The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[Lethality]

100,000 civilians were vaporised.

I'm pretty sure it was more than that, but the projections for re-taking Japan might've been a lot higher. Still, nothing to do with religion.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I'm pretty sure it was more than that, but the projections for re-taking Japan might've been a lot higher. Still, nothing to do with religion.

Say it with me, 100,000 people were vaporised. Rationalise it away all you want.

No nothinig to do with religion, just statism/nationalism. Fighting and killing for your state is given some sort of moral legitimacy. Ask people living under drones who've had their kids blown into goo about that.

 

[Lethality]

Say it with me, 100,000 people were vaporised. Rationalise it away all you want.

I'm not defending it; just saying it was a numbers game for the Allies.

Fighting and killing for your state is given some sort of moral legitimacy.

Of course it does, there's nothing wrong with protecting your country. The drones you're talking about didnt just happen in some sort of vacuum, they're targeting militant groups.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Of course it does, there's nothing wrong with protecting your country. The drones you're talking about didnt just happen in some sort of vacuum, they're targeting militant groups.

But killing civilians aswell.

Do you believe these groups have the right to target civilians in the West according to your self-defense doctrine?

 

[Lethality]

But killing civilians aswell.

Do you believe these groups have the right to target civilians in the West according to your self-defense doctrine?

It wouldn't be in self-defense, and no they wouldn't have the right to attack civilians.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It wouldn't be in self-defense, and no they wouldn't have the right to attack civilians.

But why wouldnt it be? The West is attacking them. Based on your logic, surely they have the right to defend themself?

 

[Lethality]

But why wouldnt it be? The West is attacking them. Based on your logic, surely they have the right to defend themself?

They're militant groups, not sovereign nations . . . in fact they're often already attacking the nations that they do occupy. .

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

They're militant groups, not sovereign nations . . . in fact they're often already attacking the nations that they do occupy. .

I can understand why only sovereign nations possess the right to legitimate violence, but my point is that doesnt make their violence ethically legitimate.

 

[beef hooked]

Hey kidd vicious, you been wearing a mask lately? It would be right up your leftist ally.

Following the violent attacks by purported ‘anti-Fascist’ activists on peaceful protesters demonstrating against the Halal Expo at the Melbourne Showgrounds yesterday, one of Victoria’s highest ranking police officers has proposed banning masks at future protests.

The cowardly assault by masked activists left one protester bleeding heavily from the head and others injured and beaten with flag poles.

Late last year, masked ANTIFA (‘anti-Fascist’) activists attacked a group of protesters who were marking the 10th anniversary of the Cronulla riots in Sydney. One ANTIFA activist confessed after the attack that “peaceful confrontation is not going to work” for their purported ‘anti-Fascist’ goals (which funnily enough seems to closely resemble actual Fascism).

Anti-mask laws have been previously introduced in Canada and in several states in the United States. Similar laws are also in place in several European nations.

Would you support the introduction of laws banning the wearing of masks at protests in Australia or elsewhere? Tell us what you think.

It’s your XYZ

http://www.xyz.net.au/proposal-ban-masks-protests/

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Hey kidd vicious, you been wearing a mask lately? It would be right up your leftist ally.



http://www.xyz.net.au/proposal-ban-masks-protests/

That's a spicy meatball.

 

[Malifice]

No, they're not in the military. And they're not following any orders or conventions.

What? Yes they are. These are terrorist cells that were recruited and given orders by ISIL in Syria and Iraq.

How on earth are you saying they are not military men, or that they are not following orders?

America dropped the bomb to get Japan's surrender.

And the ISIL bombed Belgium to convince them to invade in a ground war.

Whats your point?

Plenty of reasons. Muslims who are from the same sect often disagree with interpretations, let alone Muslims of different sects. I know of Muslims who have disowned family members for being anti-extremist. Muslim on muslim killings are also intolerance for different ideas just like Muslim on infidel.

There is no-one arguing that 'fundamental Islamic Jihadis' do not exist, nor is anyone saying that these people are not using the religion as a justification for their attacks.

The argument is that these nutters do not represent what the overwhelming number of Muslims believe which is why it is that Muslims that dont agree with them have been the primary targets to date. I dont know if youve noticed, but millions of people are fleeing ISIL, and most of them are Muslim. I assure you most of those peeps certainly dont want anything to do with ISIL or their beliefs, and nor do most Muslims you'll find in Australia, Europe and elsewhere.

Blaming all Muslims for ISIL is like blaming all Christians for the Westborough baptist church, Anders Brevik and every Abortion clinic murderer out there.

 

[beef hooked]

Late last year, masked ANTIFA (‘anti-Fascist’) activists attacked a group of protesters who were marking the 10th anniversary of the Cronulla riots in Sydney. One ANTIFA activist confessed after the attack that “peaceful confrontation is not going to work” for their purported ‘anti-Fascist’ goals (which funnily enough seems to closely resemble actual Fascism).

