Utopia Talk / Politics / Englanders clearly not named seb

Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 05 20:00:11 http://www...t-attacks-drones-a7400756.html British special forces in Iraq have reportedly been handed a list of 200 British jihadis to kill before they attempt to return to Britain. SAS soldiers have been told to “use whatever means possible” to kill or capture the militants, according to the Sunday Times.
obaminated Member	Mon Jun 05 20:27:38 Probably shouldn't have leaked that. Silly politicians.
russian Member	Mon Jun 05 20:49:46
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 13:09:07 Leaking it makes no difference. They will be hunted down and killed. In the mean while you can expect numbers of terror attacks by IS to increase. This war can only end with the total physical anihilation of IS. The ideology will take much longer to defeat. IS has become somewhat of wake up call for many Muslims about their religion. I think IS will ironically end up helping the reform of Islam and weakening the violent strand of Islamism irreparably. Even Saudi Arabia is cracking.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 13:40:14 I don't see a problem with kill or capture missions against people who are fighting as Islamists (Forwyn will call them soldiers of course). It's a far more productive and targeted approach than "Muh, lets send all the refugees and Muslims back to Syria". I didn't have a problem with shoot to kill for the IRA either. Capture is preferable for interrogation and intelligence gathering purposes, then throw them in jail.
Allahuakbar Member	Tue Jun 06 13:41:38 They will now all vote for Corbyn.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jun 06 13:46:08 Islamists and soldiers are not mutually exclusive.
obaminated Member	Tue Jun 06 14:14:59 They are clearly soldiers fighting a war, seb
Forwyn Member	Tue Jun 06 14:22:35 It's interesting, Seb is actually dehumanizing Islamists more than I am. I believe it to be an attempt to expand his mental divide between "Good Muslims" (who obey our laws while silently supporting Sharia, violence against Westerners, and other extreme positions), and "Fake Muslims" (anyone else, because there's no such thing as a bad Muslim, especially when they drink or smoke). By simply writing off anyone who commits violence against a UN-recognized government as a terrorist, you can ignore demographic trends and call it humanitarian.
Asgard Member	Tue Jun 06 14:29:00 Indeed. It is easier to call them lunatics and criminals, rather than face the fact that many of them are educated, smart, and knowledgeable. It is very patronizing to dismiss them are petty criminals rather than face their intelect.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 07 07:19:25 Obaminated: No they aren't - and to claim otherwise grants them a legal and moral status that they crave and that is frankly disgusting to grant them. Forwyn: Since when are terrorists are not human? "silently supporting Sharia" Like how you silently support Naziism? Obviously, no direct evidence, because it's silent. But we should probably put you in jail/deport you anyway, because we shouldn't let the (silent) Devil have the benefit of the Law! Asgard: It's possible to be smart, educated and be unbalanced and criminal you know. All four are different things. I'm so, so sorry to have patronised the terrorists. You are also ignoring the fact that even if you do think terrorist are smart and clever, emphasizing this makes the idea of becoming one all the more attractive to inadequate losers. And most of the Europrean Islamists are in fact not very smart, have a pre-existing history of normally quite inept low level criminality and mental illness. This should not be surprising - Brevick claimed to be part of a powerful secret society... in actuality a loser living with his mum who spoke to some KKK people online.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 07 08:43:50 Nominal Muslims who drink, smoke and fornicate are Muslims, but Islamist who drink, smoke and fornicate are not. Specially if they blow themselves up or just recently became "Muslims", then they have nothing to do with Islam. It makes perfect sense.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 07 09:29:53 Nim: You are doubling down on comprehension failure. Your position is that the thing that drives some Muslims undertake violent, terrorist actions is their religion; and that therefore Islam as a whole needs to be considered in any overall response. My position is that Islamist terrorists interpretation of Islam is different and not representative of most Muslims interruption (or at least in so far as they practice that interpretation); therefore taking sweeping actions against Muslims as a group on the grounds that all Muslims are potential terrorists is unjustified. By way of evidence, I've pointed out that nearly all Muslim terrorists in Europe have: 1. A clearly identifiable profile that is much more definite then merely "Muslim" 2. They nearly all show little or no interest in Islam until they are radicalised. I.e. they get their interpretation of Islam *from* their radicalisation, not their radicalisation through their study of Islam. 3. A more convincing explanation for radicalisation is that there is a large pool of failed, embittered, losers that are seeking to recast their identity by externalising the causes of their failure and adopt a narrative that empowers then (soldiers of God) and strike back at those they have identified as the external causes of their failure. This is not a uniquely Islamic issue: it's a pattern seen in other groups. IRA. Neo Nazi's like Anders Brevik. And school shooters. 4. The different tactics reflect specific points in religious texts - i.e. yes "strike off their heads etc." - but this is not because a random percentage of Muslims come to the text, read that passage and take it to heart. It is because some Muslims who are already looking for a cause to redefine their life around and rationalisation for their violent urges, are pointed to that text. Note that doesn't mean they don't believe it. 5. Refugees pose little to no threat, both from a statistical point of view (they aren't conducting the attacks) and from a long term point of view (if we haven't solved the issue if radicalisation for our domestic population, by the time their kids are having identity issues they'll be a tiny portion of such people). Therefore deciding to abandon hard fought and won principles by turning back refugees is nothing short of monstrosity. As monstrous as the sending of Jews back to NAZI Germany, the recognition of which is why we have international conventions of refugees. Given this, measures that seek to confirm the narrative and identity politics of Islam being generally incompatible with the West, sending refugees back to warzones, eroding in actuality or practice the rights of Muslim citizens - these are likely to be counter productive. Equally, so does buying into the narrative of the terrorist as a powerful soldier and pious believer. In the same way the reporting of school shootings led to an increase in them (ditto postal workers in the 80s turning their guns on people) led to an upsurge - misanthropic losers seeking empowerment will often prefer to "rein in hell than serve in heaven". As to whether they are Muslims or not - let's just say their faith is different in practice to the majority of Muslims; irrespective to answers to