Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Maybe you can educate me on the non existent regime that bombs its own citizens and sends commandos to wipe out hostage takers, elementary school kids be damned. The non existent regime that has no qualms taking civilian airlines out of the sky. The one that bombs ambulance convoys. Maybe the ufos got to them. As I said, the hate has blinded you. Anyone who would happily trade dead children for the chance at creating dead Russians is a broken and lost individual. Your words have exposed you for what you truly are: driven by hate to the point of insanity. I hope you find peace one day before that hatred swallows you whole. Your words, again. You can't run from them. The only hope for you is look inward and do some serious soul searching. The first step is to admit you have a philosophical problem. You support blindly any alliance that creates more dead Russians. That's your goal. No matter how many little girls get blown up in the process. More dead Russians means more live and happier persons across the world. I'll take that trade any day.
GG Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 As I said, the hate has blinded you. Anyone who would happily trade dead children for the chance at creating dead Russians is a broken and lost individual. Your words have exposed you for what you truly are: driven by hate to the point of insanity. I hope you find peace one day before that hatred swallows you whole. Your words, again. You can't run from them. The only hope for you is look inward and do some serious soul searching. I don't know what your trying to accomplish by pasting my posts. You think they will erase the hundreds of millions of innocent deaths caused by a country you admire?
Tiberius Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 I don't know what your trying to accomplish by pasting my posts. You think they will erase the hundreds of millions of innocent deaths caused by a country you admire? He is pointing out what a hater you are and how it's bonded you. Pretty straight forward really
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 I don't know what your trying to accomplish by pasting my posts. I'm trying to help you by exposing how hate driven your chosen political philosophy is. It's so clear in your words that even if it doesn't help you, it can help others steer away from the darkness that's consuming you. You think they will erase the hundreds of millions of innocent deaths caused by a country you admire? And again, you're living in the past. You know your philosophy is flawed so your only recourse is to make up spin about things I've never said. The truth is the Soviet Union is gone. You believe there is no difference between Russia today and Russia in 1980. That's why you're lost. As for us, you have never cared to have an honest conversation with me, that's fine. But now we see why. You are allergic to honesty when it challenges your hate because you value your hate of Russians more than you value truth. That's a sad way to live, GG. I truly hope you find peace one day. The first step is to admit you have a philosophical problem. You support blindly any alliance that creates more dead Russians. That's your goal. No matter how many little girls get blown up in the process. More dead Russians means more live and happier persons across the world. I'll take that trade any day.
meazza Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 As I said, the hate has blinded you. Anyone who would happily trade dead children for the chance at creating dead Russians is a broken and lost individual. Your words have exposed you for what you truly are: driven by hate to the point of insanity. I hope you find peace one day before that hatred swallows you whole. Your words, again. You can't run from them. The only hope for you is look inward and do some serious soul searching. Dude seriously STFU and stop being an asshat.
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 He is pointing out what a hater you are and how it's bonded you. Pretty straight forward really ... When gatorman's defending you, you really have to step back and consider what you're doing...
4merper4mer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 I'm trying to help you by exposing how hate driven your chosen political philosophy is. It's so clear in your words that even if it doesn't help you, it can help others steer away from the darkness that's consuming you. And again, you're living in the past. You know your philosophy is flawed so your only recourse is to make up spin about things I've never said. The truth is the Soviet Union is gone. You believe there is no difference between Russia today and Russia in 1980. That's why you're lost. As for us, you have never cared to have an honest conversation with me, that's fine. But now we see why. You are allergic to honesty when it challenges your hate because you value your hate of Russians more than you value truth. That's a sad way to live, GG. I truly hope you find peace one day. Dude. Commies are commies. They aren't gone.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Dude seriously STFU and stop being an asshat. Stop exposing hatred which leads to otherwise smart people down dark paths? Nah. I'll keep at it, thanks though.
