Posts by Nicholas Gomez4

Melissa Chavez6 said:General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has handed his troops "full freedom" to respond to any further cross-border strikes by NATO forces in Afghanistan, following an airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
According to The New York Times, citing official sources, commanders stationed along the western border with Afghanistan have been granted "full freedom of action and the use of all available assets."
Kayani stated that such actions "do not require approval at any level," noting that the military will "secure resources on the ground as needed."

Following last Saturday's strike on two military border crossings in the Mohmand region—which left 24 soldiers dead—the country shut down all supply routes used by NATO and demanded that the USA vacate the Shamsi airbase, allegedly utilized by the CIA for UAV operations.
In protest against these attacks, they have also decided to boycott the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan.
Sources report that Kayani characterized the NATO strike as an "unacceptable act of aggression."

The military commander issued direct orders to meet "any act of aggression" with "full force, regardless of the cost or consequences."
(The New York Times) This is a massive blow to the interests of the USA and NATO.

Hmm, this could just be a political face-saving move for the Pakistani military.
In reality, they might just stick to the supply blockade and call it a day.
But honestly, if this news is actually legit, the threat is so intense that whether it's a total "blow" to the West or not isn't even the main point.
Things could go south in minutes.

Scott Hall39 said:This kind of shallow thinking assumes the President—the most powerful person in the country—should have absolute authority. That’s just not how it works in a modern democracy; power is heavily constrained. Even back when kings ruled by divine right, there were always multiple power centers. A ruler, regardless of their formal absolutism, had to account for various interest groups if they didn't want to jeopardize their position or even their life. Human history is essentially defined by the constant struggle between different interest groups (and smaller factions within them, down to individuals) fighting for more influence.
It's funny how anti-American conspiracy theorists ignore this entire dimension. They probably haven't even given it a second thought. They just mindlessy parrot nonsense about people in the shadows.

Regarding your "deep" insights, here’s my take.
The American presidential system is rigged so that even a total moron could end up in the Oval Office. Why? Because everything is handled by others—these so-called "teams."
A future president is bought and paid for way before they even take office, during the campaign itself. They get the media hype, plus you've got the lobbyists breathing down Congress's neck. Only a fool thinks someone like that is actually going to do anything for the average person, who is usually broke by default.
American democracy is pretty much the peak of corruption achievable by any human being.

And here's some more fuel for the fire... pretty telling stuff 🤷

“Tactical nuclear weapons were used, at least one in Iraq and several were used in Afghanistan -- in the Tora Bora Mountains,” Peter Eyre, a Middle East consultant, said.
Eyre noted that the nuke dropped on Afghanistan's Tora Bora was so massive it basically triggered an earthquake.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/212827.html

Basically, Tora Bora was just a testing ground for nukes—using guys in turbans as the target practice...

Still, Peter makes a solid point here.
The analyst went on to say that the use of such lethal weapons by US military, which is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention, has been sanctioned by the US presidents; thus they should be prosecuted for war crimes.
"In America, the ultimate commander in chief is the president," Eyre said, adding that the President has the final say in using such weapons

So yeah, maybe this topic isn't as crazy as people think...

Amanda Allen4 said:Bush isn't terrified of being thrown in jail—no, he’s dreading something far more sinister: an assassination attempt. Every single US President (and honestly, plenty of others too) travels with incredibly intense security details, yet even they aren't immune to tragedies like what happened to John F. Kennedy right here on American soil. Just imagine how much more extreme that danger becomes once you step outside the borders of the USA. Wealthy Americans live in a constant state of both luxury and paranoia.

Between Obama and Bush, the whole thing was a joke... nobody actually believes that charlatan could make a single independent decision. He’s just a puppet... controlled by the real owners of this planet who operate from the shadows and aren't exactly up for election.
But grabbing him? That would be a nightmare. Imagine if he actually started talking... yeah, right. 🙂
Maybe someone like Iran, Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez would actually care enough to pull something like that.
That's why they'll never let him step foot outside the USA.