various polls. And as I've pointed out, at least insofar as European born Terrorists are concerned, radicalisation comes before their understanding of that brand of Islam, not before; so looking into the cause is irrelevant. And even if there was nothing specific in the texts, they'd probably still simply justify themselves as a violent secular movement instead, or be involved in similarly violent (though less lethal) activities like gangs - which many of them have been prior to radicalisation. In this sense, the important message for the state to Muslims is: a. These activities are not religiously justified. You can be a good Muslim and a good citizen. b. Terrorists are not heroic resistance figures fighting as valient underdogs, soldiers of God against the evil empire, they are losers who have failed at life and lashing out at society. In terms of cogent and sensible anti terrorist activities, these should be: a. Relentless activity to identify and track high risk individuals, and then catch them and prosecute them when they commit a crime in planning stages. b. Aggressively stamp out hate preaching and online radicalisation activities. c. Prevent people from going to terrorist controlled areas, and detain those returning until their motivations are assured and their risk profile understood. d. Detect, disrupt and destroy terrorist networks internationally. a-c requires substantial buy in from the Muslim population, and adopting a stance that says you can be a good Muslim *or* a good citizen but not both is going to fatally undermine that. Not to the point, reinterpretation and reform of Islam, though to be welcomed, will not address the issue as the radicalisation occurs before Islamists provide those radicalised with a Jihadis interpretation and practice of Islam. Finally, what are we aiming to protect? For me, it's the liberties of our society, rights of citizens and residents and the rule of law. This means we cannot engage in broad double standards towards entire groups. The views you've laid out over several occasions are very clearly not aligned, so far as I can tell mostly because you think that terrorists and others get their motivation (rather than rationalisation) from their religion and as such all who profess to be Muslim present a risk profile. E.g. you said you believe it is relevant that the Rotherham abusers were Muslim even though there were white gangs doing the same.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 07 09:52:27 It turns out that patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel; religiosity is (note that this is a two-edged sword - those citing religion as reason to commit attrocity).
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 07 11:28:50 "Like how you silently support Naziism? Obviously, no direct evidence, because it's silent." You are a fucking retard. No holds barred, you are a goddamn, motherfucking retard. The Religion of Peace: Opinion Polls Muslim Opinion Polls: A Tiny Minority of Extremists? Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination Quran 9:73 Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence? That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries. In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the "minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn't even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined. The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in "discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern. (These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active. We will continue adding to this). Terrorism al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Islamic State (ISIS) 9/11 Attacks Violence in Defense of Islam Sharia Honor Killings Assimilation in the West Terrorism ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers http://www...ims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY Channel Four (2006): 31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified compared to 14% of those over 45. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living%20apart%20together%20-%20jan%2007.pdf Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified. 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall). 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). 22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall). 29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall). http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 27% of British Muslims do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam". http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll/ The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf The Sun (2015: Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6758207/1-in-5-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-jihadis-in-poll.html ICM (2016): 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain would not report terror plot to police. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4730825.ece Policy Exchange (2016): 48% if British Muslims would not report a person "linked to terror." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 07 13:04:08 Forwyn, seb does not believe in polls, or that anyone really believe in anything harmful ever. For instance something like 80% of Egyptians believe death for apostasy is a fitting punishment. Seb thinks this is nothing to worry about, because the number of people willing to commit the actual act are about the same as if 5% has said the same thing. He is an idiot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 07 13:06:06 "Two thirds of British Muslims would not inform the police if they thought that somebody close to them had become involved with terrorist sympathisers, according to a poll." Nothing to worry about.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 07 13:20:28 >>My position is that Islamist terrorists<< Your position is irrelevant and rooted in ignorance.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 07 14:39:47 Repriocity. The polls are significant only if outside the realm of the citizenry in general. 1 in four British people think the invasion of Iraq was justified. 32% of British people think drone attacks against civilian targets are justified. 27% of British people do not support the deportation of alt-right persons preaching violence and hate. 1/5 football (soccer) supporters would not report a member planing hooliganism. 25% of British people disagree that they have a duty to report football hooligans to the police. 19% of Americans believe violence is justified to protect unborn lives etc. Is that the case? I dunno. But it could be. Radicalism could in some ways be a mirror image of how the mainstream population views the world. A thought that would suggest Gandhi may have been on to something.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 07 14:41:36 My position is: Don't break shit if other people breaking shit upsets you.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 07 15:25:06 I haven't suicided bombed a concert, and yet suicide bombing little girls' concerts upsets me.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 07 15:49:30 Forwyn That is entirely consistent. You have not broken shit (or rather, you do not support people breaking shit), and are upset when people break shit. Don't focus overmuch on the delivery system. Perhaps we should adopt the term expendable biodrone (as opposed to other types of fire and forget weapons).
