caze
-
Posts
5,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by caze
-
the 'well regulated' bit in there doesn't refer to federal regulation AFAIK, it just means 'disciplined', 'organised'.
-
that link is down, but found it elsewhere. the first track is already better than the single version (which I liked to begin with), so we're off to a good start.
-
correct, and this is why i said it's more to do with the mentality of the community. in the 60s there were television ads for toy guns. can you imagine that happening today, or the amount of warnings that would be included at the end to please certain groups that they're not promoting gun violence? and this is considering that america has been becoming less religious. at some point guns went from being tools to weapons, and then subsequently to perpetuate their ease of access and availability, they became coupled not as a privileged necessary to some but a god-given right to all. kids with guns in the 50s and 60s were seen as espousing the ability to hunt and carry the responsibility of handling such a powerful tool which in decades past was a necessity for those living off the land. in the 20th century it went hand in hand with driving back when cars were more dangerous and harder to drive and probably seen to many as an extension of driving a tractor or handing a horse. that's why the NRA went from a pro-regulation gun sporting and gun education association to a gun manufacturing lobby after the 70s. they've distorted the 2nd amendment to become an 11th moral commandment instead of an outdated and vague part of the bill or rights because that's the only way to argue for the status quo. It used to not be that way. George H Bush literally resigned from the NRA publicly in 1995 but now even some Democrats are afraid to challenge the group. Some equivalent of nuclear disarmament with gun ownership will happen. It will have to anyway. I just don't know when but I can only say it will have to be after the GOP loses majority votes. Right now they can't even vote to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns nor agree to focus on mental health...because the latter would involve expanding budget spending. The problem is that the NRAs current position is actually perfectly in line with both the spirit and the letter of the law regarding the 2nd amendment, it needs to be repealed. In fact, to really align with the spirit of the 2nd amendment private citizens should be legally allowed, and in a sense morally obligated, to own and maintain tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc. The spirit of the 2nd amendment is completely unworkable in the modern world, there was no way they could have predicted that of course, their reasoning was perfectly sound at the time.
-
except by the PFLP who managed to do 4 aircraft hijackings in 1970 what josh just said is correct, they were socialists, not islamists.
-
I'm well aware of them, but I'll have to disagree with your characterisation of their ideas. well there are at least two trends that exist outside of watmm, there's the trend of actual anti-muslim bigotry, and there's the trend of falsely labeling liberals who have perfectly justifiable grievances with Islamism, and even - to a lesser degree - with broader mainstream conservative Islam, as bigots. I'm pretty sure Obama is an atheist (or agnostic at a minimum), read his autobiography if you doubt me. You might have a point re Bush, if it weren't for the fact that he had very little to do with the foreign policy implemented under his presidency, and the ideological underpinning of neoconservatism was liberalism, not christianity.
-
You don't need meth when you're possessed with the absolute certainty that you're going to paradise when you die, that you're actually doing good deeds when you murder children - because if you didn't murder them they'd grow up to be kuffar and wouldn't be able to get into paradise. It's madness to downplay the extent to which extreme ideological conditioning plays a role here. We're often talking about people who come from very stable and privileged backgrounds as well, well educated, wealthy, disproportionately so in many cases (lots of the frontline soldiers are just fighting for a paycheque and some sense of security, food, but the upper echelons - and the foreign recruits in particular - are filled with the former).
-
A decrease in global terrorism maybe, unfortunately for the people living in the middle east there has been a rather significant increase in local terrorism. The vast vast majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are other Muslims. We really should be grateful* over here that these fucks are both incompetent and more worried about their own tribal hatreds than attempting any kind of sustained attack on the west. If they ever did end up being victorious over there though that state of affairs wouldn't last very long, these aren't people that are fighting for legitimate political grievances which they'll be quickly satisfied with if they achieve their immediate territorial goals. * not that grateful, the fact that it's happening obviously isn't anything to be happy about.
-
correct, and this is why i said it's more to do with the mentality of the community. in the 60s there were television ads for toy guns. can you imagine that happening today, or the amount of warnings that would be included at the end to please certain groups that they're not promoting gun violence? and this is considering that america has been becoming less religious. so if religion and guns were the problem of all the violence, they'd have been more shootings in the 50s and 60s (especially in schools) than today. the same with islamic terrorism since tsa security was almost non existent (starting in the mid 70s) and there were still radical terrorist groups this is some seriously dodgy reasoning. America as a whole may have been getting less religious (though it's still significantly more religious than Europe, and for the majority of the country it hasn't really been getting any less religious at all, it's only big cities where you see any real growth in irreligious attitudes), and many of the religious people that are left are getting more religious if anything. I'm not sure what point this has to what we're talking about anyway, because there's never been much of a history of christian terrorism in the US, with the exception of some small scale anti-abortion stuff in recent times, and historically with the KKK and it's founding principles of anti-catholic and anti-jewish hatred (the klan are pretty much an irrelevance these days though - certainly in terms of their founding religious principles, maybe replaced with anti-muslim bigotry and zionist-conspiracizing now, but their influence is pretty tiny regardless). the fact that there were radical terrorist groups who weren't fundamentally religious isn't proof that religion isn't a causative factor in terrorism today. the ideology at play back then was more nationalist and socialist, anti-colonial before that, today it's religious, maybe in the future it will go back to being nationalist again, who knows? you might have a point if anyone was saying that religion is the only cause of terrorism, but the only point you would be making in that case would be that that person was an idiot, not that religion is incapable of fomenting terrorism.