He he

@shady

Back at it again, playing the martyr for religion 😂
Look, Al (our resident zealot)—don't bother faking it... you're only here because you've got a selfish agenda, looking out for your own skin and your wallet. There’s zero integrity in this blatant theft of someone else's intellectual property. 😲
Before anyone stops you from opening five (new) TikTok channels on this forum... you might as well enjoy the spotlight with that introductory post of yours. 👎

And honestly, you're just being an insider— pointless talking, since nobody actually insulted you. You didn't even say anything rude!
Better just put that mustache picture back 😁
The whole joke is that you don't even grasp what the ego, rect, and mind actually mean or what was said to you. If you actually understood, you wouldn't have lashed out saying our egos aren't losers (just a nicer way of putting it). He gave you an intellectual compliment 😁 and people will be talking about that on this forum for a long time—so deleting your posts is a waste of time. 🤷
And get this through your head already: everyone knows cops don't hunt thieves because they love justice; they do it for the paycheck. That's why nobody respects them, and honestly, why should they?
Plus, it feels like you think you can actually sell this hollow crap.

It’s not a bad idea to act smart when you know what I know.

There you go, acting like you know something we don't. You're on some grand mission against everything, making everyone else look like the villains while you play the hero saving religion. 👎
You're just setting the stage. ☕

@vojnik gorchin
The Great Mosque of America is wide open, so maybe stop by and pray there too—who knows, you might catch a Friday service...

@blue bird
Come on, boss, why don't you start your own TikTok thread? (Is anyone stopping you?) Just stop stealing other people's stuff...
Otherwise, Jack Ma and his forty bandits might show up in your dreams. ☕

rowdyhawk10 said:FMN, hello.
I don't really have anything specific to vent about, so let's just talk. Regarding thread 114, I suppose there are three main issues worth noting. First, the smallest issue is that this particular thread tends to get bogged down quite often, despite being a special, pinned, sticky topic with its own set of rules. It isn't like the usual, standard forum threads—the kind we see in places like a local community center or a neighborhood town hall meeting—which receive much less oversight. We pay extra attention to these specific discussions. This becomes particularly tricky when debates start heating up, which isn't ideal, as our job is simply to maintain order. We frequently find ourselves forced to delete chats within this thread, but instead of moving on, people start protesting why things were removed. Over time, these deletions have accumulated, eventually forming a certain perception among the users. I wonder, what would have happened if I had actually lost my temper because I was constantly having to prune the chat? Has anyone here even considered that? The second issue arose concerning the question of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim. As a moderator, I couldn't allow anyone to be insulted just because they held a different opinion. That discussion really highlighted how much we all differ. My role isn't to pass judgment on the correctness of someone's religious views or to impose my own beliefs on anyone; rather, it is to prevent discussions from devolving into personal attacks—which is truly the only thing I have done. As a person and a believer, I certainly have my own views that I might choose to express. However, I try my best to separate my personal convictions from my duties as a moderator. As far as I know, I haven't issued a ban based on someone's differing beliefs, but rather when the conversation turns into an ad hominem attack. For instance, some users complained to me about my strictness toward certain groups—but my strictness wasn't due to their beliefs (which only bother me when they veer into fanaticism), but rather because of the way they barge into discussions, violating forum rules and turning the space into a sort of anarchy. Just because they haven't read (or don't know) the rules doesn't give them the right to storm into threads like bandits. This forum needs to be protected from such intrusions, especially since the administration’s policy is relatively liberal—meaning everyone has the freedom to write as long as they respect the rules (and those rules serve as the final arbiter in any dispute, including this one). This isn't some ultra-religious forum like many others where lying to members isn't penalized. Here, we strictly penalize ad hominem attacks, and that is a firm stance. Consequently, an impression was created that I am harder on certain groups than others, but that is only because they haven't learned basic internet etiquette and refuse to follow the guidelines of this forum, which members are obligated to follow and which took significant effort to establish.

Regarding the marriage to a non-Muslim—in this case, a person of the book (a Catholic)—I asked you all privately to please stop. Semek provided a stance taken directly from the official website of the Islamic Community, which is the administrative body for the community in both the US and similar jurisdictions, providing a fatwa confirming that a sister does not leave the faith, even if that action is considered a sin. To me, it isn't even a sin because I understand the circumstances, but that isn't the point. Despite my requests, the debate continued, often descending into personal attacks, which led us to delete those posts.

