RE: Close call in Singapore

RE: Close call in Singapore (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/6/2016 8:19:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/6/2016 8:44:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Logic fail.

Greta75 -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 12:11:37 AM)
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/anti-social-media-online-chats-foil-singapore-rocket-115155917.html?nhp=1 BATAM, Indonesia (Reuters) - It was social media chatter that gave him away. Changing his profile picture on the LINE messaging app to a banner pledging "Indonesian support and solidarity for ISIS" probably didn't help. Had it not been for all that, Gigih Rahmat Dewa's plot to launch a rocket attack on the city-state of Singapore from a nearby Indonesian island might never have been uncovered. Gigih, 31, and five accomplices were arrested on Batam island on Friday after an investigation that showed how much Indonesia's Islamist militants now rely on social media, including with a Syria-based Islamic State jihadi who allegedly directed them to stage attacks. It also underlined how militants in the world's most populous Muslim nation, once tight-knit under the Jemaah Islamiah group and internally focused, are splintering into smaller gangs loosely linked to Islamic State with increasingly regional ambitions. "The men in Batam seem to have been radicalised over social media, specifically using Facebook, rather than directly," said police spokesman Boy Rafli Amar. "They have been in communication with Bahrum Naim in Syria. It looks like he sent funds and instructions to them," he added, referring to the suspected mastermind of the Singapore plot who left Indonesia in 2015 to join the frontlines of Islamic State. Residents of Batam, 15 km (10 miles) south of Singapore, said they were dismayed to learn that the six local men, five of whom were local factory workers, were extremists. Gigih, his wife and infant daughter lived in a modest one-storey house in a row of many just like it. His Facebook account showed that he enjoyed cycling and hiking. "We are shocked that a completely ordinary person like him can be like that, can be suspected of being involved in radicalism," said neighbour Rubiyati, who goes by one name. Monalisa, a 23-year-old who attended Batam's state polytechnic institute at the same time as Gigih, described the IT student she knew until 2014 as a normal guy who was "positive, cheerful, humble and friendly with everyone". She was, however, surprised in March of that year when Gigih changed his LINE group chat picture to a photo of a group of people holding up an Islamic State banner. Same old, Same old. Always perfectly nice and normal people. That is the problem.

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 2:22:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 9:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question. You have the name of the unit? Number of troops? Major battles? Just because an issue is based on racial tension does not mean all whites would be on the same side. Otherwise white supremacists would have a lot more supporters. As for black men who served the confederacy, the neo-nazis have a term (though I detest everything they represent), race traitor

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 4:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question. You have the name of the unit? Number of troops? Major battles? Just because an issue is based on racial tension does not mean all whites would be on the same side. Otherwise white supremacists would have a lot more supporters. As for black men who served the confederacy, the neo-nazis have a term (though I detest everything they represent), race traitor Louisiana Home Guard. I suppose you also do not know that it was policy, IN THE UNION ARMY, to kill blacks caught fighting for the south. I notice that you ignore MLK's statement that race relations in the south were much better than they were in the north. You have information filtered through people who made up their minds before they looked at the facts, so , like you, they ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 5:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question. You have the name of the unit? Number of troops? Major battles? Just because an issue is based on racial tension does not mean all whites would be on the same side. Otherwise white supremacists would have a lot more supporters. As for black men who served the confederacy, the neo-nazis have a term (though I detest everything they represent), race traitor Louisiana Home Guard. I suppose you also do not know that it was policy, IN THE UNION ARMY, to kill blacks caught fighting for the south. I notice that you ignore MLK's statement that race relations in the south were much better than they were in the north. You have information filtered through people who made up their minds before they looked at the facts, so , like you, they ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative. If I hadn't encountered information of black confederate troops, I would have read of it previously this week on these forums. However, you never mentioned any battles they were in As for the rest, do you have any citations? Though it is not the general style of these forums, I would like to deal with each issue one by one based on facts. And please, no brietbart or Alabama lifestyle websites

