Terrorism

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Under Geneva, that makes him a spy […][/quote]

I agree. In fact I said that he was “either a spy or murderer” in an earlier post in this thread.

And by all means execute him, as either crime fits the punishment.

I just don’t want folks to claim that we’ve experienced another terrorist attack and therefore must invade another country.[/quote]

Pri: Well I, for one, am certainly not advocating invading anybody. I think our last couple of invasions have been difficult and expensive enough.

I also agree that trying to nail down, in terms of definition, exactly what Hasan is (or isn’t) matters far less than the crime itself.

I believe that extensive interrogation is warranted, if for no other reason than to see who and what he was in contact with, and to establish if additional risks remain.

After that, put him in front of a tribunal, find him guilty and punch his ticket.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.[/quote]

I’m a white boy from the Midwest. Every minority that works in my office was far less “disadvantaged” than I was growing up.

But skip the reality, let’s just generalize and say everyone of a certain race is disadvantaged and everyone of another race in not. Deny an opportunity for one person and give it to another based upon superficial characteristics. This will make the world a better place. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

But your inane comments have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so kindly STFU.

I think we’ve beaten this thread to death anyway. Here’s all we need to know about this incident:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.[/quote]

I’m a white boy from the Midwest. Every minority that works in my office was far less “disadvantaged” than I was growing up.

But skip the reality, let’s just generalize and say everyone of a certain race is disadvantaged and everyone of another race in not. Deny an opportunity for one person and give it to another based upon superficial characteristics. This will make the world a better place. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

But your inane comments have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so kindly STFU.

I think we’ve beaten this thread to death anyway. Here’s all we need to know about this incident:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.[/quote]

I’m a white boy from the Midwest. Every minority that works in my office was far less “disadvantaged” than I was growing up.

But skip the reality, let’s just generalize and say everyone of a certain race is disadvantaged and everyone of another race in not. Deny an opportunity for one person and give it to another based upon superficial characteristics. This will make the world a better place. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

But your inane comments have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so kindly STFU.

I think we’ve beaten this thread to death anyway. Here’s all we need to know about this incident:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.[/quote]

I’m a white boy from the Midwest. Every minority that works in my office was far less “disadvantaged” than I was growing up.

But skip the reality, let’s just generalize and say everyone of a certain race is disadvantaged and everyone of another race in not. Deny an opportunity for one person and give it to another based upon superficial characteristics. This will make the world a better place. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

But your inane comments have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so kindly STFU.

I think we’ve beaten this thread to death anyway. Here’s all we need to know about this incident:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.[/quote]

I’m a white boy from the Midwest. Every minority that works in my office was far less “disadvantaged” than I was growing up.

But skip the reality, let’s just generalize and say everyone of a certain race is disadvantaged and everyone of another race in not. Deny an opportunity for one person and give it to another based upon superficial characteristics. This will make the world a better place. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

But your inane comments have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so kindly STFU.

I think we’ve beaten this thread to death anyway. Here’s all we need to know about this incident:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]This is today, why are we talking about the Crusades?

If that were so important, then why not talk about slavery which is a lot more recent?

Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.

But the Conservatives believe that the Crusades are relevant to today’s Islam?[/quote]

Brian: That whooshing sound would be “the point” going right over your head.

The Crusades are very relevant to today’s Islam, especially the virulent strain that Osama and al-Qaeda evangelize. Americans are repeatedly referred to as “Crusaders” and demonized as infidels sullying “sacred” Saudi soil (home to Mecca and Medina) with their presence.

The timeline regarding the Crusades was sent in response to a post from Dan (urbanrealtor) claiming that Islam was not envisioned as an expansionist faith, when history shows quite the contrary.

As far as trying to tie into reparations and Affirmative Action (which has been so thoroughly debunked as a social program its now a punchline) as a balm for slavery: How about those 350,000 WHITE soldiers that died during the American Civil War to put an end to slavery? Hey, while we’re on that topic, let’s add in the post-Civil War Democratic record (up to the 1960s) on blacks, civil rights and Jim Crow laws, okay? Paging Governor George Wallace…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]This is today, why are we talking about the Crusades?

If that were so important, then why not talk about slavery which is a lot more recent?

Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.

But the Conservatives believe that the Crusades are relevant to today’s Islam?[/quote]

Brian: That whooshing sound would be “the point” going right over your head.

