear and shock into the hearts of victims. This can include people like serial killers, like those that only target women, with the intention to well ... terrorise women for example, just as it can include idiotic fighters from Boko Haram or Al Quaida flying planes in to buildings full of civilans.

And you said it by your self, the part of his town where Harman 'killed' people was never saver like today, correct? So aparantly he created some kind of fear that changed something. At least if your information can be trusted.

There is no clear definition for terrorism by the way. We're not talking about math here. No clue why you're so hellbend on pushing your definition as the only possible one here.

valcik said:
Yes I do. The moment any terrorist organization claim the responsibility for any attack, it is terrorist attack for me. Be it IRA or ETA half a century back, or DAESH nowadays. Hartman was not a terrorist, no matter how hard you're trying.
Click to expand...

By YOUR definition, yes, which I also, but not only see as terrorism. Can you show me one definition of terrorism that is unversaly accepted by everyone? I mean there are a few definitions out there. Some go more in your direction, some support my view where it is much broader, depending on which one you chose.

noun

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

Wiki is a bit more strict and closer to 'your' definition.

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3] To avoid this kind of confusion, the most common definition of terrorism is used, which includes the following:[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

But, emphasis here is on "no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2]". Some media will go and call acts like those from Brevik or Harman terrorism in Germany, while others might not. For me it is terrorism. For you it isn't. Fair enough. But don't tell me your definition is the only possible one, where as mine is completely bogus.
 
alec said:
Are you fucking shitting me? Are you serious? For instance, does the word 'crusade' ring a bell? Do you know anything at all about Spain's past? Do you know how islam was spread? Do you even fucking know what a history book looks like? And you have an opinion you actually deemed worthy to post? Fuck me.
Click to expand...
You mean Jihad? The Christians had their equivalent crusades.
What part of Spain's past? That's pretty vague.
By violence? Surely Christian Europeans... oh yeah, also by violence.
 
alec said:
Are you fucking shitting me? Are you serious? For instance, does the word 'crusade' ring a bell? Do you know anything at all about Spain's past? Do you know how islam was spread? Do you even fucking know what a history book looks like? And you have an opinion you actually deemed worthy to post? Fuck me.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that they did those things because its what their religion would do? The crusades happened because the Byzantines were trying to get christian nations to help them regain territory themselves had lost to the Seljuks. Who had not attacked because of jihad but to grow their empire, which is what empires do. Alexius Komnemos literally finessed the church. You would know that if you knew a dam thing about the crusades which you claim to know about. Do you know how Christianity was spread through out the new world? Honestly its a lot easier to control a population by either adapting to their local customs and religions or forcing your own. I mean for fucks sake Spain kicked out all the Jews and Muslims then proceeded to do what the Caliphs did but 1000x worse.

So in short fuck you cunt. You probably one of those people who think the battle of Vienna saved the christian world.
 
Religion/Ideology is a good rationale for many people to take actions but there's usually other factors involved.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Some media will go and call acts like those from Brevik or Harman terrorism in Germany ..
Click to expand...
Pure demagogy. Prove it!
And once more - Breivik did make a political statement with his manifesto, while Hartman just killed bunch of people without any agenda. There's emphasis on political purposes in both your definitions of terrorism, i.e. attempt to motivate a political/religious/social change by ways of intimidation. Common murders don't have such motivation, can't you understand the difference?
 
CT Phipps said:
Religion/Ideology is a good rationale for many people to take actions but there's usually other factors involved.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Islam is not the sole reason for events taking place right now. Video games is not an acceptable excuse for the cause of a school shooting. Trying to use events in the past in an attempt to justify saying "Muslims are evil" when Christians were just as bad if not worse. Its entirely the fault of the west the middle east not only hates them but also is a shit show. Iranians can list a bunch of justifiable reasons to mistrust or out right dislike the west. From various wars with Russia/Britain (Portugal was an enemy too long ago for there to be any animosity towards them considering we defeated them too) to said western powers attempting to expand influence and meddle in Iranian affairs.

Unlike China, Iran had managed to push back against western imperialism to some degree (maintained independence through out that era, only brief 5 year period from 1722-1729 independence lost during the fall of the Safavid's afghans took control of the country and afghan rebels later defeated/conquered but that's before the era in question) and at least make a serious effort in modernizing. But what about so many Arab countries who were protectorates or colonies that were hap haphazardly given borders and tribal war lords as kings? How about all those countries that the west interfered with its governments and bombed?

Can you not at least say these people are somewhat justified in being angry? ISIS and Al queda are evil groups run by evil men but you would be a fool to think they just appeared because Islam.
 
Supreme Shah Ismail said:
[REASON? NOT IN MY NMA, SHAH!]
Click to expand...

But that's too hard, Shah Ismail! If we looked at every group and the history and grievances they've supplied by manifestos and statements and cross referenced all that with our own interests and goals, we might actually say 'Wait a minute....', and that's bad for the powers-that-be.
 
Crni Vuk said:
That this isn't about religion?
Click to expand...
Religion isn't a race thus it isn't racism. I don't really agree with ban in the same way as I don't agree on the wall on Mexico. It is just that I don't disagree with it for the same reasons other people do.

The main lesson of the book, "The Psychopath Test," the line between crazy and eccentric is blurry. People are constantly at war with themselves. People always have some reason for doing something. It doesn't have to be a good reason. This is why I hate the end justifies the means type of thinking because it is an easy trick suspend one's conscience. It is post-rationalization. I used the gambler analogy because gamblers don't stop when they have less money than when they started. Anything to not admit that you are bad person. A broken vending machine giving out free snacks could make even rational people believe in some sort of cosmic scale that allows free snacks for all the injustices other vending machines have done. All it takes is one extra layer separating you the action. Stealing money is wrong. Stealing fun bux which can be traded for money is somehow less wrong. However the most important thing is how acceptable the action is as in "Are cool kids doing it?". That is why I hate how the media refuses to condemn BLM.
 