jergul large member	Wed Jun 07 15:51:17 (though suicide bombers are more an ultra slow biological cruise missile than anything else. Due to loiter capability).
Seb Member	Wed Jun 07 16:31:01 Forwyn: I've been over this before. Polling religious people on whether x is a sin or whether they believe in y it's no indicator on practice. You ask a bunch of Christians if they think abortion should be punished they'll say so. You ask them what the punishment for killing is in the Bible, they'll say that to. Then they'll completely ignore it all, and bake an applied pie for their neighbour after she's had an abortion. Asking people of they sympathise with bombers - arguably you do. You describe them as soldiers, implying they have some kind of legitimacy (you may disagree, but this is a poll). You arguably expressed sympathy for the IRA - you implied they are fighting British imperialism. Many people sympathise with the Palestinians dilemma - bit also recognise terrorism isn't the answer, and almost none of those that sympathise would ever contemplate taking up arms or committing terrorism. And is it in any case criminal to harbour thoughts you have no intention of carrying​ out? How many people would like to have seen Obama dead - a clear crime of carried out - on this board alone? Are they criminals? That's what a thought crime is - yet you have complained about criminalisation of active hate speech which goes further than that as being a thought crime. I'm too tired now after having reviewed a bunch of first day briefs from idiots who tried to take lazy shortcuts to do this further. Fucking think before you post and engage in a bit of introspection. I'll deal with this tomorrow, or failing that, over the weekend. Friday's going to be busy.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 07 16:44:38 But by then it will be retrospection.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 07 16:46:45 Nim: "Says a poll" - yet there have been numerous convictions based on tip offs from the Islamic community and the stats that show tip offs from the community are far higher than Irish community of IRA. All which do you believe "a poll" - no details on sample size, actual question, methodology, weighting, and extrapolation approach. The first is evidence. The others essentially hearsay. Why are you so desperate to try and create guilt by association? You wonder why I treat you with disdain: your politics are offensive. You don't act in accordance with in individual rights - and the moment you get into collective guilt and collective responsibility you open the door to shit like terrorism, and yes NAZIism. And instead of focusing on that, you focus on "ah, delegitimising terrorists interpretation as apostasy is vaguely similar to terrorists using apostasy to justify murder" (it isn't, because mainstream doesn't believe, or does not act, in a way to justify the murder of apostates). And a man who complains that his collectivist bullshit views are likened to other collectivist bullshit views is offensive while using terms like Cuck as you have should be laughed out of town as a contemptible hypocrite. As should someone who would turn away refugees and send them back to their would be murderers simply for not converting to atheism. The whole point of secularism was to stop one group persecuting anther on the basis of differing religious beliefs. Nim, you may feel you are an aggrieved victim here, but that's the common rationale of some of history's worse oppressors. You can go back to engaging in crap statistical analysis and policy based evidence making now. My fortnightly appeal to whatever is left of your critical faculties is over.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 07 16:47:11 Jergul: Only if he changes his mind.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 07 16:56:08 I mean ffs, "are suicide bombings justified". That's a fucking shit question for a poll. It ignores context and the target, and focuses on the tactic. Forwyn thinks that, for example, the attack on fort hood was a legitimate act of war by a soldier. If he'd done it as a suicide bomb, would it make it more or less legitimate? When you ask a an angry kid "is suicide bombing legitimate", are they thinking of blowing up kids outside a gig in Manchester, a Palestinian blowing up an Israeli barrack in Israel, a fundamentalist blowing up a Syrian army unit attacking civilians in Syria? These are all different scenarios. The question is practically meaningless, you can't interpret anything. I mean you couldn't honestly answer "no" to that question without saying that Jap Kamikaze pilots were unjustified without assuming a context not specified in the question. So it becomes circular and largely dependent on assumptions in the mind of the respondent that vary from respondent to respondent and are unknown to anyone trying to analyse the poll.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 07 23:51:22 "You ask a bunch of Christians if they think abortion should be punished they'll say so." How many Baptists do you think would support suicide bombing abortion clinics? 35%? Or far, far less than that? "arguably you do. You describe them as soldiers, implying they have some kind of legitimacy" You're absolutely insane if you're conflating my describing of jihadis as soldiers with sympathy. Jihadis consider themselves soldiers, as I imagine the IRA would. Describing them as soldiers recognizes the seriousness of the issue. It doesn't dehumanize them, and it doesn't lionize them. It's a statement of fact. They're fighting a war, and the war is purely reactionary if you refuse to recognize that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 00:14:42 Why would being a soldier legitimize anything to begin with? Because seb is insane.