yeah lets ignore that you know

people in the middle east kind of exist in a weird middle ground of the shittiness of being poor and oppressed but not so poor and oppressed that they cant afford weapons

islam is a big ass religion in SEA but yr not seeing hong kong being bombed :L

would you like me to just re-post everything mustardoverlord posted two pages ago

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Again, it depends on whether your definition of terrorism includes state terrorism

we don't even know who is responsible and people are already pointing fingers at Islam. smh

mustard why don't you post about the crusades while your at it,

also about definition from your Wikipedia article

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"

I would argue that every example I posted filled this criteria from the UN, while your examples would be war crimes.

why are you playing a massive semantics game so you can justify a chart of half-truths for your own hatred

desca is a known racist

where are the half truths in my chart? mustard started the semantics game with his post about the definition of terrorism.

I guess we are allowed to stop caring about our own country's imperial actions once they hit their 40th birthday or so?

Every example I posted fits this definition

if your response to "we've done significantly worse things than islam" is "well TECHNICALLY that's not terrorism because it's worse", then what's the point of trying to argue that islam does the worst?

under technical rules, your chart isn't WRONG, no. but, all the same, it intentionally hides the info it doesn't want, because it doesn't fit the agenda of the creator

The person splitting hairs over a definition is the person playing the semantics game

I am saying that there is no true definition and the entire construct of terrorism as you are using it was manufactured by the West, and the United States in particular, for the purposes of denying agency from our enemies and giving ourselves the moral high ground in order to justify any and all foreign policy actions we take ever

http://i.imgur.com/8fHcOr7.gif

8:00 PM - mustardoverlord: sometimes I just wish a couple of other people had a big brain like me

would you consider that a terrorist attack?

this is some intellectual discourse you have, I see

medium is the message

http://i.imgur.com/JtPb3Rz.png

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/665316743997296640

Can't wait to read people bringing up Breivik or the Crusades for the next couple of days instead of feeling sorry for France and getting shit done so this could be prevented in the future.

I'm not even going to bother reading through this thread but I sincerely hope it's people showing their sympathies and not spewing dumb shit like "ITS ALL THE WESTS FAULT" and the evergreen "THE US IS BAD THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TERRORISTS"

To anyone who posted anything in such a trend
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CTvRKEFUEAANaa6.mp4

Ahem,

Please do not cite Milo Yiannopoulos in any serious context

Please do not act like your (also partisan) position holds the monopoly on sympathy for the victims of an atrocity. Please do not also act like you are the one staying out of the political arena when you have a) already quoted someone using a tragedy as an attempt to attack liberal media outlets he does not like and b) when you say "getting shit done so this could be prevented in the future" in the same sentence which, judging by the tone of your post, probably implies making it harder for people to immigrate to France despite how utterly irrelevant that is to this issue.

Yeah, those are the only people piggybacking off a horrific event to espouse their normal political rhetoric, something Milo "Fucking" Yiannopoulos would never ever do

mustard is a MACHINE

Man I hate for Muslims to get a bad wrap for this. Unfortunately this is going to cause a lot of societal trust issues with the group irregardless. I hope it doesn't start a mob mentality to isolate the ones we know today who they themselves feel embarrassed for this behaviour representing similar theologies. Who knows what ways this will be twisted into, God forbid another war? A mass protest that might be met with violence to the aforementioned people? I don't want to propagate the idea, but I think if it can be realized then it can be avoided at the same time. My thoughts and prayers go to the victims and ones going to be indirectly oppressed by this savage behavior.

.

I don't care who said it as I'm not very familiar with the guy, but it's the truth. Nice assumptions though. Where do I claim people from those media outlets can't feel sympathy? I just think it's horrible that they would do the same shit every time something like this happens: Trying to make us feel guilty and that the attackers are supposed to be the victims. Because remember, crusades. I don't doubt that they don't want this to happen either. Also nice assumption about immigration. I just don't think allowing returning syrians who fought in a war back into a country is a good idea. Fuck me, right?

.

?

zilly is a known vagina

...refugees are mostly civilians. you are aware of that, right?

Where did I claim they aren't? I said the ones that left a country, fought in Syria and then tried to return to their home country shouldn't be allowed back in. It's a huge problem here, responsible for radicalizing non-extremist muslims and inciting violence. (Some fun lecture: Brian de Mulder and friends, Sharia4Belgium etc) But we can't do anything because actually checking who comes into a country is racist.

Haven't heard anything from my aunt and uncle who's hotel was 30min away from the attacks... Has there been any info on if any Canadians were wounded/killed?

I understand that pointing fingers at someone at this point is kind of pointless (Hello, Forefather) but even if we knew exactly who did this, everyone in this thread would just continue with their lives and forget about it like we forget about each new terrorist attack within a couple of months (Russian A321 - 224 dead including 27 children happened just two weeks ago).

All this "condolences bullshittery" is just a way to let off some steam but who do you hold a grudge against? Who are you blaming for this? Terrorists? They have existed for hundreds of years. Which group in particular? Oh, you say Al-qaeda or ISIS? Then ask yourself how did they came into being and how do they continue to exist.