I wasn't talking about race here though. No clue where you get that idea from. I am talking about generalisation and discrimination.

The people that say that this ban has nothing to do with religion, Islam or Muslims, are either delusional, or simply put lying.

If someone says, he wants to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States because of Islam and their religion. So be it. That would be at least honest, and I could even understand the reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. But this rhetoric right now ... com on ...

You can not have both worlds here. Closing the border to whole nations and groups of people ... and than say, no no no! It's not religion ... cuz that would be illegal! It's a perfect example of an Orwellian double-think/speech pattern.

valcik said:
Pure demagogy. Prove it!
And once more - Breivik did make a political statement with his manifesto, while Hartman just killed bunch of people without any agenda. There's emphasis on political purposes in both your definitions of terrorism, i.e. attempt to motivate a political/religious/social change by ways of intimidation. Common murders don't have such motivation, can't you understand the difference?
Click to expand...
Dude, this is getting tiresome. You're hung up on 'your' definition and you're not ready to even think about what I use as basis for my definition. You have a very narrow view on it, that's fine, many others do as well. But a lot of people also share my view and there is a reasoning behind this.

Again. This isn't math. We're talking past each other right now, because it is unthinkable for you that someone like Hartman could be a 'terrorist' for some out there. He is one for me. Deal with it. He didn't kill those 'Gypsis' just because they're humans or something, but exactly because they are 'Gypsis', you said it by your self that his action changed the area, thus making a kind of a statement by it self. But even if I ignore all of that, it still creates 'terror' in the sense that it creates a sense of fear and paranoia for 'some' people out there, thus 'terrorising' them. We can agree to disagree on that matter. But we can not act like there is one and only definition regarding terrorism that is set in stone for all of enternity. Don't be so dense just because it doesn't fit your narative.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
I wasn't talking about race here though. No clue where you get that idea from. I am talking about generalisation and discrimination.
Click to expand...
@CT Phipps claims that there is structural racism (presumably in America). When I ask him to cite an example, he gave the Muslim Ban. Also while I don't think that it has nothing to do with them being Muslim majority countries, that isn't the only reason that these countries are selected. Either way that wasn't my main point. My main point was Muslim isn't race so it isn't racism thus it isn't an example of structural racism. While I don't know what all Black people think, I know all Muslims believe that Muhammad is God's prophet.
 
alec said:
Are you fucking shitting me? Are you serious? For instance, does the word 'crusade' ring a bell? Do you know anything at all about Spain's past? Do you know how islam was spread? Do you even fucking know what a history book looks like? And you have an opinion you actually deemed worthy to post? Fuck me.
Click to expand...
Ah, Spain history, my area of expertise (well actually it is Iberian history).
Alec you would be surprised by how tolerant the Moors in Iberia were with other religions (Iberia under the Moors rule mostly had Christians and Jew as different religions). They lived peacefully there, they were tolerated and not persecuted. Hell they even had laws to protect people from other religions (which they called dhimmi):
dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎‎ ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl ul-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the dhimma") is a historical term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state. The word literally means "protected person." According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions, and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax, which complemented the zakat, or alms, paid by the Muslim subjects. Dhimmis were exempt from certain duties assigned specifically to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation
Click to expand...
The religious "wars" fought in the Iberian Peninsula were mostly done by Christians trying to get territory and kicking the Moors out.
 
Obama suspends people coming in. sweetman.

Trump suspends people coming in. douchebag.

shits hilarious.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Again. This isn't math. We're talking past each other right now, because it is unthinkable for you that someone like Hartman could be a 'terrorist' for some out there. He is one for me. Deal with it. He didn't kill those 'Gypsis' just because they're humans or something, but exactly because they are 'Gypsis', you said it by your self that his action changed the area, thus making a kind of a statement by it self.
Click to expand...
Strong mental gymnastics right here.

Hartman killed them because they plagued whole apartment block by their criminal activities for many years - drug distribution, prostitution, you name it. What a strange coincidence that they also happened to be unemployed gypsies living on welfare, coincidence nonetheless. On the other side, there are countless incidents from the opposite spectrum - bunch of gypsies killing local resident in knife fight, plucking out the eyes of their victims, and so on. Clearly nasty racist terrorist attacks and not just random violent criminality, according to your logic, since the victims are ethnic Slovaks and not gypsies, right?

Also, changing some local area to be more safe is not the same as insisting on change of whole political system, social rules, or religion, mind you. That's not any political statement at all, there's not any organization behind it and unlike with islamists, he was not indoctrinated by any ideology and neither he have had any followers doing the same in order to keep society in constant fear. You trying to paint any random murder without political background as a terrorist act doesn't surprise me, since you've tried to paint short period of nationalism imported by German occupants here in Slovakia as our national culture before. You're living in your own dream world where you are the only righteous person in this depraved world, so be my guest, I can sure deal with it.
 
Last edited:
We have plenty of Roma living in Finland. No beef with them and the Finnish population. Possibly because they are acutely aware of the fact that they couldn't beat us in a knife fight. So no need for massacres of either.

Usually it's just us Finns who go to Sweden and knife a couple of Swedes and the Swedish media is all "OMG ANOTHER FINNISH KNIFE KILL!1" And Finns are like "Yea that's right, FAGS" and Swedes are like "..."

Just like it always has been, and always will be.
 
I confess, this entire divergence into Finnish vigilantism/murder is quite interesting and informative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top