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 00:23:59 Seb still thinks jihadist are looking for our respect and recognition. He is a complete idiot. He thinks the people who reject every worldly state, institution and organization but their own are looking for our stamp of approval. Not calling them soldiers is fighting back for seb. Post modern sjw thinking, everything is a language game of power.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 08 00:25:43 Soldiers are protected by the Geneva Convention. So the term does imply legitimacy to the role (but not for the war being fought). ISIS foot soldiers are meet the requirements for GC protection far more often than "moderate" rebels do. All this is true even if we think ISIS is an illegal group in the same way SS was (as declared by the allies after wwii).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 00:33:30 And the word "soldier" obviously has no meaning outside the geneva convention. Autistic much?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 00:35:52 Dimgul, the autistic beurucrat. Bla bla bla peace of westphalia, bla bla bla geneva convention! WAaaaaaA socialism!!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 00:36:15 Waaaaa 12.5%!!!
jergul large member	Thu Jun 08 00:50:03 Meeting GC protection criteria conveys legitimacy. lulz@adhoms. "if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Margaret Thatcher.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 01:08:21 Arguing with you implies there are arguments to be had with you and I don't want to legitimize you or your cause with arguments. You are a socialist scumbag.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 01:17:28 Tell me autistic jergul, the discussions we have here on UP, you think they will be the basis for revisions to the Geneva convention? Delusional much? The same guy who thought the OK sign was a nazi salute because /pol said so. lol, what arguments are to be had with you? You spent the last years trying to antagonize me with racist remakes and cry now when I stopped taking your seriously?? Waaaa noone will play with me! Well dimgul stop smearing shit on the other kids.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 08 01:26:57 Nimi No need to revise the GC. ISIS in Syria are party to a recognized conflict and their forces are clearly identifiable (black as opposed to the soccer t-shirts of slightly more moderate rebels). Individual soldiers qualify for GC protection. Interesting because parties not providing GC protection erode their own legitimacy by not doing so. Your pathetic attempts at disengaging pleases me to the tiny degree that I care at all. There are enough lurkers in the forum for me to not require any response, and I would use this forum to notpad and clarify thoughts even without the lurkers. So again; rofl@adhoms.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 02:20:42 I haven't disengaged you Jergul, I just changed the manner of engagement, in line with the type of person you are. You do not argue with authoritarian scumbags be they IS or socialist. You do not disengage a cancerous tumor, you annihilate it.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 08 02:22:08 Nimatzo: We generally don't hold soldiers accountable as individuals for the violence they undertake provided it's within the scope of international law. Granting the title of soldier to terrorists does two things: Firstly it acknowledges they are not subject to civil and criminal law, which implies any prosecution of them under that law is a kangaroo court Secondly, it glamour​ises and legitimises the while endeavour. I have never said jihadis are looking for our respect and admiration. People in the West who become terrorists are looking for self respect. That's what radicalised are selling, so its important to counter that message. Forwyn: Irrelevant point, the vast majority of people who answer that the penalty for apostasy is death don't then go out and kill people either. They think that's god's job, not theirs. "Jihadis consider themselves soldiers" They consider themselves good and moral too. They are wrong. What of it? Describing them as such doesn't recognise the seriousness of it at all, it to an extent legitimises crime by implying they are beyond civilian jurisdiction. Soldiers kill. Terrorists murder. If anything it downplays their own personal accountability. Nim: You are the autistic one of you can't see that agreeing to use the term "Soldier" to describe Terrorists completely reframes how terrorism is perceived by not-yet-radicalised European youths. It displays a complete lack of emotional intelligence.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 08 02:51:55 Nimi "You do not argue with authoritarian scumbags be they IS or socialist. You do not disengage a cancerous tumor, you annihilate it." Yes, I know that is your opinion, and have known it since you wanted war brought to your native country (violence really is the only solution in the ME mindset). This is why you should be on a terror watchlist. That engineering background and specific knowledge of critical infrastructure from contract work makes you particularly dangerous. Newer legislation also allows for your deportation. Finally. Tumours in our midst indeed. I trust para or some lurker has reported you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 07:09:52 I have booked you an appointment with an oncologist near you for "therapy". It is not your fault jergul, you are just sick.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 08 07:37:05 Project much, bro?