Muuuuuuuslim Baaaaaan! But don't call it that!

That's unfair comparison @MutantScalper, since there's only ten thousand of gypsies living in Finland according to wiki, so they cannot assemble proper hunting pack! Besides, everyone knows that gypsy hate cold weather and cannot operate properly in temperatures below zero degrees Celsius, unlike Finnish gentlemen who can fight quite well in the snow thanks to endless stash of Finnish vodka.. :P
 
CaptJ said:
@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.
Click to expand...

Right now ... I am honestly not so sure about the reason anymore. And this, is actually a frightening thought.



What ever if you love or don't love muslims, but any democratic citizens can't be in favor of to much surveilance. If anything, Snowden should have been a clear warning to anyone of us. What ever tools Trump will create now, might or might not be used at some point against american citizens as well. Just like the Patriot Act.

valcik said:
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?
Click to expand...
You're trying to rationalize the killing of people here and you call me as someone who's doing 'mental gymnastics' by calling Hartman, a mass killer, a terrorist. Mhmm. I get it.

Correct me if I am wrong, the undertone here seems that you feel 'they kinda deserved it'. I guess from that point you could also rationalize a progrom in Slovakia, I mean yeah it would sure hit 'some' wrong people not all 'gyspsis' are like that, but hey, the end justifies the means? Right. We're talking about drug dealers, unemployed 'gyspsis' living of slovakian wellfare here anyway, so who cares about them - notice that I always use that term 'gypsis' in brackets, they are called Roma, for the case you forgot that they are human beings and not cockroaches. But a little progrom here and there never hurted anyone ... not the 'true' Slovaks anyway I guess, no.

You're disgusting man. The Roma in your nation live miserable lives and are constantly dealing with discrimination and issues. And even if some weird nutjob starts on a killing spree, you have no other words for it but "What a strange coincidence that they also happened to be unemployed gypsies living on welfare, coincidence nonetheless." This this very telling. You're seriously not much better than Vergil with his 'rationlisation' for the Hollocaust. Remember, the Nazis also made it a habbit to rally up and Roma.

valcik said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, those Roma could very well be terrorists as well, if they terrorize the citizens, because one aim of terrorists is to create fear and schock, this is always a part of their considerations.
Look, I never said that this wouldn't be a complex topic, or that everything is set in stone here, of course every case has to be looked at individualy. A guy stabbing someone to get money for his drug addiction, isn't necessarily a terrorist that would be of course a ridiculous idea and I never talked about such cases.
I am not sure why you're so hellbend that your and ONLY your definition is the only acceptable one out there.
If a Roma took a rifle, killing 10 white slovakians because he was fucked up with the 'racism' and poverty he experienced every day in all of his life, than I would totally classify such a person as terrorist as well, since his ACTION(!) and motivation was probably to 'show the other side' what can happen when someone is pushed to such a point. Those actions don't happen out of the blue and randomly, there is always a reason behind it, even if this reason is irrational.
 
Last edited:
If you can prove that the killing spree was motivated by politics (and this includes religion because the two are intertwined), then you'd have a case for terrorism.

- Dylann Roof is a domestic (US) terrorist he was politically motivated in that he wanted to instigate a race war.

- Elliot Rodgers shooting up a college town because of sexual frustration isn't terrorism.

Using this loose definition of terrorism and branding everything an act of terror based on body-count, in the manner you do, makes it difficult to identify the kinds of incidents that are caused by mental-illness (Rodger) and those that are not.
 
You guys love to missunderstand what someone says right ... where did I say that it was only about body counts? I was also talking about motivation. Also, your definition is as valid as mine.
 
Crni Vuk said:
You guys love to missunderstand what someone says right ... where did I say that it was only about body counts? I was also talking about motivation. Also, your definition is as valid as mine.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly agree with your loose definition and application of the word, that's all. In the case-study that valcik is talking about, it sounds more like a case of vigilantism rather than terrorism. These definitions typically require more than just: "well he ticked one of the boxes off for the requirement to be considered a terrorist, so he's a terrorist."
 
Crni Vuk said:
And? Is that some kind of argument or what.
Click to expand...
It's a what. as in a comment in snarky fashion about people listening to Keith Olbermann. which is fine but don't be surprised when you get mocked for it.
BigGuyCIA said:
I don't particularly agree with your loose definition and application of the word, that's all. In the case-study that valcik is talking about, it sounds more like a case of vigilantism rather than terrorism. These definitions typically require more than just: "well he ticked one of the boxes off for the requirement to be considered a terrorist, so he's a terrorist."
Click to expand...
You should rephrase that as arbitrary checks on a list I just made up.
 
Hope you're not surprised then if I mock you for it that it isn't an argument of any kind.

