Slashdot Mirror
ISIS Threatens Life of Twitter Founder After Thousands of Account Suspensions
Patrick O'Neill writes After a wave of account bannings that marks Twitter's most aggressive move ever against ISIS, new images circulated from militants shows founder Jack Dorsey in crosshairs with the caption "Twitter, you started this war." The famously tech-savy ISIS has met a number of defeats on American-built social media recently with sites like Twitter and YouTube banning the group's efforts in unprecedented numbers.
The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.
Seeing as Vietnam has been mentioned, I'll point out the exact same thing happened there. The war was brought to an acceptable conclusion and we pulled out before stability had been achieved. The cost that time was 4million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians. What do you think it will be this time around ?
That's part of it. The other parts were talking tough about Assad in Syria (and not DOING anything), and killing Khadaffi in Libya.
Vietnam: Crashmarik is exactly correct. The United States _won_ the war in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were powerless, and the US left. But then the Soviets spent 2 years giving the North everything they needed, and then the North attacked again. The Dems in the Senate banned any additional military aid to the South. The South fell to the communists.
That's one of the reasons why ISIS is so fierce now; they know that the US is an inconsistent ally, especially with this administration. We're not going to do anything about it. (Of course, that's what the Germans and the Japanese were counting in in 1940 and 1941.)
oh i see, it's more of this "al gore flew on a gas guzzling jet airplane once, therefore he is a hypocrite, therefore climate change is not a problem" ignorant bullshit
moral ineptitude
"i knew a guy once who got away with a crime... therefore this guy right here should get away with murder too, it's only fair"
hey genius: "two wrongs don't make a right"
ever hear of it?
do you know what that means, morally?
it means that just because you can criticize democrats for something, anything, it doesn't mean suddenly all republican crimes now magically disappear
the fact that everyone fucks up doesn't mean actual criminal douchebags are immune. i jaywalk, you point out that horrible crime of mine, and now the fact you killed someone is excused because we both committed crimes? this is what you call right and wrong?
real morality: you criticize the democrats of what they *specifically* do wrong, and you criticize the republicans for what they *specifically* do wrong, and you keep your criticism proportional to the crime, and you don't equate minor bullshit with a major outrage
imagine fucking that: actual valid moral reasoning
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Terrorism builds on fear, but when one leaves out emotion and rationally looks at numbers, daily traffic is still far deadlier than these nincompoops. So any fear built has to be irrational for terrorism to work. Without fear, they have no power. Without media attention, they'd likely go mostly unnoticed. Social media are media too, but things aren't working their way there due to the terms and conditions (what a bummer!) ... hence the death threats. Which made the news. Aaaand presto! They got what they wanted.
Where in Europe are we talking about? The UK has only just withdrawn troops from Muslim Afghanistan and is currently bombing Muslim ISIS. The government also enacted the extremely unIslamic gay marriage law last year, so if the Muslims are taking over our country and imposing whatever on us then where are they?
So I'm guessing that you're not aware that we've been bombing them since September.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If you really want to understand the connection between ISIS, Afghanistan and Saudi Wahabism that makes this all a little bit less mysterious, have a look at Adam Curtis' film "Bitter Lake". It's an bit of an eye opener to put it mildly.
The Saudis are the fount of all discontent in the middle east. And oil which is why the US lets them literally get away with murder.
Watch the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to the comments about the liberal left, keep in mind one of Curtis previous fils, "The Power of ightmares" explored the tight iterlatationshpi between the new American right and Islamist fundamentalists. They are in fact one in the same.
Need Mercedes parts ?
This is such a load of horseshit.
First of all, Bush was out of office 3 years by the time we actually pulled out of Iraq. Blaming shit on him at that point means Obama is ineffectual and can't negotiate things. Is that what you are saying?
Second, you can't leave forces in a country without a SOFA once you have acknowledged its sovereignty. Iraq refused to grant one that was palatable to the US. It's not about war crimes, it's about "your soldier raped an Iraqi girl" or "soldier ran over Iraqi kid" - will it be tried in military courts or the Iraqi civilian ones? That said, if pushed hard enough (by the ineffectual O administration) the Iraqis would have granted one. In retrospect, they would have been very ill-advised not to, and it was made clear later that they were prepared to deal for the right concessions. The O administration saw political benefits in not pushing for a SOFA - just pre-2012 election, remember? As it stands, it was less than 2 years between US withdrawal and ISIS taking over most of the north of Iraq. Anyone could have seen that coming, the Shiite government is about as dumb as rocks and couldn't concede even a little to the Sunnis. That's why 25% of the country ruled over the Shia majority for most of recorded history post-Prophet.
Yes, Republicans don't care about sovereignty. That's why Democrats were responsible for denying the Vietnamese self-determination for most of the 1960s and for that matter, invading North Korea even though the UNC authorization gave them no such authority. Of course, we all remember Bush 41 taking Baghdad because he didn't care about Iraqi sovereignty. And Bush 43 didn't have a UN authorization to do what he did in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're definitely right here.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
See what happened in Paris and Denmark. People from Europe travel to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS, get training and AK47s, and then come back to Europe to kill the infidels.
Omar El-Hussein, the Copenhagen shooter, never went to Syria nor Iraq, never received any terrorist training, and didn't use an AK47, nor is there any evidence he ever communicated with terrorist organisations.
He did use a C7 rifle stolen from a member of the Danish national guard, but apparently had no weapons training. He did spend a couple of years in the Middle East years ago, but his radicalization appears to have happened primarily while he was incarcerated in Denmark.