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 07:45:14 seb, I work at a place, where I am surrounded by engineers and scientists (literally everyone outside admin), 40-50% women (engineers and Phds), immigrants (engineers and Phds) and even feminists (engineers and Phds). I have discussed these topics many times face to face. So far I have not met people like you or jergul, the type of insufferable morons who weave fiction to have arguments. The only times where dialogue has broken down face to face, is when I have faced some leftwing ideologue who lacks subject knowledge, but tries to make up for it with confidence and obscurantism. Of course me and my co workers also have a good reason to get along so naturally people are more respectful towards each other. Face to face dialogue is laced with body language, tone of voice and other social cues that are lacking in the written format. All in all a very unnatural way to communicate, obviously too unnatural for some people who seem to suffer from some sort of digitally induced autism. But most of all you two are idiots with serious failures in the comprehension department. There is literally nothing either of you have managed to get right. Well Jergul did remember that I am a 1st gen immigrants, but that is because he is a genuine card carrying racist.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 08 10:32:23 "Irrelevant point, the vast majority of people who answer that the penalty for apostasy is death don't then go out and kill people either. They think that's god's job, not theirs." No, they're the ones who cheer when ISIS rolls into their village, and happily sign up to join their police forces. "it to an extent legitimises crime by implying they are beyond civilian jurisdiction." Again, false. It recognizes that we are at war with extreme Islam. It has nothing to do with legitimacy, it has to do with you pretending they are all isolated criminals, and not individuals born into Islamic households and being far more susceptible to Islamic terror grooming, whether in the home, the mosque, or social media. Notice that non-Muslims occasionally join these groups, hence your "uneducated, prospect-less losers" paradigm, but the rates are far lower. Islam has a pool, as noted by polls above, of already-extreme individuals to draw from.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 12:04:01 Al-hisba is yet another Islamic concept seb does now know about, surprised? Forwyn even if seb was recpetive, it would still take a long time to get a full spectrum nuanced understanding of Islam is from a secular perspective. There is an important aspect to Islam that differs greatly from the other Abrahamic religions and really all other major religions. Islam was with it's inception more than a religion, it was an attempt at political theory. Muhammed create a new polity, so naturally much of the Quran is about the administration and maintaining of that new polity. And as the times were, many times maintain and expand it with war and violence. This forms a great part of the history of Islam. For 1400 years the Medina verses have been emphasized.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 08 12:05:55 That does not just disppear over night from the collective psyche. And that polity? Does not walk away silently or by it's own free will, it will fight back and defend itself. As any authoritarian polity would.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 08 15:51:01 Nim: You keep saying I weave fiction - nothing I've said is fictional. A scientist who doesn't use the term "If" and use hypotheticals? Very strange. Testing hypothesis is kinda what we do.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 08 15:54:25 Have you considered that when someone disagrees with you face to face, in a work context, they don't ask "well, if you think that does that mean you think this too?" because basically, they don't want to have a debate with you? The problem is when Jergul or I ask a question like that - you get morally offended and claim you are being given the "SJW" treatment. Even though you engage in exactly the same patterns yourself. But sure. Fiction. Whatever. In a professional setting trying to understand the root cause and effect relationship, that is what scientists do. All the time. Test the hypothesis. Nothing more sad than a beautiful theory crushed by an ugly fact. You get used to it, but I think you are a bit too emotionally attached to your preconceptions and don't like them being challenged.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jun 08 16:05:20 "Test the hypothesis" You forgot to add "unless it is politically incorrect"
jergul large member	Thu Jun 08 18:03:06 Sammy The principle of repriocity is really just a "test the hypothesis" method. Nimi I remember because I have a superb memory and you made a notable call for external forces to commit genocide in Iran. And everyone knows Persians are the rascist fucks. Stop projecting, bro.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 09 10:52:14 I remember maybe 2 years ago in a discussion about NT vs OT and scripture inspiring people and their beliefs. I am some others were explaining that the NT more or less nullifies the OT as understood by most Christians through history. Seb replied something like, well then why is there still religiously motivated homophia among Christians, if the OT is no longer valid? Several of us linked the passage in the NT that supports this. Seb did not return to that thread. Shortly after that in another thread I lamented ober how quickly discussions break down and people digg in and refuse to change their opinion. Seb responded appologeticlly that perhaps we have spoken past each other and for his part in it he was sorry. I respected that and reciprocated, appologizing for the shitfest taking part of the blame. You remember