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 5:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question. You have the name of the unit? Number of troops? Major battles? Just because an issue is based on racial tension does not mean all whites would be on the same side. Otherwise white supremacists would have a lot more supporters. As for black men who served the confederacy, the neo-nazis have a term (though I detest everything they represent), race traitor Louisiana Home Guard. I suppose you also do not know that it was policy, IN THE UNION ARMY, to kill blacks caught fighting for the south. I notice that you ignore MLK's statement that race relations in the south were much better than they were in the north. You have information filtered through people who made up their minds before they looked at the facts, so , like you, they ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative. If I hadn't encountered information of black confederate troops, I would have read of it previously this week on these forums. However, you never mentioned any battles they were in As for the rest, do you have any citations? History Channel (back when they really did history) Special the norths Andersonville. I thought that MLKs comment was common knowledge, except for people who don't want to hear it. Why does it matter what battles the LA home guard was in. Southern units were more likely to be integrated than Northern ones. And before you say it the South did not use slave troops.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 5:53:59 PM)
Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat?

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 6:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance.

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 6:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? Check this story in the New York Observer. Sunday, Dec 14, 2014 11:30 AM CDT The North isn’t better than the South: The real history of modern racism and segregation above the Mason-Dixon line

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 6:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: dominantwrestler says that the only reason terrorist is targetting Singapore is because Singapore is Muslim hating. No he did not say that it was the only reason, he said it was a reason. Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. Greta, stop being self indulgent in ignorance just because it fits your narrative. It diminishes any and all serious debate on these forums As for Bama, you really think racial oppression had nothing to do with the civil war? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question. You have the name of the unit? Number of troops? Major battles? Just because an issue is based on racial tension does not mean all whites would be on the same side. Otherwise white supremacists would have a lot more supporters. As for black men who served the confederacy, the neo-nazis have a term (though I detest everything they represent), race traitor Louisiana Home Guard. I suppose you also do not know that it was policy, IN THE UNION ARMY, to kill blacks caught fighting for the south. I notice that you ignore MLK's statement that race relations in the south were much better than they were in the north. You have information filtered through people who made up their minds before they looked at the facts, so , like you, they ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative. If I hadn't encountered information of black confederate troops, I would have read of it previously this week on these forums. However, you never mentioned any battles they were in As for the rest, do you have any citations? Though it is not the general style of these forums, I would like to deal with each issue one by one based on facts. And please, no brietbart or Alabama lifestyle websites How about this from the Harvard Gazette?

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 6:27:15 PM)
i think you might want to double check your link. I think you left out the web address

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 6:53:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? Check this story in the New York Observer. Sunday, Dec 14, 2014 11:30 AM CDT The North isn’t better than the South: The real history of modern racism and segregation above the Mason-Dixon line I found this article from the New York Observer. It's about the threat of Canadian Muslim threat. Come on. Seriously? It's still better than breitbart http://observer.com/2015/12/canada-and-the-emerging-terror-threat-from-the-north/

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 6:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler i think you might want to double check your link. I think you left out the web address news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/black-confederates/ try this

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 7:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? Check this story in the New York Observer. Sunday, Dec 14, 2014 11:30 AM CDT The North isn’t better than the South: The real history of modern racism and segregation above the Mason-Dixon line I found this article from the New York Observer. It's about the threat of Canadian Muslim threat. Come on. Seriously? It's still better than breitbart http://observer.com/2015/12/canada-and-the-emerging-terror-threat-from-the-north/ You found the wrong article now didn't you.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 7:18:04 PM)
I was checking the bias of the New York Observer As for the article from Harvard, why did you bring it up? It counters almost every claim you made one after the other

Aylee -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 7:20:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born.

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 7:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. Wasn't Glory about one of those MA units. I in no way was disparaging the service of the Northern black units. I was merely trying to point out DW's distorted view of the U S, and of our history.

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 7:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler I was checking the bias of the New York Observer As for the article from Harvard, why did you bring it up? It counters almost every claim you made one after the other When it stated clearly that there were indeed black Confederates? That was my point. Anything you don't like is biased.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625