Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Honestly, when faced with the choice between a jet engine and a bald eagle, this guy went straight for the bird...

but this is actually quite hilarious 🤣

just two pages detailing how terrorists are flying in first class, and then, an hour later, we get news that one slipped in with the refugee groups 🤣

and that’s the truly unsettling part, arriving with the refugees, arriving in first class, already inside the country and settled in for the night, leaving absolutely nothing to chance...

Every single puppet's got its own little quirks, too

ruggedjackal46 said:Right, because political terrorism just isn't in the American DNA. Interesting thought...

May they all perish in every terrorist attack, just like this one.

And what about the Phoenix Group?
Were they terrorists, or were they just people fighting for American freedom back when we were under that old regime? 🍿

You’d probably hear people in Washington calling it moderate opposition ☕

Emily Ward3 said:Did I actually say that? No. What I actually said was:

In plain English, that means those people were decent folks—mostly Muslims on paper, much like how I identify as Catholic—and nobody was forcing their lifestyle on me. Nobody felt the sudden urge to pull a grenade in my living room just because they felt inspired. Nobody gave me grief for offering them a $10 cookie instead of some high-end pastry, and nobody trashed the couch I was sitting on. Does that clear things up?

I should probably add a quick disclaimer: that doesn't mean every Muslim I know is a saint. There have certainly been others who were the complete opposite, and I made sure to distance myself from them early on. It's also worth noting that they tend to act much bolder in a pack than they do alone; when they're in a group, it becomes a competition to see who can be the most devout.

Yeah, that's just how it goes—the home herd is basically the perfect place to let out all that primal nonsense. It's kind of like how you're acting all ultra-conservative here, even though you were probably being polite and tolerant when you were hanging out with them.

Robin Fox2 said:but this is actually quite hilarious 🤣

just two pages detailing how terrorists are flying in first class, and then, an hour later, we get news that one slipped in with the refugee groups 🤣

and that’s the truly unsettling part, arriving with the refugees, arriving in first class, already inside the country and settled in for the night, leaving absolutely nothing to chance...

Yeah, these terrorist masterminds have clearly orchestrated this entire refugee wave specifically to infiltrate the West 🙏🤦

France and other countries are already getting stuck with the bill for these "integration" policies. These losers from European society pretend to be weekend terrorists who travel to Syria for vacation without a hitch—all while Western nations debate whether they should even revoke their French or German citizenship. 👏

The fundamental flaw in the argument that jihadists have nothing to do with Islam is that these fanatics actually find their core ideologies rooted in Islamic teachings and the Quran. Could a movement defined by such madness and bloodshed sustain itself for decades based solely on the doctrines of other faiths? I don't think so. While history shows wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, those were typically driven by established nation-states pursuing tangible material interests, where the cross served merely as a unifying symbol for their ambitions.

On the flip side, the claim that Islam itself is an inherently dangerous religion ignores the reality that there are over a billion Muslims globally, yet the instability is concentrated in one specific region. This area is deeply traumatized—not just by extremist factions, but historically by the actions of Western, developed nations. Take France, for example. Throughout the last century, they imported thousands of workers from North Africa, benefiting from cheap labor while maintaining a clear conscience because conditions were ostensibly better than the desperation found back home. And things were better—until those individuals began forming families and raising children. Living on meager wages far below the French standard of living, they could offer their kids nothing more than life in the Parisian suburbs and street culture. Being culturally, racially, religiously, and socially isolated from the rest of the country, these alienated youths never had a fair shot at a normal upbringing or education. In such a volatile environment, even a tiny drop of extreme Islamist doctrine is enough to turn people into weapons.

Ultimately, Muslims must confront the fact that certain interpretations within their faith allow for the kind of radicalization that fuels modern evil. Simultaneously, the West must accept its share of historical and contemporary responsibility for the current state of affairs in Africa and the Middle East. Further division, finger-pointing, border closures, and extreme policies will only serve to make the situation worse. Islam acts as the vehicle through which terrorists are radicalized, but it isn't the root cause of their existence. The cause runs much deeper.

By the way, has the individual identified by the passport actually been confirmed as the attacker, or was the passport simply found at the scene without proving that the owner was actually present?