I feel compelled to explain my actions regarding you, since steeleagle2 is boycotting the forum because I gave you a warning. You are a brother to me, and we have generally had a good relationship; it wouldn't be difficult for me to apologize if you feel it is necessary. So, judge for yourself. I issued you a warning in this post, and the reason I gave at the time was: spamming the thread with an irrelevant response that didn't relate to the post being quoted. (steeleagle2 concluded from this that I was claiming you had "lost it," which is not what I meant). In reality, here is what happened. First, Selek stated that a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim ceases to be Muslim, a view supported by you, steeleagle2, and several other members including InsanInside. Then, Sunašce (who is married to a Catholic) responded, stating she believes in Allah, performs her prayers, and does not consider herself a non-Muslim despite her marriage, noting that her husband is not a pagan but a person of the book (a Christian). Then, Alem XCS asked Semek and you for proof that marrying a person of the book results in leaving Islam. Semek then stepped in to explain and provided a link to the official ruling from the religious authority, stating that while such a woman has committed a sin, she has not left the faith. But you disputed this (allegedly, because in our circles, those in the religious leadership are often pressured to give such rulings given the local context) and offered verse 4:141 as evidence for her question. You wrote: "The prohibition seems to be based on certain grounds. Regarding verse 4:141... it would have been fine if Alem had asked you about that specifically, but she didn't. The prohibition remains, and nobody is disputing that it’s considered a sin or that it is forbidden. However, Alem wasn't claiming the prohibition doesn't exist—in fact, she agrees with the ban—but she did take issue with the idea that committing such an act means one ceases to be a Muslim. If someone is a sinner and breaks a rule, I suppose they haven't necessarily stopped being a Muslim. So, to be specific: Alem asked you for evidence regarding apostasy, but you just handed her a justification for a ban, which nobody was actually disputing. Is this clear enough, FMN?

Exceptional. Important.I was looking into the context surrounding verse 4:141, and here is how I see the situation. Following the Hijra, there were certain people in Medina who acted with complete hypocrisy; they were essentially playing both sides, flattering the Muslims one moment and the Muhajirun or Ansar the next, just to ensure they could align themselves with whoever came out on top. I believe this verse specifically addresses that duplicity rather than being about marriage. Let’s take a look at this passage in the context of the verses immediately preceding and following it:

It seems pretty obvious that we're dealing with the hypocrites of Medina here. Take the mayor of Medina before the Hijra, for example—he’d play both sides, showering Muhammad with praise one minute and then traveling to visit the Meccan Quraysh just to talk down about Muslims the next. It's also quite clear that these verses don't actually mention marriage itself; rather, Alem was simply asking for proof regarding what constitutes leaving Islam, not for evidence that a specific sinful act is forbidden. That’s why I flagged your post as providing a pointless response. We all know that most verses have... The reason for this post. Without some sort of context or specific event to anchor it, it’s pretty difficult to grasp the true meaning behind a verse. Because of that, I don't think verse 4:141 should be used as a basis for someone to claim that another person is no longer a Muslim. I actually found myself wondering if, by citing that particular verse, you were trying to suggest to Alemi that she is being hypocritical. I guess I suspected you might be implying she’s being two-faced because she's defending her sister—who married a Christian—just to curry favor with them. As it happens, I've also been accused of being a hypocrite myself for defending my little sister and justifying her marriage. If that wasn't your intention, then I suppose I owe you an apology. Do you accept this explanation and my apology? 🙂 I think you should probably clarify things, specifically regarding steeleagle2’s boycott, but honestly, it’s high time we put this whole topic to rest once and for all. I’m hoping you can give us a straight answer here; steeleagle2 is pretty upset with you, though only he knows if I was ever actually unfair to him. It’s particularly strange that you didn't get a full ban for that previous post, just a warning. That ban only happened because two warnings added up—which was triggered when you called that woman a monkey in your second post, basically egging her on and even admitting you deserved a warning for it. I was simply following your lead. 😁