-
I didn't say "he did", I said "it was", and the only thing "it was" could have possibly been in reference to, given the rules of the english language, was: "thanks for the thought provoking insight." because it was though provoking and insightful, I mean it really shouldn't be thought provoking or insightful because this is stuff that should be super obvious to anyone who's even vaguely paying attention, but either lots of people aren't paying attention, or they're being willfully ignorant. failing to pay attention is how you get Trumps btw. I'm not sure what or who you're beefing with then, because nothing Limpy or Lane has said falls into line with that either. I agree that there is definitely a religious aspect to the situation in Israel, but when I was speaking of the west I wasn't including Israel in that category (they exist in a category all by themselves imo, eurovision or not). I'd be interested to hear what justification you have for linking religion with drone strikes though, even tangentially. Do you think there was a religious aspect to the west's part in the overthrow of Saddam, the fight against the Taliban, or ISIS? If you do, do you really think it's in any way comparable to the part religion plays in radical Islamist terrorism? If you were to quantify the two would you really use a similar measure for both?
-
I never said anything about 'nailing it', that was your phrase. There's nothing simplistic about my reasoning. I said nothing about waging a battle against anything either. Well I do know quite a bit about it, I'm not an expert in Islamic theology or the history of Islam, but I have read more than enough about both to make me an informed observer. pointing out facts about the world isn't the same as reducing the complexities of the world into stereotypes. one fact doesn't necessarily negate another. I've already posted about the possibility that he might be closeted, the interplay between that and religious homophobia would obviously allow for there to be a psychologically causative factor at play here. western leaders' religious beliefs are orthogonal to dropping bombs in the middle east, a Sunni radical suicide bombing a Shia mosque is not orthogonal to his religious beliefs. you're doing a lot of projecting here, and also falling for exactly the same thing you're claiming others of doing, namely your over-simplistic view of the motives of the west in its involvements in the middle east. it's important to also note that you can criticise one thing (e.g. religious fundamentalism, theocratic political fascism) while also criticising the bombing of civilians, theft of palestinian land, etc. they are not mutually exclusive.
-
you can never know whether you would have prevented any specific attack, but I think it's pretty obvious that the number of attacks would be drastically reduced. maybe some specific event would have been unpreventable from that kind of change, the person would just have found access to a gun no matter what it took, but a lot of attacks are going to me made possible by easy access to guns.
-
People focus on Islam because it's involved in more shit these days, of course that doesn't give fundamentalist Christianity a free pass though. Homophobic Christianity has a role to play in what happened in Orlando as well, if the US wasn't a fundamentally homophobic country then we wouldn't see segregated gay communities in anywhere near the same way, providing easy targets for hateful fucks of all stripes.
-
The US wouldn't definitely work better in the long term if it was split into 3/4 new countries.
-
No. No. No. No, that's what you get when the people who are philosophers and thinkers fail to honestly engage with reality, leaving it to pieces of shit like Trump only increases their support and makes it more likely that your first three questions will turn into reality.
-
if you don't think this has anything to do with religiously mandated homophobia, then you're seriously deluding yourself. that doesn't mean it's the only thing that's relevant, if the US didn't have a retarded 2nd amendment this wouldn't have happened either, and you could find lots of other things that have various levels of impact on events like this occurring (whether we're talking about terrorism or crazy-person gun massacres in general). but none of that gives ideological motivations a free pass. it's interesting to contrast this to the case of Dylan Roof, the usual suspects have no problems identifying his racist ideology as a causative factor there because it meshes with their own 'white supremacist' narrative, but when it comes to an ideology based on a profoundly homophobic religion such obvious parallels are suddenly off-limits, solely because it contradicts some other bullshit narrative these people have constructed.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen-was-a-regular-at-nightclub Unexpected turn of events, maybe he was closeted, and the conflict that created was enough to push him over the edge? Of course it's also possible he'd been planning something for a long time and was just casing the place out.
-
it was actually. yeah, i think we can move on to something else already lol. yeah, best to stick our heads in the sand and pretend like everything is alright again.
-
this one is much better. maybe I should check out their first album if it's more like this, I only know their two famous singles.
-
nah, it might be close, but if anyone is going to win comfortably, it'll be clinton.
-
lol
-
oh no...lol Both soundcloud cheetahs are on there pal. One is renamed cirklon someat yeah that's cheetah 3. 7b is the cheetah track. Also I'm not your pal. I don't even know you. Fight me bro. slow down mate, you're not making any sense there buddy. yeah, 'cheetah3 teac' and 'cheetah7 teac' from the soundclog are both on the new ep.
-
not sped up, might have noticed a few differences in the percussion at the start, not sure though only listened once before it was taken down. it is about 40 seconds longer than the soundcloud version.
-
-
heh
-
it's clearly a photoshop btw