this seb? Since that time you have again and again shown me that you do not understand what you are talking about. We would talk and I would grant you the full spectrum of causes, western intervention, socioeconomic, education and so on, but when it came to ideology you would start going full retard. Bla bla bla later, clearly I am a third gen immigrant nazi. In reality I am first gen immigrant with extensive work with immigrant (muslim) youth and solid understanding of Islam and the history of the ME. You can "challenge" me on Islam about as much as I can challenge you on physics. You commited the same mistake that jergul does on a weeköy basis, speaking with authority on subjects you at best have a superficial understanding of. This is something real scientists avoid. You are not a scientist seb, you are a government beurucrat who engages in polemic, floating in deep waters on an inflated ego. TL:DR I am not happy where the road has led us, but it was not always like this nor was this my intention, but it was pretty much all your own fault. Sincerely, fuck you.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 09 11:15:42 Do some more drugs bro. I am sure they will make you feel better. Like the Hashassins of old.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 09 11:53:33 Or the vikings bro, vikings got high as fuck on shrooms. The vikings of today of course are enslaved by their socialist governments so they only get to consume government approved drugs, because they are the best and safest! I take my LSD and weed over your beer and vodka any day, you alcoholic socialist scumbag. http://en....dependence,_NA_free_means).svg
jergul large member	Fri Jun 09 12:34:20 Yes, we know your culture frowns on the use of alcohol. At home you would be extolling the benefits of heroin (as so many do). Substitution does not really make much difference really. The same goes for your jihad/crusade (lest I be unsensitive) on social democracy. For whatever reason your addled mind dreams up. The terrorist mindset is a predictable thing.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 09 12:35:46 You are in other words a cliche of Persian white trash. Abeit with a couple substitutions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 09 12:45:29 Stop projecting "bro". LÖL!
jergul large member	Fri Jun 09 12:48:01 You tripping now, bro?
Seb Member	Fri Jun 09 12:56:36 Nim: "I am some others were explaining that the NT more or less nullifies the OT as understood by most Christians through history." Yes, it was in relation to homosexuality. And I was explaining that there are three parts of religious law: judicial, ceremonial and moral law. I was pointing out that there is a broad range of views in different sects as to which applies. You hilariously cited the 7 day adventists who are one of the sects that retain the most of the old covenant. I pointed this out, and you vanished.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 09 12:59:16 I keep trying to get you to explain your positions or justify them with respect to evidence - you keep getting offended and running away. You are welcome to challenge me on Physics - and I'll point you to the evidence and reasoning where you are wrong. I won't say "fiction, all is fiction, sincerely, fuck you". And you are welcome to engage in as much devils advocate and other testing approaches as you like - adn I'll be able to handle it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 11 11:45:04 Sorry, that is a completely different and later thread, which you also have shit memory of. Are you sure I did not respond to your judicial and cermonial argument because I remember I did. I remember getting tired of you constantly revising what I said, adding words like "generally" to them, the thread was about staggering numbers of sexual offences by immigrants (~50% of rapes) and their connection to Islamic culture. You were being your usual piece of shit whitesplaining and constantly revising what I was saying to have a point. Looks like we have wildly different recollection here seb. On the phone and can't be bothered to look this up, but that thread must have been from earlier this year.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 11 17:58:41 Nim: Your memory sucks donkey balls.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 11 17:59:41 Lordy me I hope you do look it up. I can't be arsed to with the search engine broken.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 15 00:16:17 http://www...hread=79549&time=1487760709278 lol The thread I am talking about is from earlier. Thanks for trying.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 04:13:24 Nim: " >>The point is many Christians would say "Oh, no, ignore liviticus" Many others cite it.<< Just not true. Only true fringes of Christianity cite the old testament as laws to be lived according. Through out Christian history there has been a consensus on this. Only by completely disregarding the purpose of Jesus as fulfilling the covenant can you get there." This isn't correct. As I mentioned, there are moral, ceremonial and judicial laws, and there isn't a consensus as to how much is ditched. Even when particular laws are no longer considered judicial, they may remain moral or ceremonial. Given judicial law means actually carrying out temporal punishment for physical crimes, that's a high bar (most Muslims, irrespective of their stated beliefs, don't act on it, whereas many Christian activists do want to legislate to ban homosexuality and abortion). And yes, you cited Jehovas witnesses and 7th day Adventists, both who retain more mosaic law than most other sects, the latter barely distinguishes moral and ceremonial. Do you want me to give you the time stamps? Epic fail Nim.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 15 07:42:40 Yes please give me the timestamps in relation to my post in this thread: Nimatzo iChihuaha Fri Jun 09 10:52:14 Where do the things I talk about happen? Where do you claim there is no support for gay bashing in the NT? Where do several posters point out that you are wrong? Nowhere it seems. This where you come to terms with the fact that, what I was talking about can not be found in the thread I linked. In fact they are two totally different threads. Unfortunately that thread can not be found on google because it unlike this one is years old. You are thus afforded denial that it exists, that you never said anything that could be interpreted as "the NT does not support homophobia". GG
