We Come In Peace
-
Posts
807 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by We Come In Peace
-
-
Fine, but when every post sounds exactly the same, what's the point?
"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."
-
No, I'm not implying it. I'm stating it.
And it's your post with the high bull **** content. Terrorism over the past 30 years hasn't been centered around any "nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires," it's been very specific within the context of very real and tangible geopolitical goals. Hamas, Hezbollah, and their predecessors, all the way back to the 60's, don't have some nebulous hatred of the west in pursuing an ambiguous concept of Jihad, they want to eliminate Israel. The Shi'ia Muslims have an apocalyptic vision which, in trying to fulfill, they want to establish the historical Persian hegemony over the Middle East and eliminate Western imperialism. Libyan terrorist attacks in the '80s were directly related to disputes over navigation rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Chechen terrorism is uniquely focused on Russia in the explicit pursuit of Chechen independence.
You can go on and on, with multiple examples (Tamil Tigers, Mau Mau, Shining Path, FARC, the Kurds in...every country they live in, the Taliban and Northern Alliance both, Abu Sayyaf, the Provos, the Basques, the UNC, the Viet Cong, etc. You can go all the way back to the Spanish in the Peninsular war or even earlier to the American Revolution, if you want). Terrorism is never pursued for ambiguous reasons. It's a practical application of violence in the pursuit of concrete purpose that is itself greater than any single application of violence.
Otherwise, you may as well argue that every bank robber is trying to collapse the American monetary system. Since all bank robbers are unified in their desire for wealth, even if they're not coordinated.
...This is what we call a beat down.
-
Here's a hot actress trying it out. Less hilarious, but easier on the eyes and probably closer to true-form on the content.
I was literally just watching this ...
She's hilarious, but it feels more real with her reading it and makes me want to shake her.
-
Same tired insults. No fact's or rational argument's. It is impossable to dispute you because you never say anything.
Oh, I say plenty.
You want to dispute something? Dispute this: You're a hateful, ignorant, and shameless person who frankly I pity.
Go ahead and dispute that.
For all his blah blah there for blah blah OC makes real points. I have never seen WCIP add anything but babble, with no substance.
Okay, now we know truly how much of an asshat you are.
Homophobe says what?
-
Right in character. Name calling, no real reasoning.
You have demonstrated no ability to reason or understand rational points.
Don't you have some hate-filled language to go spew at people who are different from you? I'm sure there's a cripple or negro that needs a good tongue lashing from you if Alaska is all out of queers.
WCIP, I've been lurking in this thread so I get where everyone is coming from except you. What is it that you want? You've posted an enormous amount of letters/words and I still don't know what you are getting at. Cut to the chase.
B-Man proposed the idea that we can't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them. This isn't an original thought, it's a common talking point thrown out by the right and it's a ridiculous assertion to make in the debate on guns in America. And it's talking point that will continue to be thrown around in the blogs, articles, NRA proclamations and all the other nonsense that will be coming in as this debate continues throughout the coming months and years. It's a ridiculous assertion that we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow laws. It's shallow, unsophisticated, incorrect, and disingenuous.
I'm pin pointing it because I'd like to think that the serious minded folks on this board, even the ones I often disagree with, are honest enough to see through this bullshiit talking point. If B-Man doesn't want to take ownership for this position, I won't hold him to it. But at least have the balls to admit that it's a bullshiit talking point. Because that's all it is. A talking point propagated by the pro-gun crowd (you can see it in the video that Chef posted a while back in this thread) that is shallow, stupid, and fantastical. It shows a complete detachment from reality.
I'll be willing to let the subject drop if we can come to some sort of detente on this one talking point. If we can agree to keep this kind of nonsense out of the debate in future posts and threads and articles that will undoubtedly be linked by B-Man and others, it will help service both sides of this issue in the long run.
As I asked B-Man originally, when the pro-gun crowd has so many other valid points to make within this debate, why do they feel the need to continue to promote this particular talking point? It does nothing but make the people who repeat it look like asshats.
-
I don't think you can say this wasn't part of a greater strategic plan or goal, especially if all you need is for a goal -- regardless of whether it makes sense -- to exist. The greater strategic plan and goal was to murder and terrorize people with bombs again and again. Plus, the understanding is they went so far as to follow the How To Terrorize People Playbook by setting one bomb to kill, but also to move people toward the second bomb for maximum death and terror.
Sounds like terrorism to me.
The Muslim angle means little to me beyond the fact that we always have to spend three days hearing it's probably a white person before we find out it's not. I think the larger issue, which will undoubtedly be raised by the WH is, are there any transgender terrorists? If not, why not? Yes, it's terrorism and people die, but shouldn't all terrorists have a level playing field?
Both brothers were from the Caucasus, where the Caucasian race came from. So both were white people.... you realize that someone's religion doesn't change their skin color, right?
Yes. Sharing the same disaffection, alienation, and even general principles as Islamists, and acting on them, doesn't make one a.terrorist. Sharing the same goals, and committing violence in pursuance of those goals, is terrorism. So what goal was Tamerlin pursuing (I omit the other brother because I can't spell his !@#$ing name)? He had a belief that western imperialism was alive and well and oppressing Islam world-wide...so, what? What was he actually trying to accomplish? Just killing and maiming people? That doesn't fly...killing and maiming is a crime, terrorism is crime in the context of a greater purpose than the crime itself. What greater purpose was he pursuing?
None. He was just a disaffected bozo acting out. Again, not unlike the disaffected bozo at Sandy Hook. By your argument, Adam Lanza was a terrorist just because he shot up a school, and other people want education reform.
And it is vitally important to make that distinction...because you can't fight it if you don't know what it is. If every act of violence by a Muslim is Islamist terrorism, you will never defeat Islamists, because you will never stop violence.
All evidence to the contrary. It's time to invade Iran!
-
You can always spot a liberal a miles away. You're the first ones to take a conservative argument all the way to the most ridiculous extreme in hopes of making a point that barely exists on its own merit.
Wait. Let me guess. You used to be a Republican, but the party got too extreme for you, so you turned into a liberal who prefers Jon Huntsman.
Okay, NOW that's some funny shiit right there. Where's B-Man's mirror when you need it.
Holy crap you are delusional at times, my friend. If you don't think that door swings both ways you haven't paid enough attention to some of the loons in your own party.
-
How many super bowl rings does Dr. Seuss have? None.
To quote "A Bronx Tale", there's nothing worse than wasted talent. And I agree. Suess slid by doing the bare minimum.
-
Well everyone is so impressed with an actor........ACTING.
Whereas I'm more impressed by the person who wrote the "script".There are a lot of writers in Hollywood that watched that wishing they could write dialogue as laugh out loud funny as that email.
-
As usual, full of detailed plan's.
Oh good. You encouraged WCIP. Nice work.
Punks jump up to get beat down. You should know.
Forgive me, I didn't read more than a couple of posts in this thread.
No worries, I figured which is why I wanted to point it out. For the record, I agree that background checks will not stop mass shootings or acts of terrorism and have never argued otherwise.
-
At the end of the day, until governments at all levels re-prioritize we don't need any more laws passed.
You can continue this charade for the next month but this law wouldn't have changed a damn thing and blaming the NRA (the GOA is actually a far more effective organization) for gun violence is blindingly stupid.
AD, my points in this thread have nothing to do with the bill that failed but rather the particular line of reasoning that the pro-gun crowd throws out EVERY time something like Boston happens. We've seen B-Man do it twice in a row in this thread.
It's a shallow argument without logical merit and makes the person who argues it look like a ginormous asshat. That's my only dog in this particular fight.
-
-
NOT SAFE FOR WORK
http://www.funnyordi...sorority-letter
One of the funniest things I've seen in awhile.
-
It wasn't meant to be hurtful. It was meant to help...like saying "Your fly is open" or "You've got a honey badger gnawing off your elbow." You're starting to post like OC. No insult intended, just that you might want to look out for that.
It's for your own good.
-
Which gets back to what I posted: you're an idiot. What "point?"
Touche
-
I should warn you that at first, I thought this was an OC post.
Just tryin' to help, really. You don't want to go down that rabbit hole, Alice.
That's the most hurtful thing that's ever been said to me.
-
I knew what you were referring to. I'm disinclined to agree...but can't say you don't have a point. The contrivedly offensively named "USA PATRIOT Act" shares a lot of the issues with the unironically oxymoronically named "Affordable Care Act": some good ideas put together in a framework of bull **** that no one really understood, ramrodded through Congress on a basis of emotional pablum rather than rational thought.
Sure. And the ACA has a ton of privacy issues and a slightly smaller boondoggle of government waste. Both were rushed through the legislative process out of fear. Both will have an impact on future generations in some "positive" ways but mainly negative. The Jefferson quote he pinned was the calling card of the anti-Patriot act crowd for months and months ... they had a point then, but Jax doesn't have a point using it here.
-
You're even dumber than I gave you credit for earlier. Kudos.
Your words clearly point to your hating gays. What's wrong with admitting it?
Why do we tax the crap out of smokers? Isn't the scam we all pay for their health care?
Look doctor it's you're. And you better stick with 100 ways to prepare pig's feet, you're a lousy analyst.
:lol: You can't even get this right. No wonder you're useless.
Jesus Christ I hate faggots because they beg to have it up the ass and like to suck come off their lips. OK? you're on this like a bulldog. Did I touch a nerve?
And apparently every homosexual is the same and they all have diseases because God hates them, did we cover it all?
You're a sad, sad, tiny, pathetic excuse for a man.
Read the whole thread,and understand my posts. I am sick of starting from scratch. And yes sir I admire, love, appreciate, enjoy a womans desire in sex. But I can't shift those feelings to a man having them.
There's a whole lot you can't do. You can't point out typos correctly. You can't argue a coherent point (in anything). You also are full of hate, probably a lot of rage and I think it's best for humanity that you live in Alaska. That way at least there's a chance you'll end up as some nice bear's dinner. At least then you'd be servicing the world in a useful way.
Here's JiA by his truck:
-
You're an idiot. What "point?"
:lol:The real crime that was committed against our civil liberties didn't happen in Watertown or Boston. It happened in Washington on October 26th, 2001.
But I don't want to feed the troll.
-
So here's what I don't get about the people who think the government is framing them for all of this. If they're willing to go to these lengths for god know what reason to screw over these two poor checken kids, why wouldn't they quickly silence the people spouting off on message boards? If you can blow up twin towers and bomb marathons, you sure as hell can make a few message board posters disappear.
I was going to actually discuss some possibilities on how/why this would happen in a general sense, but then I remembered what thread this was in.
-
Here's a pertinent quote from Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Uh... you're about 11 years, 5 months and 27 days too late with this point.
-
The guy was blessed with natural ability to play NFL football and because he doesn't have the heart and the toughness to play ball he chooses the easy way out. That goes against everything being a football player represents. Rolle is a fraud. What if Jim Kelly quit football to be neuro-sturgeon or some crap?
Well, I'm guessing at least 80% of the strippers in the region wouldn't have been able to pay their tuition checks.
-
He has turned PPP into a rap battle.
PPP 8 mile
You bastard. I just spit water on my screen.
:lol: -
Must be a fluke that gay's and IV drug users pop into mind when you hear "died of AIDS."
You realize it's 2013 right? Not 1983. Disco's dead dude.
Radio host tells Newton victims to "Go to hell"
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Really? You suuuuuure about that? Or are you just being biased? If you go on any liberal blog you'd find people saying the same thing about conservatives, "it goes both ways but nowhere near the extent to which conservatives push it."
Make no mistake, I am not claiming that liberals do NOT engage in this -- they most certainly do. But if both sides are doing it, why continue to push it? Why not see past it so people can have an honest conversation about the topics of the day rather than partisan pissing contests?
I'm not a liberal.
And here you spin it again to just hit your key points that you dislike Obama and the liberal agenda -- yet you ignore the reality that if both sides are constantly belittling the other, constantly labeling the other as the 'enemy' (metaphorically or not) nothing gets accomplished.
Everyone knows which team you're on, LA, and no one has a problem with it. Or at least I don't. You're honest about your takes and I respect that. You're also blindingly loyal to your talking points which I find disconcerting for someone as obviously intelligent as you. And I don't mean that in a belittling or patronizing way in the least, everyone does it now and then, even me. All I'm saying is opening your mind to the possibility that there is no "right" side to certain issues doesn't make you a traitor to your party. It makes you a rational person who's at least capable of thinking for himself and not taking everything that his or her party spoon feeds them as gospel.
At least for the sake of honest debates and discussions on PPP.