10/26/2015 - More Changes to Hate!

[WindupBird]

I don't even know what you're talking about. This site is based in America, and is under the protection of free speech. No one is going to be shutting us down for discussing Nazism.

 

America is under control by Obama, a liberal president. You don't think that the liberal would be offended at any kind of terrorism or Nazi related?

 

"Oh yeah just leave that to Trump, He will fix it." Until the whole world and the UN started to against you.

 

Why don't you just legalize or illegalize the Nazi and terrorist post? Either the promote or historical. Both side:The World and the people who want to speak, one of them will against you if you just one of the choice you've made.

 

Call me a Nazi skinhead, but I admit that the JIDF and the liberal in the whole world even in the america will call for shut down this site if it mentioned nazism. Just like 4chan and 8chan, but in the highest mode.

 

Free speeches do have it own prices too. Individualism versus collectivism, not in politics but within a human soul.

[Alex]

America is under control by Obama, a liberal president. You don't think that the liberal would be offended at any kind of terrorism or Nazi related?

 

"Oh yeah just leave that to Trump, He will fix it." Until the whole world and the UN started to against you.

 

Why don't you just legalize or illegalize the Nazi and terrorist post? Either the promote or historical. Both side:The World and the people who want to speak, one of them will against you if you just one of the choice you've made.

 

Call me a Nazi skinhead, but I admit that the JIDF and the liberal in the whole world even in the america will call for shut down this site if it mentioned nazism. Just like 4chan and 8chan, but in the highest mode.

 

Free speeches do have it own prices too. Individualism versus collectivism, not in politics but within a human soul.

 

The President of the United States, liberal or conservative, cannot operate outside the bounds of the Constitution. Check out the first amendment, it's some great stuff: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

First time noticing this thread.

The "Terrorism" theme is pretty vauge tbh. Terrorism as defined by who? I most major national liberation groups have been considered "Terrorists" by the West. For a long ass time the west considered the ANC along with Nelson Mandela "Terrorists". The KKK is considered a terrorist group yet there is a Confederate themed alliance thats cool. The US has considered massive acts of terrorism by firebombing japanese cities, still to this day the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger, waging numerous aggressive wars, committing and supporting a number of genocides. and ethnic cleansing. tbh the vagueness of the rule makes me a bit uncomfortable.

"Terrorism" is a buzzword with no real meaning.

"the United States is not a terrorist group"

Okay you are allowed to be wrong I guess.

" regardless of what happened 70 years ago in WWII. "

How about what happened since then?

The Confederate States of America is not equivalent to the KKK.

Honestly how are they that significantly different?
Still pretty damn vague and non-committed to the definition. Doesn't leave me with much confidence you and other mods/admins wont just use this to purge the game of those you dont like.
 

Pretty much this. I can't have an ISIS-themed alliance but I could have a Ba'athist one, despite the fast that Ba'athists have institutionalized terrorism as an instrument of public policy, and have killed way more people than ISIS or Al Qaeda have or likely ever will. 

 

lol, so what exactly is a terrorist Sheepy? I mean hell, International Revolution would fit the bill for a "terrorist" group. Plenty of such outfits like us existed during the Cold War, or in the early 20th century and were anarchist instead of Marxist-Leninist or Maoist. The rhetoric pushed by states fighting insurgencies built on such principles was to marginalize them as "terrorists" and to attempt to delegitimatize their struggle. Why is this standard only applied to what I'm assuming are Sunni (not Shia) Islamist themed nations or alliances, when they're the historic new kids on the bloc to "terrorism"? Are you going to start cracking down on people with Israel-themes in their nations, since "terrorism" played a large role in helping to establish the it, and many would argue is crucial to its continued existence? And why is the Confederate-themed alliance allowed if you're going to be enforcing these half-baked, buzzword-based rules? Are you saying a state founded on the principles of white supremacy, and with slavery at its very heart isn't bannable, despite mass terror being used as one of its primary tools of self-preservation (lynchings, brutal repression of slave revolts, whole bodies of laws designed to foment racial divisions and deny people of color their humanity) but "evil Nazis" and "scary transnational Sunni terrorists" are? Is the Confederacy not considered a "terrorist" state because their policies wouldn't have left you in chains, so they get a free pass? How are you even defining "terrorism," and why is that distinguishable from the Soviet alliances we have running around, that enacted terror on scales rivaled only by national socialists in the modern era, and imperial powers (of which there are plenty nations based on) in earlier times?