[bata] https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...11250473_o.jpg [/bata]

☕

boldfox88 said:The fundamental flaw in the argument that jihadists have nothing to do with Islam is that these fanatics actually find their core ideologies rooted in Islamic teachings and the Quran. Could a movement defined by such madness and bloodshed sustain itself for decades based solely on the doctrines of other faiths? I don't think so. While history shows wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, those were typically driven by established nation-states pursuing tangible material interests, where the cross served merely as a unifying symbol for their ambitions.

On the flip side, the claim that Islam itself is an inherently dangerous religion ignores the reality that there are over a billion Muslims globally, yet the instability is concentrated in one specific region. This area is deeply traumatized—not just by extremist factions, but historically by the actions of Western, developed nations. Take France, for example. Throughout the last century, they imported thousands of workers from North Africa, benefiting from cheap labor while maintaining a clear conscience because conditions were ostensibly better than the desperation found back home. And things were better—until those individuals began forming families and raising children. Living on meager wages far below the French standard of living, they could offer their kids nothing more than life in the Parisian suburbs and street culture. Being culturally, racially, religiously, and socially isolated from the rest of the country, these alienated youths never had a fair shot at a normal upbringing or education. In such a volatile environment, even a tiny drop of extreme Islamist doctrine is enough to turn people into weapons.

Ultimately, Muslims must confront the fact that certain interpretations within their faith allow for the kind of radicalization that fuels modern evil. Simultaneously, the West must accept its share of historical and contemporary responsibility for the current state of affairs in Africa and the Middle East. Further division, finger-pointing, border closures, and extreme policies will only serve to make the situation worse. Islam acts as the vehicle through which terrorists are radicalized, but it isn't the root cause of their existence. The cause runs much deeper.

By the way, has the individual identified by the passport actually been confirmed as the attacker, or was the passport simply found at the scene without proving that the owner was actually present?

So, the Crusaders were "fake" Christians, while these guys are the "real" Muslims? What exactly are you basing that conclusion on? And why on earth do you assume that material interests aren't also lurking beneath the surface of this current chaos?

To me, trying to justify violence by waving around some two-thousand-year-old book is either pure insanity or blatant manipulation.

I honestly can’t believe how much people overlook just how easy it is to fake a passport. I mean, look at how easily certain figures have slipped through the cracks—like when they nabbed Tušek over in Spain, right in the middle of Europe. Or take Karr, who was hopping over to Milan just to catch Inter games. You really think they were traveling on their actual, legitimate documents?

ruggedjackal46 said:I honestly can’t believe how much people overlook just how easy it is to fake a passport. I mean, look at how easily certain figures have slipped through the cracks—like when they nabbed Tušek over in Spain, right in the middle of Europe. Or take Karr, who was hopping over to Milan just to catch Inter games. You really think they were traveling on their actual, legitimate documents?

The Canary Islands—the absolute heart of the EU. ☕

boldfox88 said:The fundamental flaw in the argument that jihadists have nothing to do with Islam is that these fanatics actually find their core ideologies rooted in Islamic teachings and the Quran. Could a movement defined by such madness and bloodshed sustain itself for decades based solely on the doctrines of other faiths? I don't think so. While history shows wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, those were typically driven by established nation-states pursuing tangible material interests, where the cross served merely as a unifying symbol for their ambitions.

On the flip side, the claim that Islam itself is an inherently dangerous religion ignores the reality that there are over a billion Muslims globally, yet the instability is concentrated in one specific region. This area is deeply traumatized—not just by extremist factions, but historically by the actions of Western, developed nations. Take France, for example. Throughout the last century, they imported thousands of workers from North Africa, benefiting from cheap labor while maintaining a clear conscience because conditions were ostensibly better than the desperation found back home. And things were better—until those individuals began forming families and raising children. Living on meager wages far below the French standard of living, they could offer their kids nothing more than life in the Parisian suburbs and street culture. Being culturally, racially, religiously, and socially isolated from the rest of the country, these alienated youths never had a fair shot at a normal upbringing or education. In such a volatile environment, even a tiny drop of extreme Islamist doctrine is enough to turn people into weapons.