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 08:23:54 Ok. Nim Sun Feb 19 13:05:52 ">>The point is many Christians would say "Oh, no, ignore liviticus" Many others cite it.<< Just not true. Only true fringes of Christianity cite the old testament as laws to be lived according. Through out Christian history there has been a consensus on this." Seb Sun Feb 19 14:00:08 "The idea that the old testament can be dispensed with entirely is a minority view across Christian sects. Catholics believe the moral laws still stand. Hence the absolute ban on contraception. Which is another great example of an absolute moral ban often ignored by people who would otherwise profess themselves catholic." Nim Sun Feb 19 15:23:52 "The point is that there is nothing mandating Christians to follow Mosaic laws and hence there is no consensus over these things" [N.b. this Ignores the fact that the papal bull throughout Christian history on contraception - ignores also judicial enforcement of various moral and ceremonial laws throughout Christian history. You were very clear "Through out Christian history there has been a consensus on [old testament laws not being something to live by]." - Seb] "The bible is an extremely poorly constructed book and full of contradictions if the goal is to convey some central message" And so is the Koran. Seb: Sun Feb 19 16:17:13 "The bits of leviticus that everyone agrees in Christianity do not apply to Christians are the ceremonial laws. Moral laws still apply. Hence, ten commandments still apply. Large chunks of Leviticus are about ceremonial law, but that one is a moral law and still applies - many would argue. Some would argue it is a judicial law, and there is a broader disparity in agreement between christian churches over whether any, some or all of those still apply." Nim: Wed Feb 22 01:37:35 "during my first couple of years in Sweden my family was courted by a variety of Churches ranging from "Svenska Missions Kyrkan" and "Jehovas witness". I went to sunday school and was a member of: http://en....a_Missionskyrkans_Ungdom_Scout I even went through a phase when I thought I was Christian in my 20's having befriended many 7th day Adventists." [Catholics believe, see Aquinas - only and specifically that judicial laws "cease to bind" but should still be upheld particularly the principles within them, and it would not be a sin for kinds to enforce them Jehova's witnesses believe the Bible to be largely literally true, though occasionally poetic - as many liberal Muslims do. 7th day adventists believe in the application of most Mosaic law - hence the bloody name, They observe the Sabbath or example. It's in the name. Contrasting to new covenant theology is also dual covenant theology of liberal christians - required to accept that Jews have a legitimate relationship with God, there are also Torah observant Christians And as you decided to boldly state that "throughout Christian history" - I remind you why Jews have acquired a reputation for being bankers and moneylenders comes from a long history for over a thousand or so years of Christians being legally banned through divinely mandated kings (from whom much of our modern law still owes some heritage to) implementing religious judicial laws such as banning of interest. Your argument that Islam is somehow distinct as a category seems weak as hell. Muslims who may believe that the Koran lays down a legal punishment for certain activities are no different from Christians that think, e.g. gay marriage should be illegal but do not think the state should be over-ruled on the matter, so I am unconvinced your surveys prove anything significant - Seb]
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 08:28:40 Oh, I see, confusingly you are asserting there is a thread from two years ago where we talk theology. I don't recall it - I think you are probably confabulating.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 08:30:39 (I thought you were saying that your original recollections were from a later thread, which admittedly makes far less sense). So basically you recall some magnificent conversation of which you have no evidence exists at all other than your own recollections.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 08:31:32 Particularly given your own poor understanding of basic christian ideology. ". I am some others were explaining that the NT more or less nullifies the OT as understood by most Christians through history. " As described above, you'd have been wrong then as you were in February this year.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 15 09:52:14 "the old laws no longer apply" or words to that effect. Attributed Jesus. Muslims are not swayed at all by that (the bible is second only to the Quaran of Islamic holy books). Christians accept it only in so far as original and aquired sins can be forgiven through Christ. So, yah. Nimi is wrong. A fact as surprising as habitual drug use making his memory "suck donkey balls".
