Spite

1. They do exist 2. A bunch of retards with machine guns aren't divine I'm bored of all the troll accounts on this shit forum

Establish a Dioist theocracy

The first two yes. The third one, not really. You don't need to store weapons or supplies in a big hole in the ground, if you lose air control and your military bases get bombed, you've already lost. Escape routes or just routes to a C&C fair enough, though it's worth noting that most C&C or whatever aren't in bunkers deep underground but are just in ordinary buildings. Backup supply lines? For what? What do you mean by a siege? We're past the age where you have a siege really. Tunnels aka the ones hamas builds are built because they have zero ground control, in other words they're for people who have lost air control already and are already beaten conventionally. How many infantry do you think you can fit in a tunnel? I mean the only times that sort of thing would be useful would be to pass a super fortified point - like the Korean DMZ. Most countries don't have such a point so it's overkill. With air support you just move infantry overland in APCs.

Not practical, first of all if your tunnel has entrances straight enough for a missile to fly out, they're straight enough for bombs to go down. Secondly it's one thing having a few mud tunnels a few metres underground. It's another constructing whole road networks underground. For reference, the crossrail tunnel currently being built in the UK to house a new underground line is just 13 miles long and cost £15 billion and took 7/8 years to build

You don't win a war hiding in tunnels, they're only any use when the country has already been occupied, in which case your only hope is to force a stalemate by making the war to expensive to be worth continuing. I love it when people say that vietnam won the war. Normally when you win a war, your enemy doesn't emerge with zero infrastructure damage whilst your country is reduces to ashes and you have to live in a tiny mud tunnel to survive.

Dioist star and crescent is an essential addition. In green.

There are people I can't trade with because we "share a network" but unless someone is living in my cupboard that I don't know about we must have crossed networks in a cafe, restaurant or airport. This worries me.

That's fighting talk

It doesn't mean that, but that is how it is used.

Jerusalem is Al-Quds, Al-Maqdis refers to the second temple in Jerusalem (holy house). Just as a point of fact.

I don't know what you mean, that isn't a logical following. If A does not equal B, and A is always C, it does not follow that B is always C. If murder is always immoral, and murder does not equal killing, then killing is not necessarily always immoral. If the debate is whether killing is always immoral, that is a different question, and has an equally obvious answer - killing is not objectively moral or immoral, it depends on context.

Well there is a 99.8% chance it won't be someone transgender. If you were to punch a little old lady using the bathroom she's equally likely to be a pedophile than a random transgender person. I find it strange people are happy to share a bathroom with a gay person but not a transgender person. Also not all transgender people are obviously transgender. I think that people imagine a drag queen, when in reality I think a fair few trans people you'd never know they were trans unless they told you. For example, if this guy walked into the bathroom and used a cubicle, I seriously doubt anyone would bat an eyelid: Yet he was born as a woman.

Kill does not equal murder. Murder is a word which implies a moral judgement has already taken place. Ergo murder is wrong by definition. If it was not wrong, it would not be murder.

I don't think people who talk about bathroom stalls think very clearly: 1. There is no evidence to suggest trans people are more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. 2. Around 0.2% list their gender as trans. 3. 99.8% of pedophiles therefore still presumably urinate and use bathrooms which children use. 4. Not all pedophiles are heterosexual. 5. Around 3.5% of people identity as lesbian, gay or bisexual 6. Rates of convinced pedophiles heterosexual: homosexual is 11:1, or around 9% 7. Therefore statistically your child is 30 times more likely to be abused by a homosexual in the correct bathroom than by a transgendered person in the "wrong" bathroom for their biological sex. In addition most predators are known to their victims. The chances of a random molestation in a bathroom is pretty low. If the trans people are pedophiles then what's to stop them molesting someone in the "correct" bathroom? It's such a weak argument.

Disproportionate control of legislature is also a matter of the electoral system. In the UK, the conservatives polled 36% of the vote but gained over 50% of the seats. In most cases the ruling party in Iraq has needed to form coalitions to establish a government. There have been periods where both sunni and Shia parties have not participated in legislature by boycotting it. Obviously a significant chunk of Iraq is currently not under the control of Baghdad, that makes democracy a difficult process. As I said the country is a very young democracy and has faced a lot of challenges. With the right support, it has the potential to grow stronger. A legitimate opposition doesn't exist because a significant proportion of the opposition is in the field shooting at the government. However the government is by no means a monopoly. It relies on kurdish votes for its majority (KDP) and PUK/Gorran are in opposition. Quite a lot of power is devolved regionally. The framework is there for it to improve, when before that was an impossibility. Whether it will or not will probably be something determined over decades of peace.