 

Either let people play as whatever factions they want or please admit that this rule is entirely arbitrary and based on feelings and whatever buzzwords are trending today, and a narrow and superficial understanding of history.

 

Thank you for speaking the truth in the face of, what appears to be, discrimination.

 

 

Sheepy: Is saying "I support ASSAD", supporting terrorism or not?

 

[Rozalia]

Lol, the most discriminatory person on the forum complaining about discrimination. Give it a rest with that angle already. I already told you that your sources there like yourself are a big pile of wank.

 

“The Syria Campaignâ€: “The Syria Campaign began in spring 2014…The Syria Campaign is managed by Anna Nolan,  who grew up in northern Ireland and has very likely never been to Syria. In addition to promoting the White Helmets,  Syria Campaign promotes a new social media campaign called “Planet Syriaâ€. It features emotional pleas for the world to take notice of Syria in another thinly veiled effort pushing for foreign intervention and war. According to their website, The Syria Campaign received start-up funding from the foundation of Ayman Asfari, a billionaire who made his money in the oil and gas services industry. …One of their first efforts was to work to prevent publicity and information about the Syrian Presidential Election of June 2014. Accordingly, “The Syria Campaign†pressured Facebook to remove advertisements or publicity about the Syrian election.  Since then Syria Campaign has engineered huge media exposure and mythology about their baby, the “White Helmets†using all sorts of social and traditional media. The campaigns are largely fact free. For example, the Syrian election was dismissed out of hand by them and John Kerry but taken seriously by many millions of Syrians.†- wrongkindofgreen

 

Made all the more worse of course as you'll cite these sources such as "The Syria Campaign" and the infamous "Syrian observatory for human rights" when it comes to Assad. Yet when they talk of ISIS you ignore them, or alternatively call it all lies. And on that note we don't need you making this thread yet another garbage one, everyone is already bored of destroying you and your "arguments" the last 100 times ago.

[Alex]

 

 

Sheepy: Is saying "I support ASSAD", supporting terrorism or not?

 

Seriously? This is absolutely ridiculous.

[Dimitri Valko]

-snip-

 

You're the one that has said that adult men should be allowed to have sex with 9-year-old girls, and now you're, like "Oh, save the children from Assad's terrible regime!"

 

I'm anti-Assad myself, but seriously, stop being so hypocritical.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Seriously? This is absolutely ridiculous.

 

I am very serious and I would appreciate it if you would clarify your new rules for me with regards to supporting Assad's on-going genocide of the Syrian civilian population.

[Rozalia]

I am very serious and I would appreciate it if you would clarify your new rules for me with regards to supporting Assad's on-going genocide of the Syrian civilian population.

 

The only one committing genocide there is your buddies ISIS so pipe down. Just because a lot of people die doesn't == genocide, there must be a concentrated effort in purposely killing a group of people off. When the British bombed Germany it killed a lot of people, but genocide was not what it was nor the goal. Assad has no reason especially during a war against your foreign fanatic friends to kill his own people purposely. Casualties will happen, but they weren't the intended goal.

 

As for any possible counter argument of "well if he knows it'll happen then it shouldn't happen". In a destructive war like that one you don't hold back especially if it means the genocide of your people if you lose like it does for Assad. History has many examples of armies moving populations, destroying farmland and even entire cities to deny the enemy further strength.

[Uranus]

First time noticing this thread.

 

Thank you for speaking the truth in the face of, what appears to be, discrimination.

 

 

Sheepy: Is saying "I support ASSAD", supporting terrorism or not?

 

Holy shit do you honestly think less then 4000 civilians have been killed by isis and other rebels? Do you honestly think the number is anywhere close to that little? This is so retarded idk whether that pic is propaganda or troll.