One last thing—it wasn't exactly a smooth process. Regarding the boycott, I did try my best to talk them out of it. I feel somewhat bad about it, even though I still think the whole thing is a bit childish... but then again, nobody else seems to be stepping up to do anything about it. 😢 They could have kept discussing things on the main board, where they might have pressured me here in the complaints section to fix my mistakes, address any injustices, or correct unfair actions. I feel particularly bad about Aduru; his protests always seemed to hit at the worst possible moments—like waiting for a train only for it to pass right before you arrive. And when things actually started falling apart, he was nowhere to be found. I’ve said some pretty harsh things about him here in the complaints section, rather than on the main forum, and I suppose I regret that now. I also feel terrible about steeleagle2, to the point where it's hard to wrap my head around why this is even happening. The strangest part of all this, though, is my conviction that you aren't actually angry with me over that disciplinary notice; instead, everyone else is boycotting specifically because you received it. It's sympathetic, in a way—nobody ever seems to boycott because of the injustice done to them personally. It’s always about someone else. 🙄 I have attempted to communicate with the Dervish and others, but it seems to have been an exercise in futability. I suppose it might be time to let these matters settle; I am certainly open to cooperation. I could even choose to step back from these topics entirely. However, I truly have no intention of tolerating off-topic chatter, spamming serious discussions with idle chat, or—most importantly—ad hominem attacks. Since I serve as a moderator, I would hope my efforts might be respected, rather than having everyone erupt in protest every time a post is removed. We end up deleting dozens of posts daily, yet most people don't make a scene about it. They generally accept the rules and move on. Because of the frequent protests lately, I’ve gathered the impression that I am being harder on Muslims than on anyone else, which I don't believe is accurate. Perhaps you could suggest to the Dervish that he view things this way; it would be a shame if he decided to leave. I know things are difficult for him, and I think he knows that I realize that too (since I tend to be quite observant 🤣), so there really isn't any need to continue this boycott. The community should bear with us. Peace

Hey rowdyhawk10

Thanks for the long-winded reply.
Honestly, you missed my point entirely. 😉
Maybe next time.

rowdyhawk10 said:Go ahead and open it; thanks in advance. If there's any way you could have it ready by tomorrow, that would be great. 🙄
I'm interested as well. Though, I suppose it might be best if the poll were public to ensure some level of objectivity, given the potential for clones and such.

And why exactly do you care? 😉

You doubting the outcome? 😂

Look, let me throw a comment in here—I'm not exactly filing official grievances, and neither are the rest of you. I just kept my mouth shut back then, waiting for the storm to pass. 😁 Of course, this is about that whole blowout you had with the Muslim crowd on the forum regarding those enrollments for Islam 114.
rowdyhawk10, you’re pretty much everywhere on this board lately—always talking about this stuff. You remember our deal, though? We all agreed to chip in and try to represent mainstream Islam and Muslims here—you know, keep things looking as good as possible.
I won't go as far as saying you stand out from every single person on this forum—that would be a stretch—but you definitely aren't like the majority. I also wouldn't say your views are drastically or irreconcilably different from what most people here think; in a different setting, your take might actually fly. But...
Man, you aren't just hanging out on the forums—you're running the show as a mod too. And lately—it feels like—you’ve been leaning pretty hard on those moderator powers. Forcing your own views on everyone else. Like the mainstream crowd—and all that other stuff. Intense. You're using it.
People can't handle it. Honestly, it bugs me too—which is why I’ve told you this more than a few times, sometimes getting pretty heated and using some choice words to say it.

Believe me, I've been there. Incompatible. Look, I’ve been watching you—watching how you move, the way you pivot, and exactly which posts you go out of your way to scrub. It’s pretty obvious now. You’re under this delusion that you’re on some grand "mission" here on this forum—like your little ideological victory actually matters for something.

Look, man, that emotion has you totally blocked—it’s completely warped your perspective. You see it happening, right? All the old-timers are slowly drifting away from this place, yet you won't even lift a finger. It's because you're so dead-set on being "right" that you can't see anything else. Even if you actually are right, it doesn't matter—it’s paralyzing you spiritually. At this point, you're just losing out big time. A while back, steeleagle2 sent you this exact same food for thought, but instead of actually processing it, you just banned him. What the hell blinded you like that?

So, this poll... what’s even the point? What are you actually trying to achieve here? At some point, you just have to stop fighting it—when are you finally going to accept that the majority wins?

Look, you either step down from moderation and actually participate like a normal human being, or you just stay a mod and stop breathing down everyone's necks while they're trying to write. Pick one.