Tiberius Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 When gatorman's defending you, you really have to step back and consider what you're doing... Wow, panic attack!! You guys are funny
meazza Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Stop exposing hatred which leads to otherwise smart people down dark paths? Nah. I'll keep at it, thanks though. Actually the only thing you're exposing is that you don't have the slightest clue how the world works and it's irritating.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Actually the only thing you're exposing is that you don't have the slightest clue how the world works and it's irritating. Disagree.
Rockpile233 Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) WTF do we even do? Seriously... I don't believe the travel ban would accomplish much fighting homegrown terror, although you can argue limiting immigration/refugees will have long term impacts. At this point I'm fine with the travel ban, but skeptical on how much it would do. I am fully supportive of targeted surveillance of online activities related to extremeism, but yes my initial reaction is to reject that due to a slippery slope argument. Some of you, I know, are vehemently against this. So to you...what do we do to fight extremists with a social security number? At least most are coming around to calling it what is is...radical ISLAMIC terror. Being a rational person, I of course know it's a tiny percentage of an entire religion, but fair or not the Islam community needs to lead the charge rooting this out. Edited June 5, 2017 by Rockpile233
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 WTF do we even do? Seriously... We start by looking inward. Right now, today, the US and its allies are actively funding, arming, and sharing intel with ISIS in Syria to fight Assad. The attacks in London, by ISIS, are 'acceptable blowback' to those people pushing that agenda in Syria. There's no hope of stopping ISIS or AQ while we are actively allied with them in Syria.
meazza Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 We start by looking inward. Right now, today, the US and its allies are actively funding, arming, and sharing intel with ISIS in Syria to fight Assad. The attacks in London, by ISIS, are 'acceptable blowback' to those people pushing that agenda in Syria. There's no hope of stopping ISIS or AQ while we are actively allied with them in Syria. Wrong. Stop parroting this BS talking point.
Chef Jim Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 When gatorman's defending you, you really have to step back and consider what you're doing...
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 WTF do we even do? Seriously... I don't believe the travel ban would accomplish much fighting homegrown terror, although you can argue limiting immigration/refugees will have long term impacts. At this point I'm fine with the travel ban, but skeptical on how much it would do. I am fully supportive of targeted surveillance of online activities related to extremeism, but yes my initial reaction is to reject that due to a slippery slope argument. Some of you, I know, are vehemently against this. So to you...what do we do to fight extremists with a social security number? At least most are coming around to calling it what is is...radical ISLAMIC terror. Being a rational person, I of course know it's a tiny percentage of an entire religion, but fair or not the Islam community needs to lead the charge rooting this out. Except that the argument right now isn't "targeted surveillance," it's silencing communication to prevent radicalization. Which leads to two issues: the one already mentioned, that "extremism" is a slippery term subject to abuse at the whims of whoever's in power (I know several people who think the Republican Party is "extremist" and should be legally silenced, as "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment!") And the one not mentioned: sigint. That both attackers in the past two British attacks were known to authorities is probably due in no small part to tracking the communication that radicalized them to begin with. Combating them gets harder when you can't listen in on them. It's a somewhat ironic thing to have to point out on today of all days...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Wrong. Stop parroting this BS talking point. Now who is exposing they're ignorance of how the world truly works? To say it's just a talking point ignores literally mountains of first hand evidence to the contrary - including talking to soldiers on the ground in Syria who train with these jihadists. I've talked to dozens of men with just that story at this point. The US and its allies have been in a working battlefield alliance with AQ and ISIS for years now in Syria. This is not a talking point, it's reality. I urge you to inform yourself more on this issue and then ask yourself why the US, who was attacked by AQ on 9/11, no longer deems AQ a terrorist organization in Syria? Did the Syria chapter suddenly become good guys? Or did the US change that classification to avoid any legal problems inherent in their arming, funding, and training programs in Syria with AQ and ISIS fighters? The United States told its citizens that AQ was such a dangerous enemy we needed to give up certain constitutional protections in exchange for safety from these monsters. Now, 15 years later, we're actively working with AQ on the ground in Syria... to fight Assad and Putin. If Americans actually realized the Faustian