James

You should probably form IRON instead of joining MI6 in PnW. You're your own community, I think you're capable of maintaining the community. When I was in IRON we played all sorts of games together. The good ol' days with Glyndwr. You've got lots of friends in PnW, say hi to us. Grub, Frawley, and myself are having a wonderful time! You remember Ikariam or War of Empires? Glyndwr was a good leader Yeah, I played for a little bit.

Formed by MI6, but their policy is that there's no link between itself and the various CN routes of its membership. Is that why they're composed of almost entirely MI6 and MI6 affiliates, as well as allied to CN MI6 and MI6 affiliates?

tS is MI6 lol. It's really not James... but whatever. Yes. MI6 formed tS and BK. DEIC is the IRON related alliance. was founded by General Shepherd I believe.

tS is MI6 lol.

You want to join MI6?

All of IRON What alliance are you in? Please don't say one of the MI6's

You know what the worst part is? ni431 is one of it's leaders. You got plenty of members there now. Probably would work out this time around. I think this was NPOs 3rd attempt and now they are the fastest growing.

You should probably form IRON instead of joining MI6 in PnW. You're your own community, I think you're capable of maintaining the community. When I was in IRON we played all sorts of games together. The good ol' days with Glyndwr. You've got lots of friends in PnW, say hi to us. Grub, Frawley, and myself are having a wonderful time!

Bibi is also saying for last 10 years that Iran will get the bomb the next year. Let's not muddy the analogy. Don't lie sha. Bibi has been saying Iran will get the bomb in a matter of months! Also he's had to mossad chiefs resign because they said he was lying and that their reports contradict the theory that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, nor are they intent on nuking Israel. Also I was wrong about the Houthi rebels. Apologies to FoxFire or w/e and who ever else.

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150324/1019920141.html

I'm with Shah on this one. Besides, every country does it. Including the United States. I still don't think this was done by the Kremlin.

You always have a funny gif in your signature.

A few congressman and 'Journalist' say they believe Muslims are responsible for the 'radical muslims' or in my opinion Cults.

They can. They are self destructive, so ultimately they will destroy themselves. How we speed up the decay is a totally different debate though.

Aren't we all? It crosses ethical lines that boggles the mind. The Kurds had the same experiences as Jews. They were dispersed through central asia. I'm (Pretty) certain that Kurdistan is the USSR equivalent of Israel. They allowed them to migrate back to 'fight' for their land. I think something like 300,000 Kurds were in the USSR at the time. That was the majority of the Kurdish Population.

I fail to see how our opinions differ on this. Divide and Destabilize are interchangeable in this context. I thought it was common knowledge that the organizers were trained on campaigning and given software to avoid detection by the governments. The New York Times did a couple articles on it, hell it even popped up on CNN prime time! But if you don't want to type into Google search I'll be more than happy to track down some articles when I have time over the weekend. I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you denying the logic defying nature of the US support? The United States will not support a Kurdistan regardless of how disunified the Kurdish nations are. Turkey will not allow it, and Turkey is one of three relevant 'allies' in the middle East. If Iraqi Kurdistan exists than Turkey's Kurdistan will use it to justify their right to exist. It simply will not happen unless we lose Turkey as an ally. Then an Iraqi Kurdistan would be created to subvert the Turks and Iranians. In 1953 after the Iranian coup solicited by the United States, the Soviet Union lost influence of Iran. In response the Soviets used the large kurdish population they had to subvert Iran. They enabled, if you will, the Kurds to establish themselves again. If it were not for Soviet influence the Kurds would not be where they are today; Hence, their marxist views.

Holy Hell. We were all kids in 2006.

The Kurds were not created by the Soviets... Where the hell did you get that from? The Kurds are an ancient people far older than Iraq, USSR or any western nation. And we don't hate them. We're rather fond of them in comparison to their neighbors. Umyeahno... We don't want the area destabilized. We want the opposite so we can actually access said oil. That's why we propped up the government we did. And the US has no control over whether Iran and Saudi Arabia to get involved. Iran is already quite involved in the situation. More so than we are, and for good reason. IS is quite literally waging war against Iran as we speak. They HAVE to be involved. If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the 50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum. Fuck Iraq. The Shia government in the east has already lost all credibility in the eyes of both Sunnis and Kurds. I don't think there is any repairing that. The only involvement I'm OK with is arming the Kurds. Air strikes and training can be handled by the people actually there. Like Jordan. Jordan is always boasting it's military. They're obsessed with it. Let them prove their worth. And I agree with you on that. It is the best choice. And this is for you James (they might not get independence but UK, Germany and Italy are surely arming and training them): http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/index.html They will give just enough for to prevent ISIS from advancing, but nothing more. The Kurds are an ethnic group that have been around for a long time, but were funded and organized by the Soviet's in response too Iran aligning with the United States. This period is when they grew in to what they are now. After Iran took their country back from the United States, the Soviets promptly abandoned the Kurds breaking way to the modern day conflicts between the kurds and Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

NATO won't let that happen. Turkey will not fork up their south-east region. If Syria-Iraq Kurdistan exist it will give the South-East a base to sustain a big revolution. Same with Iran. It took NATO all of it's will power to justify letting 100 Kurds from Turkey into Syria to prevent a genocidal slaughter in Kobani. The west hates Kurdistan just a litttttle less than they do ISIS. Impractical, not going to happen. The Kurds were created by the Soviets. The United States will not let the two countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran) get involved on the level that they want too. We like the stale mate, and we like the region destabilized and killing each other. The logic goes, we keep you alive you give us your oil. This is how the United States has created so many monsters. They will come after the west in force eventually.

