Amergin posted:

But Christian mass attacks or mass shootings or bombings are less common.

So if, say, a liberal such as yourself wants to limit gun rights to try and prevent mass attacks (such as by limited magazine sizes) then how is it different to place more police scrutiny on muslim neighborhoods to prevent mass attacks?

computer parts posted:

There's enough plausible deniability for the Saudi government that we'd probably end up giving them money so they can root out the "rogue billionaires" that are funding terrorism.

Rodenthar Drothman posted:

Why are we even having this debate.

Amergin posted:

But Christian mass attacks or mass shootings or bombings are less common.

So if, say, a liberal such as yourself wants to limit gun rights to try and prevent mass attacks (such as by limited magazine sizes) then how is it different to place more police scrutiny on muslim neighborhoods to prevent mass attacks?

porfiria posted:

Talmonis posted:

The police aren't trained to "scrutinize" people for extremism. At best they're a response force. At worst, jackbooted hicks with a mandate to harass muslims. No thanks. Secondly, why aren't the police and FBI "scrutinizing" all these hardline evangelical churches for homegrown domestic terrorists? (Don't answer that, we already know the Republicans cut the funding for exactly that.)

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Well, I found this about a arson fire that was put out by the building's sprinkler system and someone getting arrested after pullng down signage at another building, but do go on about they are equivalent to the France terror attacks that killed 130 people or the Brussels attacks just now that killed over 30 people

Rodenthar Drothman posted:

I know we are diverging from u.s. politics, but it's not like there are historical Christian terrorist in the US, or contemporary ones around the world.

While I do agree that the scope is often different, terrorism is not relegated to one religion.

Why are we even having this debate.

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Dubya was in a the ANG yo.

Amergin posted:

Your response is a quote from a manchild who was not in the military?

Shageletic posted:

Right wing militias are responsible for both more deaths and attacks in the US than Islamic terrorists, depending on how far back you want to go back with the Klan. Since 1980 they are the overwhelmingly dominant source for terrorist attacks domestically.

Crain posted:

Because at that point it'd really just be easier to put them all in camps to monitor them.

And they could escape and attack us so we should move them off shore.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Why? Because to USPol goons, and to D&D goons in general, christian terrorists are just that, christian terrorists. No explanation, no deeper explanation, etc. Muslim terrorists are everything but that though, and as you see above, including your own post, the very idea of speaking of muslim terrorists requires goons to scream about christian terrorists in equal measure because the sole subject of muslim terrorists is sacred and must not be spoken of.

30+ people died in Brussels today? WELL WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIANS

Amergin posted:

So if, say, a liberal such as yourself wants to limit gun rights to try and prevent mass attacks (such as by limited magazine sizes) then how is it different to place more police scrutiny on muslim neighborhoods to prevent mass attacks?

Rodenthar Drothman posted:

I know we are diverging from u.s. politics, but it's not like there are historical Christian terrorist in the US, or contemporary ones around the world.

While I do agree that the scope is often different, terrorism is not relegated to one religion.

Why are we even having this debate.

porfiria posted:

He was the Commander in Chief of all US forces and ordered the invasion of Iraq. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not entirely behaving in good faith here...

A Winner is Jew posted:

Yeah this.

Before we put muslims in camps we should really think about putting all right wing extremists in camps.

Amergin posted:

Brown people scare me.

Amergin posted:

But Christian mass attacks or mass shootings or bombings are less common.

So if, say, a liberal such as yourself wants to limit gun rights to try and prevent mass attacks (such as by limited magazine sizes) then how is it different to place more police scrutiny on muslim neighborhoods to prevent mass attacks?

Shageletic posted:

I haven't been able to read Amergin's posts in years so thank you for allowing me to read the dumbest post in 2016 so far.

Amergin posted:

According to liberals he was as much a military man as Kerry, which is to say not much at all.

But when we talk about how our military is apparently one large Christian terrorist unit, now all of a sudden he's a military man?