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Late last year, masked ANTIFA (‘anti-Fascist’) activists attacked a group of protesters who were marking the 10th anniversary of the Cronulla riots in Sydney. One ANTIFA activist confessed after the attack that “peaceful confrontation is not going to work” for their purported ‘anti-Fascist’ goals (which funnily enough seems to closely resemble actual Fascism).

Is there a point amongst your bizarrely multi-coloured and highlighted quotes?

 

[Malifice]

Of course it does, there's nothing wrong with protecting your country. The drones you're talking about didnt just happen in some sort of vacuum, they're targeting militant groups.

Hang on; are ISIL militants following orders, or arent they? You're pretty confused on this point.

Here is the definition of Military:

The military, also called the armed forces, are forces authorized to use deadly force, and weapons, to support the interests of the state and some or all of its citizens. The task of the military is usually defined as defense of the state and its citizens, and the prosecution of war against another state. The military may also have additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within a society, including, the promotion of a political agenda, protecting corporate economic interests, internal population control, construction, emergency services, social ceremonies, and guarding important areas. The military can also function as a discrete subculture within a larger civil society, through the development of separate infrastructures, which may include housing, schools, utilities, food production and banking.

 

[Malifice]

Late last year, masked ANTIFA (‘anti-Fascist’) activists attacked a group of protesters who were marking the 10th anniversary of the Cronulla riots in Sydney. One ANTIFA activist confessed after the attack that “peaceful confrontation is not going to work” for their purported ‘anti-Fascist’ goals (which funnily enough seems to closely resemble actual Fascism).

This has nothing to do with terrorism.

Take it elsewhere. Preferably Stormfront.

 

[beef hooked]

This has nothing to do with terrorism.

Take it elsewhere. Preferably Stormfront.

Who the hell is Stormfront?

 

[Malifice]

Who the hell is Stormfront?

Nice try. Im sure you UPF supporters know exactly who they are.

 

[Lethality]

Hang on; are ISIL militants following orders, or arent they?

LOL there's a difference between militant and a soldier in the military.

 

[Lethality]

And the ISIL bombed Belgium to convince them to invade in a ground war.

Whats your point?

Oh boy, this is disgraceful. I mean, comparing terrorist attacks by fundamentalist nutbags to a military action designed to end WW2. There has to be some sort of limit to bad taste. Post reported.

 

[Malifice]

LOL there's a difference between militant and a soldier in the military.

Whats the difference? The only difference is a militant fights for something other than a State.

And I assure you, the ISIL blokes are fighting for the Islamic State.

Whats the difference here. How do you make any meaningfull distinction here?

 

[Malifice]

Oh boy, this is disgraceful. I mean, comparing terrorist attacks by fundamentalist nutbags to a military action designed to end WW2. There has to be some sort of limit to bad taste. Post reported.

How about you explain to me the difference instead of handwringing and hysteria.

Are you saying you would support ISIL using a nuclear attack to achieve their goals? To end (for example) Russian military agression against them?

Would you support a nuclear strike on Moscow by ISIL to end Russias war against ISIL, like you clearly support the USA's nuclear strike on Japan at Hiroshima?

 

[Malifice]

No need for personal abuse.

Indeed.

 

[beef hooked]

Just doing a google on Stormfront now, I have never heard of them before now, are they are the new KKK ?

You are quick to to label anyone with a different view to you as a supporter of a Nazi party but the socialist alliance has more in common Nazi party with their violent assaults on any one who opposes their weird and wacky views.

 

[beef hooked]

How about you explain to me the difference instead of handwringing and hysteria.

Are you saying you would support ISIL using a nuclear attack to achieve their goals? To end (for example) Russian military agression against them?

Would you support a nuclear strike on Moscow by ISIL to end Russias war against ISIL, like you clearly support the USA's nuclear strike on Japan at Hiroshima?

Have you ever thought of a career in politics, you are good with weasel words.

 

[Indeed]

How about you explain to me the difference instead of handwringing and hysteria.

Are you saying you would support ISIL using a nuclear attack to achieve their goals? To end (for example) Russian military agression against them?

Would you support a nuclear strike on Moscow by ISIL to end Russias war against ISIL, like you clearly support the USA's nuclear strike on Japan at Hiroshima?

Umm errr aaaaa a nuclear strike on Russia woud not end the war against ISIL, it would quickly lead to Syria/Iraq/Libya being turned into a giant parking lot in about 15 minutes. Japan did not have the capability to attack the USA or any of its interests at the end of the world war II, what a ridiculous hypothetical.

Oh btw, stop being a baa baa sheep and believe Russia did anything to ISIS
pre-putin

after putin