Mensa was considered established within a month or two of arriving, enough that people in the established alliances started to plot against us anyway. It's not about score, it's about community and staying power. That can be something obvious from the start, like NPO, or something that grows over time.

One of my fave swedes had an Algerian dad and was technically muslim, though she was white as a sheet. Definitely not practicing though. Let's not generalise. The counterargument to OP is simple. 1. We do not have a population problem, so enforcing restrictions on people having children past one is unnecessary. If anything the birth rate is low. 2. Applying this to one race is racist. China might be comfortable with widespread racism but we're not. 3. I don't see how an increase in mixed race children will resolve the current issues with racism, it never has in the past. 4. You're assuming black and Asian people would respond to such a law by increasing their current rate of marriage or sex with white people. I don't see what incentive there is for them to do that. This is a stupid argument.

Any metric I use will obviously be dismissed by you as being corrupted by western influences or whatever, so I'm not sure how I can argue with you further about this. Democracy in Germany was barely fifteen years old when it began to be eroded in '33. I'd hardly say that it was an established doctrine waiting to resurge. Most people alive in 45 in Germany would have been born in either a kingdom or a fascist government. Similarly most of Western Europe was under various quasi-democratic systems and gradually evolved into full democracies post-WW2. Vis-a-vis Iraq, the demographic fact that there are more Shia than Sunni, combined with tribalist politics, leads to a Shia dominated parliament. However it is unequivocally NOT a dictatorship. There are elected parties which are in competition. It is somewhat divided by religious lines, but arguably that is situational due to the deep sectarian violence in the country at present. It doesn't mean that this will *always* be the case. And what is the alternative? Dictatorship? Division? Iraq is a democracy with deep issues facing it, but it's no longer a dictatorship. Therefore it is unarguably more democratic than it was before. Despite deep corruption issues, which plague all countries in the middle east, it has a legal system which on paper is fair and just, and a constitution which enshrines basic rights and duties. In other words, it has a framework to build on. It's not fair to judge the success of Iraqi democracy in the long term when it is a mere 12 years old and has been faced with a civil war for most of that period. You sure it's appropriate to use your mod account for this kind of post?

Invoking Godwins so early is probably a bad idea, but the original example of a liberal democratic intervention to liberate the population and reinstate democracy and freedom and so on was WW2. I understand that few people would argue that Iraq or Afghanistan were ideal democracies, or particularly great on the human rights front. However it is indisputable that both are more democratic and more liberal with more enforcement of human rights than was true under previous governments. These things take time. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I personally don't believe that anything positive comes from forcing views onto others that way.

I see, I didn't really read that post originally. I would agree that rights are bestowed not inherited, and that what provides those rights is something man made (a legal framework). One of the many arguments for a just war is to extend human rights to people who don't currently have them, by for example bombing their country and replacing their government. The bombings in Japan weren't terrorism because they were done by a state- another criteria for terrorism is that it's done by a non-state actor. Terrorism by states is a war crime and a whole different barrel of cats. Also I refuse to believe that ISIS terrorists believe that "they want the shit to stop" or that they're the victims of imperialism. A fairly big chunk of them aren't even from the war zones they're fighting in. Some of them lived in the West. People don't vote for a war, at least they don't in the UK. They vote for representatives who make that decision. In addition, targeting civilians is recognised as a war crime both inside and outside of conventional warfare. Plenty of insurgents target military facilities (the IRA for example did for the most part target british police/military). In a situation of total war it is common to target civilians to hurt the enemy war effort, it doesn't stop it being absolutely immoral- something recognised by almost all countries. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/ICC_member_states.svg

Except that's a ridiculous argument, since the victims of terrorism didn't kill anyone (for the most part), and terrorism is a description of methodology and is non-negotiable in definition, whatever the stupid adage says. A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets a civilian population or target with the goal of creating political and social instability through terror, for political goals.

I don't think all the victims of 9/11, the London bombings and the Paris shootings were white, so I don't think skin colour has as much to do with it as a feeling of territorial clannishness, where people feel a closer empathetic connection to those most like them in their lifestyle and surroundings, and by extension are made most afraid when those people like them are subject to sudden and inexplicable bouts of violence. I also think that considering the amount of anti-war protesters around the Iraq war, it's not fair to say that people "don't care".

If mensa didn't have at least some allies it could rely on we would be screwed.