BigGuyCIA said:
I don't particularly agree with your loose definition and application of the word, that's all. In the case-study that valcik is talking about, it sounds more like a case of vigilantism rather than terrorism. These definitions typically require more than just: "well he ticked one of the boxes off for the requirement to be considered a terrorist, so he's a terrorist."
Click to expand...
That would be true, if we actually HAD such an box that could be ticked, but it all depends on what kind of axioms we agreed too. That's the point. There isn't one unified definition that could be accepted by everyone when it comes to something that is so politically overloaded like the term 'terrorism'. I never said that you have to agree with MY definition, or that mine is the only way to define it. I am just saying you should eventually accept the fact, that your one, is not the absolute end of the discussion. Like terrorism has to be this yada,yada, my way or the highway.
I also never dennied that my definition of what qualifies as terrorism, isn't kinda 'broad'. But when I see how often this is applied to the 'lone gunman' calling it 'terrorism' just because it turns out that the guy was a muslim shouting Allahu Akbar before doing it ... I am probably not THAT far away from it. Some media have even problem to call the KKK a terrorist organisation or their killing as terrorism, where as they have no trouble to declare the San Bernardino attack as 'terrorists'.
 
CaptJ said:
@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.
Click to expand...

The problem with that, Captain J is that the ban isn't actually about their religion but bans them from their countries which means everyone born in those countries is banned. Which means that it's racism since ethnicities are generally moved on national lines. Kinds of bigotry and prejudice are very often linked.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Hope you're not surprised then if I mock you for it that it isn't an argument of any kind.
Click to expand...
You keep using that word argument like we are in a debate. this isn't a debate. it's fact. Keith Olbermann is a putz. that's why he got fired from every network he has ever worked for as now stuck in some ass crack on the internet.

Besides you can't even mock me. you lack the wit and prose, so it comes off as this spergy whine when you do it. leave the snark to the professionals, sweetums.
 
Crni Vuk said:
You're trying to rationalize the killing of people here and you call me as someone who's doing 'mental gymnastics' by calling Hartman, a mass killer, a terrorist. Mhmm. I get it.
Click to expand...
No, you don't get it. You still don't understand what terrorism really means.

Correct me if I am wrong, the undertone here seems that you feel 'they kinda deserved it'.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are wrong, proving it repeatedly by putting this incident on the same level with Breivik or global terrorism. They don't deserved it, the simple fact is that they are not some innocent victims of racial terrorist attack as you've painted it, but a catalyst actually, criminal group commiting criminal acts local authorities haven't cared for.

I guess from that point you could also rationalize a progrom in Slovakia, I mean yeah it would sure hit 'some' wrong people not all 'gyspsis' are like that, but hey, the end justifies the means?
Click to expand...
Putting pogrom fueled by German national ideology commited on Slovak citizens by German authorities on the same level with random violent incident where criminal group worked as a catalyst? This caught me by surprise actually, never expected such stupidity here..

You're disgusting man.
Click to expand...
You're retarded man.

If a Roma took a rifle, killing 10 white slovakians because he was fucked up with the 'racism' and poverty he experienced every day in all of his life, than I would totally classify such a person as terrorist as well ..
Click to expand...
In your head only. Unless gypsies form some organized group or movement united by the same idea of "bringing dat fear with muh rifles repeatedly", followed by various attacks on random places in order to keep the native population in constant fear, they'll never be terrorists, just a random violent criminals. That's the difference you cant get grasp of.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Hope you're not surprised then if I mock you for it that it isn't an argument of any kind.


That would be true, if we actually HAD such an box that could be ticked, but it all depends on what kind of axioms we agreed too. That's the point. There isn't one unified definition that could be accepted by everyone when it comes to something that is so politically overloaded like the term 'terrorism'. I never said that you have to agree with MY definition, or that mine is the only way to define it. I am just saying you should eventually accept the fact, that your one, is not the absolute end of the discussion. Like terrorism has to be this yada,yada, my way or the highway.
I also never dennied that my definition of what qualifies as terrorism, isn't kinda 'broad'. But when I see how often this is applied to the 'lone gunman' calling it 'terrorism' just because it turns out that the guy was a muslim shouting Allahu Akbar before doing it ... I am probably not THAT far away from it. Some media have even problem to call the KKK a terrorist organisation or their killing as terrorism, where as they have no trouble to declare the San Bernardino attack as 'terrorists'.
Click to expand...

This is about as pathetic as the 'respect my pronouns' hysteria that's been spreading like wildfire on tumblr sites. I'm simply outlining the definitions with respect to the U.S. patriot act regarding domestic terrorism:

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The definition is and has to be clear cut for the sake of reaching a decision on how to respond to these situations as they occur. I really don't care about your a la carte approach to defining terrorism or what that word means to you, and the media failing to call something for what it is doesn't really help the situation either.
 
Alright so I used the 2017 report of Freedom House as all the reports are filled out.
Countries Trump Banned due to fears of Terrorism (taking our freedumb): Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen.
Bottom Ten on 2017's list in order (least amount of freedumb(Not Free at all)): Syria (On Banlist), Eritrea, North Korea, Uzbekistan, South Sudan, Turkmenistan, Somalia(On Banlist), Sudan (On Banlist), Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Saudi Arabia(should be on banlist damn)

I'll put the banned countries scores to better show it. Libya: 13 , Sudan: 6 , Somalia: 5 , Iraq: 27 , Syria: -1 , Iran: 17, Yemen: 14.

All of them are pretty bad scores but still, they aren't the worst (well not all of them)
Maybe it was just a Muslim Ban
Seeing as the UAE and Saudi Arabia weren't banned even though they fucking hate Merica
Trump just cares about his buisness ventures
damn son
what about Egypt, they kinda fucking hate us too.
what in the goddamn
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top