deal being made in Syria, and how unnecessary it is to our own national defense and interests, there would be riots in the street. People who believe Russia is the ultimate bad guy are fine with this alliance. Even if it means little girls get blown up during a concert in Manchester or people get slaughtered on a bridge in London. That kind of logic exposes them as being the same sort of hate filled ideologues as the people they call their enemy. You can't fight "terrorism". It's a tactic, not an enemy. You also can't exterminate your enemy when you're fighting them in 99% of the world and arming, funding, and training them in 1% of it. That never works. Never has worked in all of history. There are literally decades of proof of how the blowback from these sorts of battlefield alliances cost innocent lives. There is a right and wrong here. And siding with your enemy just because it leads to more dead Russians is wrong on every level. Unless you're blinded by hate. Then it probably seems like a good idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2pQpX-c7nY
Rockpile233 Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Except that the argument right now isn't "targeted surveillance," it's silencing communication to prevent radicalization. Which leads to two issues: the one already mentioned, that "extremism" is a slippery term subject to abuse at the whims of whoever's in power (I know several people who think the Republican Party is "extremist" and should be legally silenced, as "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment!") And the one not mentioned: sigint. That both attackers in the past two British attacks were known to authorities is probably due in no small part to tracking the communication that radicalized them to begin with. Combating them gets harder when you can't listen in on them. It's a somewhat ironic thing to have to point out on today of all days... I hate the idea of regulating the internet floating around, it's completely absurd. As for certain online activities flagged, that's a different subject, but there are obvious issues with this and it probably happens already anyway. I just can't think of another way to preemptively stop an attack from a homegrown subject (which they nearly all are) short of banning an entire group from the country and waiting a couple decades. Edited June 5, 2017 by Rockpile233
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Except that the argument right now isn't "targeted surveillance," it's silencing communication to prevent radicalization. Which leads to two issues: the one already mentioned, that "extremism" is a slippery term subject to abuse at the whims of whoever's in power (I know several people who think the Republican Party is "extremist" and should be legally silenced, as "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment!") And the one not mentioned: sigint. That both attackers in the past two British attacks were known to authorities is probably due in no small part to tracking the communication that radicalized them to begin with. Combating them gets harder when you can't listen in on them. It's a somewhat ironic thing to have to point out on today of all days... I hate the idea of regulating the internet floating around, it's completely absurd. As for certain online activities flagged, that's a different subject, but there are obvious issues with this and it probably happens already anyway. I just can't think of another way to preemptively stop an attack from a homegrown subject (which they nearly all are) short of banning an entire group from the country and waiting a couple decades. The surveillance state we live under in the US today has yet to prevent a single attack from coming to fruition. Not one. And in many cases the perpetrators were known and on watch lists when they acted. That's because mass surveillance is a lousy tool for the purposes of stopping terrorist attacks before they happen. There's too much information that would need to be sorted and read in real time. Selectors change, and thus key conversations get missed or lost in the noise. Mass surveillance is an excellent tool to control dissent in the population and control the national discourse - and it's a great tool for the prosecution of terrorist cases after the fact.
Rockpile233 Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) The surveillance state we live under in the US today has yet to prevent a single attack from coming to fruition. Not one. And in many cases the perpetrators were known and on watch lists when they acted. That's because mass surveillance is a lousy tool for the purposes of stopping terrorist attacks before they happen. There's too much information that would need to be sorted and read in real time. Selectors change, and thus key conversations get missed or lost in the noise. Mass surveillance is an excellent tool to control dissent in the population and control the national discourse - and it's a great tool for the prosecution of terrorist cases after the fact. It's for the most part a dead end in stopping an attack. You can't move until it's already happened. People can politicize this however they'd like, but unless you are prepared to eradicate an entire group of people, which of course you most certainly are not, there will continue to be religiously motivated murder by the perverted minds. I haven't heard a single good way to fight it apart from a lowering the "susceptible to brainwash" pool. Edited June 5, 2017 by Rockpile233
Recommended Posts