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 14:19:01 jergul: More than just forgiveness of sin. Christians think largely that any ceremonial law involving sacrifice is superseded. Something to do with Paul's letters - but the gist of it is that as Christ has died for our sins, further animal sacrifices (like, e.g. passover lamb slaughter) is sinful as it fails to recognise Jesus has been sacrificed instead. Essentially denial of the messiah or something. I think that is true of most(?) sects. I forget the details. RE was a long time ago.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 15 14:35:21 Seb True for animal sacrifice done to atone for sin. So, obviously redundant at best and sacriledge at worst. With the caveat that follows for Islam: This is true to Islam too (as part of Christian influence om that branch of the abramic sects). Animal sacrifice is celebratory and is meant mostly to promote comunity and celebrate Abraham's ram sacrifice.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 15:59:53 Well if you put it like that I guess it ammounts to the same thing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 17 13:20:25 I was just waiting for you to nail that coffin tight. http://www...&thread=75617&showdeleted=true So it turns out I was right and you were wrong, as usual.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 17 13:26:21 You remember now? Should I find the next thread I was talking about, where you appologize and I reciprocate or do you trust my memory? You do not know the subject. You do not know me. Your have problems reading and comprehending. Your memory can not be trusted. This is what happens when you jergul, seb.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 17 13:33:20 Nim: LOL! "All the homophobia on Christianity comes from the old testament. It's not at all present in the new testament. It's not as simple as saying the old stuff is all non canon." This is not at all: "Seb replied something like, well then why is there still religiously motivated homophia among Christians, if the OT is no longer valid?" You are hanging an awful lot off a three sentences in an entire post. I also disagree with the point made re Romans. Romans is Paul talking about the unrighteousness of homosexuality as a given - and example of the unrighteous behaviour of the world and the need for salvation. Where is the source of that unrighteousness? "because Paul said so?" No, of course not. It's because Paul - who remember was a Jew who believed the Messiah had come, as most early Christians were - still believes in the old testament laws.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 17 13:34:57 Romans is not an example of "God says that gay sex is banned in the new testament". Romans is an example of how much of the old testament moral law is assumed to still stand even after the new covenant. The new covenant is not that "hey, there is no such thing as sin", it is "hey, here is a new path to redemption of that sin".
Seb Member	Sat Jun 17 13:35:25 Nim, you are really a bit of a div. You know that?
Seb Member	Sat Jun 17 13:37:20 I post a throwaway comment in a thread two years ago, and move on. For Nim, not getting a reply was as close as he comes to some hallowed "win". For me, it was Tuesday.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 17 13:53:15 Nimi Just waiting for your wife to go out so you could post again more like. You have written your way onto a terror watch list quite some time ago (a word to the not so wise - try not to threaten your host nation with anniliation so often, mkay, bro?). You must scare the crap out of her. ======== The new covenant is not that "hey, there is no such thing as sin", it is "hey, here is a new path to redemption of that sin". That. Or rather "there is now a path to redemption of that sin" The jewish branch of the abramic sects never believed in redemption, but rather in humouring God until such a time as the true prophet arrives and gives proper guidance.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 17 13:56:52 I agree mr fox those grapes probably tasted shit anyway. Probably would have had more impact if you had not scoured the wrong thread for time stamps trying to prove me wrong, calling me a liar. PWNED
Seb Member	Sat Jun 17 16:33:40 I called your memory shit and it is. You remembered a conversation different in both content and also in the fact it wasn't a conversation. I posted a single correction and never looked back. And you have conflated it with the latter conversation. And you were still wrong in that first thread. It's not "the grapes are sour" so much as "mate, those aren't even grapes, their rabbit turds. Stop eating rabbit turds just to feel you've got one over on me. It embarrasses me, everyone else, but most of all you".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 17 17:08:52 Ok mate :D But seriously how owned to you feel from 1-10? You and your pdh from Clowns College just got shreded by a habitual weed smoker on remembering stuff! That has to sting your vagina!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 17 17:12:23 autocorrect lulz Clowns = Crowns. Autocorrect understood where I was going though.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 18 03:08:04 Nim: 0 is how owned I feel. You recall a throwaway comment from two years ago simply because you didn't get a reply. You misrecall the substance​ of what I said, plus my comment holds up and supports what I'm saying now. It's kind of sad really - clearly I leave such an impact on you that you remembered such a minor post simply because you equate not getting a reply with "pwnage". Tell me, do I haunt your dreams too?
Seb Member	Sun Jun 18 03:09:22 Or if the pwnage is that you simply recall it - it isn't as you described. I was expecting some form of debate, not a single three sentence post.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 18 05:07:10 So 10 then. Anyway I am not going to rub this in anymore. Take care.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 18 12:46:48 Nim, literally everything you said is demonstrably wrong and you served up the proof yourself. Why would I be "owned"?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: