Why are we discussing this in a separate topic? We already cover most of this in the topic of Islam, or are we going to start opening a new topic, any time the peaceful Muslims engage in bloodshed (which is fine, since we will have 100 new topics a month).

Charlie Hebdo was a shitty magazine, and their writers sucked. Did they deserve to die? Depends who you ask, since bad satire is not murder worthy, but hey, not everyone can be Shakespeare (regardless of the fact that he may not have existed as a singular individual)

Islam is a death cult, based upon a "holly book" that is perfect in every way, and cannot be changed, plus the words of the Muhammad (the ones that he didn't write btw because he was an illiterate peace of shit) speak of nothing but destruction of the infidels and subjugation under the will of Islam.

I agree with Leni, the magazine was in deep shit, so while the authors died, the magazine can continue publishing it's political propaganda and hate speech since the West suis Charlie now.

Blah blah blah ALah is merciful and blow yourself up. Death to the infidels! Strike off their heads since it is a peaceful thing to do.

Written by IronAngel on 16.01.2015 at 22:49

Global ethics is a pretty weird topic, to be honest. I am tentatively of the opinion that ethics is supposed to facilitate cooperation within a community and support meaningful, valuable human life and growth. I won't subscribe to a reductionist evolutionary ethics, but context and function need to be considered. It is evident that you can't apply traditional ethics on a global scale because it's too complicated for humans to evaluate and no longer serves its purpose successfully. Whether that means that we should be ethically indifferent of issues across the globe, or if we need to develop some kind of new ethics to deal with it, I don't know. But you certainly can't fault people for not applying their moral principles of everyday communal life to global issues - that would be a mess.

Indeed. I AM being bothered by the shit happening around places, be it the middle east, Africa, or North Korea or whatever, but I don't think it is a callous, or cold-blooded sentiment to care more about what happens within our doorsteps. Despite all the various conflicts and oppositions, Europe is largely a singular entity, so despite the fact that muslim communities aren't really an issue in Hungary it all (we have plenty of other issues tbh), this incident means that "they are at our doorsteps" basically.

The difference between islam fundamentalists killing one another in the middle-east, and islam fundamentalists killing others in other countries who practice their freedom of speech is night and day, since the former concerns us mostly as empathy for strangers who suffer them, whilst the latter implies a sort of subtle "conquest" in a strange sense of the word, as it means we are not safe to criticise them from our own cities, which is, basically, them forcing their will on us

Here in Hungary, after the incident, I have seen shittons of people being like "gosh, those people were looking for trouble when they did those satires, they should have respected the muslims, small wonder they got shot..." and other bullshit like that. Seriously, I am not perplexed by the stupid ignorance and complete lack of analytical thinking of hungarian people in general, but are they fuckin' serious thinking this pile of shit I paraphrased? Because if we cannot criticize the damaging idiocy of fundies for the fear of being killed, then by that accord, we should also ban alcohol and start dressing our women as trash bags and treat them like slaves, since not doing that probably also "insults islam", since the fundies are gonna be offended by EVERYTHING.
This is basically the fucking definition of conquest.

This is why I consider this event to be of significance, NOT because X people died, even though I maximally feel for the relatives of the victims.

The funny thing is, France recanted their "no go zone" statement in fear of retribution. Such pussies...no wonder France will cease to exist.

Written by Rasputin on 17.01.2015 at 05:24

Why are we discussing this in a separate topic? We already cover most of this in the topic of Islam, or are we going to start opening a new topic, any time the peaceful Muslims engage in bloodshed (which is fine, since we will have 100 new topics a month).

this is about specifically act other one is about religion
its a fact as black n white

I see, so should we open one for the massacre of 2000 people? Or any other that peaceful muslims commit?

I always thought that the Muslims in France would have been more upset with the powers that be (didn't they ban the burqa?), yet they choose to kill a cartoonist instead.

On a side note, all these ignoramus muslim apologists say that it's the extremists doing that? Well if they are a 'religion of peace', then shouldn't that make the extremists extremely peaceful? And furthermore, if the fundamentalists of any religion are a menace to society or violent in any way, then shouldn't logic dictate that we question the fundamentals of that religion?

Written by [user id=160] on 24.01.2015 at 22:09

if the fundamentalists of any religion are a menace to society or violent in any way, then shouldn't logic dictate that we question the fundamentals of that religion?

That is a decent observation as such, but it only goes to show that "fundamentalism" is a vague, misused tag that gets thrown around as if it was a slur. Terrorists generally aren't fundamentalists, and fundamentalism as such only means respect of some fundamental things. As a theological term, it refers specifically to a certain 19-20th century Anglo-American Christian movement. They, of course, used the term "fundamental" as a charged term to highlight the authenticity of their theology.

So yes, if fundamentalists of any religion were as you describe and the label was correctly applied, you would have a point. But no, fundamentalists as a rule are not like that and no, the label is not always (or often) correctly applied, which makes your attempt to be edgy rather unimpressive.

Written by IronAngel on 24.01.2015 at 23:38

Written by [user id=160] on 24.01.2015 at 22:09

if the fundamentalists of any religion are a menace to society or violent in any way, then shouldn't logic dictate that we question the fundamentals of that religion?

That is a decent observation as such, but it only goes to show that "fundamentalism" is a vague, misused tag that gets thrown around as if it was a slur. Terrorists generally aren't fundamentalists, and fundamentalism as such only means respect of some fundamental things. As a theological term, it refers specifically to a certain 19-20th century Anglo-American Christian movement. They, of course, used the term "fundamental" as a charged term to highlight the authenticity of their theology.

So yes, if fundamentalists of any religion were as you describe and the label was correctly applied, you would have a point. But no, fundamentalists as a rule are not like that and no, the label is not always (or often) correctly applied, which makes your attempt to be edgy rather unimpressive.

There's nothing edgy about the viewpoint I proposed!

Paris now Köbenhavn. Where next

Funny that guy was on Danish secret service surveillance. Why not arrest all suspects what is there? Its like people was pissed when CIA and NSA spy on us, non what they get from PC cant be used in court whit out judge signed warrant. So you killed somepe and make film, keep on PC , no judge warrant, it cant be used as avoidance

Funny think week ago they shut down I mean cops Kickass torrent, maybe if they would use recuses and fight individual terror , not piracy
Drug on wars failed, all knows it , we just waist money , but war against piracy will fail much harder and will be more waist of time

better arrest those guys

Written by Bad English on 15.01.2015 at 15:31

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 15.01.2015 at 15:24

What about 2000 dead in Nigeria? cause nobody talk about that shit and its far worse than board meeting shootout....

because it was not done by isreal
and its not Europe, if it would be in Eur, Rus, US all will talk, non cares about Africa, Asia...

This is the first time since seven years, that I agree with you on something K7.

Written by [user id=28526] on 16.02.2015 at 21:38

Written by Bad English on 15.01.2015 at 15:31

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 15.01.2015 at 15:24

What about 2000 dead in Nigeria? cause nobody talk about that shit and its far worse than board meeting shootout....

because it was not done by isreal
and its not Europe, if it would be in Eur, Rus, US all will talk, non cares about Africa, Asia...

This is the first time since seven years, that I agree with you on something K7.

If there wont be 2 wars in Afga and Iraq (last one was totally unclearly) US troops would be in Africa, but more less possible is France will send there own troopps as support lets say 3000 sodlers and Africa solders do dirty job go in the front line battle

Written by deadone on 17.02.2015 at 00:02

Written by Bad English on 16.02.2015 at 21:44


If there wont be 2 wars in Afga and Iraq (last one was totally unclearly) US troops would be in Africa, but more less possible is France will send there own troopps as support lets say 3000 sodlers and Africa solders do dirty job go in the front line battle

No they wouldn't. USA doesn't give a shit about Africa. They let the Hutus commit genocide on Tutsis without batting an eyelid, they let the Sudanese Arabs slaughter the South Sudanese, etc etc.

You put too much mindless faith in Uncle Sam whose just as willing to support nasty dictatorships and genocide when it suits them (and I can give you dozens of examples if you want).

true but war is business JFK was assassinate because he wanted out of Nam .. and don't give me you believe it was Cubans or Mafia
Besides Obama is black, and might be some Africa connection, but I agree non gives damn about Africa , but that groups what is islamists well uncle sam might give a damn, but smart bombs might do most of the job

First of all lets take a look at the hypocrisy in all of this.
Liberals and Muslims like to call Islam a religion of peace.
They also like to say Christians are radical and evil. Obama pulled the Crusades card at one of his speeches.
He's just trying to justify the murders, also calling it "a random event", It was not random
People make fun of Christians, Jesus, and God on tv, movies, music, etc and you don't here shit about it.
One newspaper prints a fucking image of Mohammed and people are murdered, religion of peace huh?
Everyone is scared to "offend" Muslims. Fuck that shit. Free speech means free speech.
Now I know there are limits, my speech ends where yours starts and all that. But still.
Something that has a right to publish something making fun of Christians or Jews has the same right to make fun of Muslims
I'm sick of hearing about Isis and their bullshit and nobody doing anything about it, especially the US government.
Obama asked congress permission to use military force or whatever. Why did he ask permission and not just do it you ask?
So he can cover his ass later and blame others that they didn't let him.

We will need another Crusade, and maybe to turn the Middle East to glass in order to stop the lunatic death cult from expanding further. The only thing we can expect from Islam, is death and war, no peace. I see they are making their move into Asia, and that is not good.

Written by Rasputin on 23.04.2015 at 07:18

We will need another Crusade, and maybe to turn the Middle East to glass in order to stop the lunatic death cult from expanding further. The only thing we can expect from Islam, is death and war, no peace. I see they are making their move into Asia, and that is not good.

China are not west if Nine , Eleven happens in China , China will answer and more heavier as NATO did in Afga

Written by Bad English on 26.04.2015 at 03:17

Written by Rasputin on 23.04.2015 at 07:18

We will need another Crusade, and maybe to turn the Middle East to glass in order to stop the lunatic death cult from expanding further. The only thing we can expect from Islam, is death and war, no peace. I see they are making their move into Asia, and that is not good.

China are not west if Nine , Eleven happens in China , China will answer and more heavier as NATO did in Afga

As far as I know, Islam is contained in China, and if it does happen like you said, the Chinese would respond, however, if they do, the land they hit they will keep.

Written by Rasputin on 26.04.2015 at 11:38

Written by Bad English on 26.04.2015 at 03:17

Written by Rasputin on 23.04.2015 at 07:18

We will need another Crusade, and maybe to turn the Middle East to glass in order to stop the lunatic death cult from expanding further. The only thing we can expect from Islam, is death and war, no peace. I see they are making their move into Asia, and that is not good.

China are not west if Nine , Eleven happens in China , China will answer and more heavier as NATO did in Afga

As far as I know, Islam is contained in China, and if it does happen like you said, the Chinese would respond, however, if they do, the land they hit they will keep.

true and they have so many ppl Chinese state can sacrifice million solders of invading Afga, Pakistan and they then will send colonists there and occupy land.
Those nations be slaves in home and basically west wont do much.
Islam is there and there are acts, but in muslim area and its more AK , noy 9/11 ... try in Shan Hai
Hammas wont even dare to kidnap Chinese tourists

BTW if 9/11 happens in Russia , they would re taliate , to Taleban, now I would think they would use a nuke, they fought war in Afga, lost, I don't think VP would start new such campaign,
Chechens they would send troops and Chechnya 1 and 2 Rus troops was joke, now they would win, old 60's soviet tacktivs wont be used there
using nuke, or sending ground troops they wont care about civilians West officially would protest, but behind doors non would care
Israel also would use a nuke.
Isis now, believe me Rus and US would be alies if it would bring isis down

I disagree, out of all of the superpowers Russia would be the last one to use the Nuke. USA would be the first, and then maybe China because both of them are cocky and don't care.

Russians and the USA would not be allies to fight against ISIS since ISIS was created by the USA, and they are creating it further in the Balkans, where it is existing unchecked, because as soon someone would do something against "poor, innocent Muslims" there would be an uproar of the International community. There will be another war in the Balkans I am sad to say.

Written by deadone on 05.05.2015 at 03:56

Written by Rasputin on 29.04.2015 at 21:25

I disagree, out of all of the superpowers Russia would be the last one to use the Nuke. USA would be the first, and then maybe China because both of them are cocky and don't care.

Actually Russia has apparently been looking into a nuclear first use policy to offset gaps in conventional forces capability.

Back in Cold War NATO policy involved useage of tactical nuclear weapons to offset Soviet conventional numerical superiority. US still maintains a first use policy.

Chinese policy is unknown but they don't have a large nuclear arsenal and would probably avoid using such weapons because they'd be destroyed without being able to inflict significant damage to an enemy.

It is a result of a mirror image then, if USA didn't have it, they wouldn't either. It goes the same way with the amount of weapons and other things. NATO increases the number of planes, so does Russia, Russia increase the number or tanks, and NATO follows.

Written by Rasputin on 05.05.2015 at 23:56

Written by deadone on 05.05.2015 at 03:56

Written by Rasputin on 29.04.2015 at 21:25

I disagree, out of all of the superpowers Russia would be the last one to use the Nuke. USA would be the first, and then maybe China because both of them are cocky and don't care.

Actually Russia has apparently been looking into a nuclear first use policy to offset gaps in conventional forces capability.

Back in Cold War NATO policy involved useage of tactical nuclear weapons to offset Soviet conventional numerical superiority. US still maintains a first use policy.

Chinese policy is unknown but they don't have a large nuclear arsenal and would probably avoid using such weapons because they'd be destroyed without being able to inflict significant damage to an enemy.

It is a result of a mirror image then, if USA didn't have it, they wouldn't either. It goes the same way with the amount of weapons and other things. NATO increases the number of planes, so does Russia, Russia increase the number or tanks, and NATO follows.

Actually no only US and Turkey, Estonia maybe Finland what is no NATO cares avout military. Rest just do tralalala .... and Rus wont eb able financially build new tanks and re organize their ranks.. and I suppose US will soon have stealth nuke and satalite what can send Russian nuke when its launched to China or Iran or back to Rus .. bullets what flys over corners in next 30 years US military will have few special things what are from future movies..... they made friend whit aliens

Russians in my opinion have more robust weaponry, not so dependent on computers like USA/China do, and that is a very good thing to have. F-16 and MIG fly, electronic weapons get discharged, F-16 will fall and MIG will continue to fly. I would not underestimate Russia because they do not have so much money, they have ingenuity in other fields. And also they are currently restructuring their tanks, so by 2020 they will have the newest line in place.

I dunno where to put it but French pallaiment accepted new law, secrets services will be 100% green light spy on own citizens if they are suspects in terror, only extreme lefts and greens was aganst, rest accepted this new rules
I agree. I like it I like secret services , and if you have illigam music, if you talk about robbery you wont go to jail, cops still need judge signed warrant , but if you're suepect to terrorism you might just disappear

Written by Bad English on 06.05.2015 at 12:02

I dunno where to put it but French pallaiment accepted new law, secrets services will be 100% green light spy on own citizens if they are suspects in terror, only extreme lefts and greens was aganst, rest accepted this new rules
I agree. I like it I like secret services , and if you have illigam music, if you talk about robbery you wont go to jail, cops still need judge signed warrant , but if you're suepect to terrorism you might just disappear

The Danish went even further than the NSA.
It seems that many Europeans should seriously reflect on why it's happening instead of defaulting to Marxist-class interpretations.

I think its good, Mossad always are fascinated me whit its power, and balls to play a game
its our softy, safety of our children, women, and so on ... teroorism must be stopped and I agree it should be dome this way ... it should be done years ago ...

Written by Bad English on 06.05.2015 at 13:50

I think its good, Mossad always are fascinated me whit its power, and balls to play a game
its our softy, safety of our children, women, and so on ... teroorism must be stopped and I agree it should be dome this way ... it should be done years ago ...

Yes, but Mossad does not spy on its own citizens. Government collecting information on it's own citizens is a serious issue and not recommended one.

Written by Candlemass on 06.05.2015 at 14:42

Written by Bad English on 06.05.2015 at 13:50

I think its good, Mossad always are fascinated me whit its power, and balls to play a game
its our softy, safety of our children, women, and so on ... teroorism must be stopped and I agree it should be dome this way ... it should be done years ago ...

Yes, but Mossad does not spy on its own citizens. Government collecting information on it's own citizens is a serious issue and not recommended one.

Jews wont blow up them selfs
Even this will be rasistic remark , but 99.9% Europians don't do it a well, non swede, French and so on, most all Muslim origins who does terrorism .. IRA are not active, ETA to, Greek brigades are calm, and states spy there was well, and they have eyes on those groops, same as in WP, extreme left, footy hools, bikies all are under surveillance, but if they do they do aganst state, or own kind, not in public places as islamists do .... that's the difference and some say its a racism ... but well

Written by Bad English on 06.05.2015 at 15:12

Jews wont blow up them selfs
Even this will be rasistic remark , but 99.9% Europians don't do it a well, non swede, French and so on, most all Muslim origins who does terrorism .. IRA are not active, ETA to, Greek brigades are calm, and states spy there was well, and they have eyes on those groops, same as in WP, extreme left, footy hools, bikies all are under surveillance, but if they do they do aganst state, or own kind, not in public places as islamists do .... that's the difference and some say its a racism ... but well

Again, like I said before, the general public differs in opinion with proportionals will eventually leave the "bureaucrats" left to fix what's broken.
Mass immigration causes social issues, we all know that by now and the reasons European security agencies are taking more steps is the Islamist threat.
Regardless, governments collecting information on their own citizens is dangerous and can be used for political ends easily is dangerous.

New security will mess ordinary trevelers and old fucking bill and border guards can stop cars and ... it means they theoretically can fuck you up for booze....

Written by deadone on 06.05.2015 at 01:28

Written by Rasputin on 05.05.2015 at 23:56

It is a result of a mirror image then, if USA didn't have it, they wouldn't either. It goes the same way with the amount of weapons and other things. NATO increases the number of planes, so does Russia, Russia increase the number or tanks, and NATO follows.

This was the case in 1945-90 period but not any more.

Both sides have been shrinking conventional forces and continue to do so - budgets rule all in the 21st century. Even current new "Cold War" has not stopped cutbacks to US forces in Europe or general cutbacks to US forces. Many European NATO countries are also continuing to chop forces.

The Russians have been modernising a military that was neglected for 20 years. But the Russian military has continued to shrink in terms of overall numbers. Just like NATO, divisions (units of 10,000 - 20,000 troops) are virtually gone, replaced by smaller brigades (4,000-5000 troops). And Russians have less actual capability in their units due to low readiness and massive deficits in command and control (e.g. radios).

Hence they're looking at nuclear first use policy.

Europe including Russia is largely demilitarised compared to any other period in history.

I agree. On the other side China and Russia have been building theirs, but USA military like everything else is built on debt, and that will prove to be a bad strategy.

Written by deadone on 07.05.2015 at 01:47

Written by Candlemass on 06.05.2015 at 17:08

Again, like I said before, the general public differs in opinion with proportionals will eventually leave the "bureaucrats" left to fix what's broken.
Mass immigration causes social issues, we all know that by now and the reasons European security agencies are taking more steps is the Islamist threat.
Regardless, governments collecting information on their own citizens is dangerous and can be used for political ends easily is dangerous.

Bizarelly they're not stopping Muslim migration. In fact they keep welcoming them in ever increasing numbers with open arms.

One way to stop those illegals is to simply state that Europe no longer accepts refugees. No one's going to get on a boat if they're just going to be deported back to whatever crappy country they came from.

That is why I want more guns on the Southern USA border, we have fuckload of riffraff coming in unchecked.