I don't agree with branding Muslim-committed acts of violence terrorism by default. It should only be Muslim terrorism when religion is the core mover behind the act. But nevertheless, I hope we're not denying here that Islamic terrorism does exist. I don't care what you call it. As long as you hold every one to the same standard. Which no one does. That's the whole point of the argument. White supremacist terrorism. THere was hardly more than a days worth of fuss over the bombing of an NAACP chapter building.

Or, it might be following a particularly bad argument with this group. The motive is far from clear, but the eagerness to turn an incident like this into a religion-fueled hate crime by the family members and Muslim communities at large is a sign that religion is a very central element of their thinking, and they probably tend to look at everything through "religion tinted glasses". What you fail to realize is that Atheism is not a religious institution, there are no imams or priests telling the "faithful" what the "correct" interpretation of certain issues are, it's more like an invitation for critical thinking, which "hard Atheism" is not - It's quite clearly spelled out by so-called "prominent" atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett. But even as such, as far as "extremist Atheism" goes I'm having difficulty even understanding what you mean by that. I still believe you you need a very strong magnifying glass to find instances where Atheism was at the core of violence and not something else like the lust for power or a shaky mental state of mind. I don't know if you have watched any of the interviews, but the uproar is more about why did no one give a shit and double standards. They would have been called terrorist if the situation were reversed. Because they were not white Americans being executed by a Muslim (If that were the case ISIS would have been plastered all over the television screens.) nobody gave a fuck until the internet chastised the reporting agencies and government for the gross double standards they hold. This, by the very definition of unjust, is an immoral act. The news, and the majority of the country are largely bias against muslims, and as a result the media ostracizes a group of people and does not care about them unless they kill or hurt someone. Then they called them terrorist. If a white person does it "He had Family issues" or "He was insane."/ Are you telling me the Fort Hood shoot in 2009 was not insane? Or the Muslim US soldier who tossed a grenade in to a tent in Iraq back in 2003 was not insane? Yes they were, but they were immediately branded terrorist. A muslim shoots one person and is called a Terrorist more liberally than Timothy McVay who blew up an entire building. All the tyrants, dictators and apartheid of the world absolutely love that definition. You're intelligent enough to know exactly why. All revolutions would then also be classified as terror movements if that was the case, including your own independence revolution and pretty much a huge chunk of history would then be full of terror. There's so much wrong with that definition. Your invasion of war is also then classified as a terror invasion if we go by that definition, so does your countless interventions in various countries around the globe. Do you see why this definition is wrong? I agree with you, first degree murder is murder and should be punished equally. I also say terror is terror, every murder is a bloody terror attack, simple as that. Good point. I'm sure the Boston Tea Party was considered an act of terrorism by the English, and I'm sure the Boston Massacre was considered an act of oppression by the Colonists. It all led to acts of war, and there was one. Dealing with Islamic terrorism is something everyone has been dancing around for a long time. There is no organized government willing to openly sanction Islamic terrorists. Here is where the problem starts. How do you declare war on a portion of a religion? Others will say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Okay that's cool, but if you're going to call them freedom fighters then you are supporting their actions and should be treated as such. The U.S. can, and should, destroy ISIS. Just go in and wipe them out. Then leave. I also would not be playing around with Iran. That mess should have been resolved when Saddam Hussein was taken down. The US can not destroy ISIS, any further US intervention will cause this to blow up more than it already has. I'll have you recall that ISIS was formed as a result of the US invading a stable country. Iran should be destroyed? And you call them the terrorist. Ironic.

The question I'd ask is: Would he have been as hostile if they were not muslim, or did not have a middle eastern appearance? The offender was clearly anti-religion to a sever degree. Naturally, he would be more hostile towards a group of people he knew were religous; evident by the hijab and other physical features. So I would say no, he wouldn't have been as hostile towards them if they were not muslim. So Yes I do believe it is a hate crime.

I knew already that the EU is right now in trouble. But as I found out from US friend, the US has decreased production of oil, in response to OPEC's operation of flooding the market with it. It will resume on full speed once the prices are back to normal. It is most likely that OPEC decreased the prices that way, due to pressure of the US. Now, Russia already is panting hard on those developments, given how reliant it is on fossil fuels. This whole debacle is not only heavily connected to all kind of conflcts, it looks like a conflict itself, one fought with and against the resources and economies. Of course, at the current state, Europe is doomed to lose more than gain, given how it's holding together. Russia has the largest oil reserves on earth and refines the second most oil out of any nations. They don't rely on Europe or the United States for Oil. Russia, like the US, is a major consumer; The difference being, they consume European products. Without Russia's consumption of these products, and without the exporting of Russian Natural gas (The United States has not yet been able to ship even a feasible amount to sustain Europe), oil, iron, coal, and any other raw or processed material you can think of, Europe can not sustain the sanctions. The US will not be able to keep it's promise to sustain them. It's a major logistical issue. Cutting Russia out of economics in Europe is simply impractical. It would take decades to develop a logistical solution.

Let me elaborate on this already filling post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia Seems the attitude "If our nazism, whatever, if their nazism, bad", is also applicable to Ukraine. And Russia too. The sanctions are hurting europe far more than RUssia. Germany has taken a huge economic hit, and greece is already looking at leaving the EU for Ruissian support. The EU is putting pressure on the US to stop the non-sense. Western europe has to end the conflict by next winter or Putin can get real mean. Because the US is a global hegemon and has the means via aircraft carriers and foreign military bases to project power into the backyards of those countries. It's as simple as that. The reverse is not true. The US military complex is already collapsing on itself. We won't be able to sustain it at 600+ billion dollars a year. China, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East are getting to much to handle. Not to mention that western Europe is rebelling against US control.