A Winner is Jew posted:

I know you're a troll and get your talking points from other sides, but seriously go gently caress yourself for this.

You're saying that someone who earned both a bronze and silver star along with 3 purple hearts was just as committed as someone who used his family connections to not only avoid the Vietnam war, but also hardly showed up for the limited responsibilities he had in the ANG.

Amergin posted:

If that's your barrier then is Obama a Christian Terrorist as he is the Commander in Chief ordering drone strikes that have killed civilians by the dozens?

Amergin posted:

If we're loosening the definitions here from "terrorists against other religions" to "terrorists against others, period" can we put all black gang members in camps before we even talk about right wing extremists?

A Winner is Jew posted:

I know you're a troll and get your talking points from other sides, but seriously go gently caress yourself for this.

You're saying that someone who earned both a bronze and silver star along with 3 purple hearts was just as committed as someone who used his family connections to not only avoid the Vietnam war, but also hardly showed up for the limited responsibilities he had in the ANG.

Crain posted:

I'm clearly being serious and not sarcastic at all.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Why? Because to USPol goons, and to D&D goons in general, christian terrorists are just that, christian terrorists. No explanation, no deeper explanation, etc. Muslim terrorists are everything but that though, and as you see above, including your own post, the very idea of speaking of muslim terrorists requires goons to scream about christian terrorists in equal measure because the sole subject of muslim terrorists is sacred and must not be spoken of.

30+ people died in Brussels today? WELL WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIANS

Popular Thug Drink posted:

it's really not a good idea to accuse others of screaming about x when you're typing all caps getting mad that nobody agrees with your vacant bigotry

i think it is, actually, you, who are the Upset One

Rodenthar Drothman posted:

I've been reading through this all morning, and it started out as "goddammit racists on Reddit". Then people started advocating for that same poo poo that we saw on Reddit. And at the very first sign of that happening, everyone in this thread started making GBS threads on those that were.

Amergin posted:

Your response is a quote from a manchild who was not in the military?


You seem to misunderstand what police do. Police on a beat near muslim neighborhoods are not a response force, they're proactively keeping an eye out for any radicals moving in, radical movements starting off and/or young men taking sudden trips to Turkey.

Also, again the risk of large scale attacks and bombings from muslim extremists is much higher than from Christian extremists. Globally Islamic Terrorism is much larger in scale than Christian terrorism and as such Islamic Terrorism has more money, resources and people working for it. Because it comes directly from Islamic ideology and theology, they tend to gather, spread their ideology and work in groups. Christian terrorists are often simply insane people who are working by themselves.

You're willfully ignoring the differences between the two just so you can white knight SJW for muslims who hate you. Why?

Amergin posted:

If that's your barrier then is Obama a Christian Terrorist as he is the Commander in Chief ordering drone strikes that have killed civilians by the dozens?


If we're loosening the definitions here from "terrorists against other religions" to "terrorists against others, period" can we put all black gang members in camps before we even talk about right wing extremists?

zoux posted:

The one guy advocating it is a troll who doesn't believe in the things he is saying but people can't help themselves.

Amergin posted:

Thank you for making my point for me.

Talmonis posted:

I mean, I know one girl who dislikes me, but her being a muslim is secondary to the fact that she's a snobby rear end in a top hat.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Upset? Hmm, I wouldn't say upset, just disappointed at the usual USPol circlejerk about christian terrorists in response to a attack like this. Remember how goons reacted to the San Bernardino terrorist attack? You could see the heartbreak in each post when they realized it wasn't their masturbatory white christian fantasy.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

people only bring up christian terrorists when other people go off about how all the terrorisms are muslim terrorisms

so not only are you dumb, but you are bad at reading and understanding threads. no wonder you're angry at them lol. so now we have to ask what's broken in your brain that you would continue reading a thread that you hate and circlejerks about things that annoy you. do you have nothing better to do with your time than make yourself angry by reading threads you dont like

a shameful boehner posted:

why are people responding to amergin as though he were not an acknowledged contrarian