That’s all I got for you—peace out. And hey, don't go overthinking this post or taking it the wrong way.

urbancrane13 said:Basically, they're using the exact same logic Hitler used back in the day: "The Wall is responsible for everything."

Honestly, I don't get this obsession some Western hypocrites have with being "sympathetic to the Palestinians." Like, what's their angle? Every single one of them probably has a neighbor beating his wife, or kids starving in the apartment next door, or some mini-Palestine happening right on their own street. But hey, if you want to play the humanitarian card, go ahead.

But they aren't actually humanitarians, just like Adolf wasn't.

Total lunatics.

What kind of rambling is this? First off, who are you calling "Western liberals"? And then calling people sickos? On top of that, you're actually comparing them to Adolf!

And you've got the nerve to try and flip the script with that "little bit of Palestine on your street" nonsense?

Pathetic. Honestly, it's subhuman.

Roger Robinson682 said:I suppose one might wonder how you would even label a woman who detonates herself and takes five human beings with her? 😲 😲

And then there’s the matter of a three-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl being made aware of their mother's supposed "heroism," essentially being raised from infancy to harbor hatred toward Jews. I can't help but wonder what kind of future lies ahead for them once they actually grow up...👎 👎 👎

Well, you can expect them to become the next generation of fighters... defending their homeland just like any man with a shred of honor would.

Or maybe they should just ditch the patriotism and let themselves be kicked out by whatever crowd migrated here from Russia or wherever else...

Who even cared about those people's suffering anyway?

I'm telling you straight, shadowjackal88.

My post gets nuked, yet hers stays up...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Instead of actually attempting to describe the reality of the situation—assuming one can even grasp it at this point—they just feed people half-truths and misinformation. In my view, she and everyone else writing like that are essentially just fueling the fires of the conflict currently unfolding there.

It’s hard to get the full picture when Jewish interests control the media outlets...

But honestly, the Palestinians themselves—and even the Arabs—don't really care anymore.

Why bother looking for sympathy from outsiders? Nobody is going to help them, and nobody *can* help them. The UN is a joke of an organization, totally under the thumb of the USA and Israel. The rest of the world is too busy dealing with its own mess... Journalists know about this deadlock, but they couldn't care less...

Just look at that whole situation with the British sailors... they showed them on Iranian TV, just regular guys eating, fish heading home... The Brits call the footage "disturbing" and "unacceptable"... WELL, DO THEY EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT? Not after Abu Ghraib and those photos... how many times did they lose it on that Iraqi woman in Abu Ghraib? But the media stays quiet... They're paid off, and besides, they're being blackmailed... Pathetic...

The Palestinians know exactly where they stand too... they don't give a damn about whatever nonsense some politicians are shouting about.

Even now, with how Bush foolishly dragged the entire Middle East into this mess, with the Iranians opening up the channel and weapons flowing down there every single day... nobody in that region is ever going to be safe again.

northernheron97 said:It’s not bullshit; the Iranians said they’ll let them go if they "determine" they accidentally drifted into their waters, but they'll only prosecute them as spies if it's "determined" they entered on purpose.
It'll end with the Iranians releasing them and then spinning the whole thing as this massive humanitarian gesture, just like what happened back in 2004.

Not a chance.

No release happens without an Iranian diplomat coming out of Erbil.

The whole broadcast tells the story.

The Britons are sitting there shocked by this segment about the detainees... meanwhile, the Iranians staged the whole thing perfectly. The Marines look like a bunch of kids playing around—laughing, snacking... they look friendly and harmless. Doesn't look anything like "dangerous" operators to me.

And that female soldier—man, she was the real kicker. Talking all sweet about going home to bring her little girl a gift...

So what can the Brits do? Absolutely nothing.

Richard Wilson4 said:

Olivia Hernandez3 says:

http://www.ottawa-x.com/media/imag.../070328076.jpg

Ugh, whatever. Honestly, it’s no shocker they’re letting them go...🤣

Honestly, she looks better just because of how they wrapped her up...

Basically, they let her walk free while they cut them down to size—now we've got a real mess on our hands...

She was talking a big game on CNN just now, claiming they drifted into Iranian water, but then acting like the Iranians were being perfectly polite and all that nonsense...