The Crusades are very relevant to today’s Islam, especially the virulent strain that Osama and al-Qaeda evangelize. Americans are repeatedly referred to as “Crusaders” and demonized as infidels sullying “sacred” Saudi soil (home to Mecca and Medina) with their presence.

The timeline regarding the Crusades was sent in response to a post from Dan (urbanrealtor) claiming that Islam was not envisioned as an expansionist faith, when history shows quite the contrary.

As far as trying to tie into reparations and Affirmative Action (which has been so thoroughly debunked as a social program its now a punchline) as a balm for slavery: How about those 350,000 WHITE soldiers that died during the American Civil War to put an end to slavery? Hey, while we’re on that topic, let’s add in the post-Civil War Democratic record (up to the 1960s) on blacks, civil rights and Jim Crow laws, okay? Paging Governor George Wallace…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]This is today, why are we talking about the Crusades?

If that were so important, then why not talk about slavery which is a lot more recent?

Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.

But the Conservatives believe that the Crusades are relevant to today’s Islam?[/quote]

Brian: That whooshing sound would be “the point” going right over your head.

The Crusades are very relevant to today’s Islam, especially the virulent strain that Osama and al-Qaeda evangelize. Americans are repeatedly referred to as “Crusaders” and demonized as infidels sullying “sacred” Saudi soil (home to Mecca and Medina) with their presence.

The timeline regarding the Crusades was sent in response to a post from Dan (urbanrealtor) claiming that Islam was not envisioned as an expansionist faith, when history shows quite the contrary.

As far as trying to tie into reparations and Affirmative Action (which has been so thoroughly debunked as a social program its now a punchline) as a balm for slavery: How about those 350,000 WHITE soldiers that died during the American Civil War to put an end to slavery? Hey, while we’re on that topic, let’s add in the post-Civil War Democratic record (up to the 1960s) on blacks, civil rights and Jim Crow laws, okay? Paging Governor George Wallace…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]This is today, why are we talking about the Crusades?

If that were so important, then why not talk about slavery which is a lot more recent?

Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.

But the Conservatives believe that the Crusades are relevant to today’s Islam?[/quote]

Brian: That whooshing sound would be “the point” going right over your head.

The Crusades are very relevant to today’s Islam, especially the virulent strain that Osama and al-Qaeda evangelize. Americans are repeatedly referred to as “Crusaders” and demonized as infidels sullying “sacred” Saudi soil (home to Mecca and Medina) with their presence.

The timeline regarding the Crusades was sent in response to a post from Dan (urbanrealtor) claiming that Islam was not envisioned as an expansionist faith, when history shows quite the contrary.

As far as trying to tie into reparations and Affirmative Action (which has been so thoroughly debunked as a social program its now a punchline) as a balm for slavery: How about those 350,000 WHITE soldiers that died during the American Civil War to put an end to slavery? Hey, while we’re on that topic, let’s add in the post-Civil War Democratic record (up to the 1960s) on blacks, civil rights and Jim Crow laws, okay? Paging Governor George Wallace…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]This is today, why are we talking about the Crusades?

If that were so important, then why not talk about slavery which is a lot more recent?

Conservatives think that what was done by parents and grand-parents have no bearing on today’s society, hence no need for affirmation action and programs to give opportunities to disadvantaged citizens.

But the Conservatives believe that the Crusades are relevant to today’s Islam?[/quote]

Brian: That whooshing sound would be “the point” going right over your head.

The Crusades are very relevant to today’s Islam, especially the virulent strain that Osama and al-Qaeda evangelize. Americans are repeatedly referred to as “Crusaders” and demonized as infidels sullying “sacred” Saudi soil (home to Mecca and Medina) with their presence.

The timeline regarding the Crusades was sent in response to a post from Dan (urbanrealtor) claiming that Islam was not envisioned as an expansionist faith, when history shows quite the contrary.

As far as trying to tie into reparations and Affirmative Action (which has been so thoroughly debunked as a social program its now a punchline) as a balm for slavery: How about those 350,000 WHITE soldiers that died during the American Civil War to put an end to slavery? Hey, while we’re on that topic, let’s add in the post-Civil War Democratic record (up to the 1960s) on blacks, civil rights and Jim Crow laws, okay? Paging Governor George Wallace…

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]

No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.

I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.

Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.

Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress

Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.

Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.

Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?

Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.

So far, according to reports, this guy was:

Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists

And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.

People think about this

He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.

This was in his record.

Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?

They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!

What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.

The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.

It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.

[Author]

Posts