Ultimately, Muslims must confront the fact that certain interpretations within their faith allow for the kind of radicalization that fuels modern evil. Simultaneously, the West must accept its share of historical and contemporary responsibility for the current state of affairs in Africa and the Middle East. Further division, finger-pointing, border closures, and extreme policies will only serve to make the situation worse. Islam acts as the vehicle through which terrorists are radicalized, but it isn't the root cause of their existence. The cause runs much deeper.

By the way, has the individual identified by the passport actually been confirmed as the attacker, or was the passport simply found at the scene without proving that the owner was actually present?

Maybe dig a little deeper into history—and while you're at it, check out how Islam actually started. 😉

The mental virus currently running through the Islamic world is basically just a mutation of something that’s been baked into Western civilization for ages—honestly, our past is even more brutal. It just got more sophisticated over time instead of disappearing.

Take the American elite, for example—they aren't just greedy when they export terror globally; there's this deep-seated religious fundamentalism woven right into them.

Look, I’m not defending fundamentalists—keep them far away from me—but I highly doubt closing borders is going to fix anything long-term. It's not like the rest of the world is just going to stop existing on the other side of the fence. It'll resurface eventually, and probably looking way uglier than before.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, the Crusaders were "fake" Christians, while these guys are the "real" Muslims? What exactly are you basing that conclusion on? And why on earth do you assume that material interests aren't also lurking beneath the surface of this current chaos?

To me, trying to justify violence by waving around some two-thousand-year-old book is either pure insanity or blatant manipulation.

Christians fought a traditional kind of war: you endure the conflict, stay alive, and make it back home. In the West, people aren't really losing sleep over soldiers fighting ISIS on distant battlefields. Instead, they’re worried about the threat of someone bringing that fight right to their own backyard.

I honestly believe that if Islam didn't exist, society would have simply latched onto another doctrine or set of teachings to manipulate the masses—though likely not within these specific borders. As I’ve mentioned before, when you take people who feel hopeless and lack any real perspective, and place them right next door to one of the most beautiful and prosperous cities in the world, you end up with a highly volatile mix. In this particular instance, that ideology is Islam, and it is a reality that should concern all other Muslims. It is also a reminder for the rest of us to consider the fact that much of what we consume and how we live in this world was built upon the suffering of others.

And why on earth do you think there aren't material interests driving this madness as well?

I’m not just guessing here. Like I mentioned before, most people aren't losing sleep over ISIS, the Saudi government, or the various groups profiting off global terrorism. Instead, the real concern comes from those driven by radical ideologies. As for the people motivated purely by money? They checked out of that game a long time ago.

To me, any attempt to justify violence by citing some ancient text is either pure delusion or a blatant act of manipulation. There is no middle ground.

Absolutely. That isn't just your opinion. It is an objective fact.

ruggedjackal46 said:I honestly can’t believe how much people overlook just how easy it is to fake a passport. I mean, look at how easily certain figures have slipped through the cracks—like when they nabbed Tušek over in Spain, right in the middle of Europe. Or take Karr, who was hopping over to Milan just to catch Inter games. You really think they were traveling on their actual, legitimate documents?

It really makes me wonder if the person's identity was actually confirmed on-site at the scene of the tragedy. It is entirely plausible that the passport found there could be a forgery. Honestly, my gut tells me it was left behind intentionally, likely because the perpetrators wanted it to be discovered.

boldfox88 said:The fundamental flaw in the argument that jihadists have nothing to do with Islam is that these fanatics actually find their core ideologies rooted in Islamic teachings and the Quran. Could a movement defined by such madness and bloodshed sustain itself for decades based solely on the doctrines of other faiths? I don't think so. While history shows wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, those were typically driven by established nation-states pursuing tangible material interests, where the cross served merely as a unifying symbol for their ambitions.

On the flip side, the claim that Islam itself is an inherently dangerous religion ignores the reality that there are over a billion Muslims globally, yet the instability is concentrated in one specific region. This area is deeply traumatized—not just by extremist factions, but historically by the actions of Western, developed nations. Take France, for example. Throughout the last century, they imported thousands of workers from North Africa, benefiting from cheap labor while maintaining a clear conscience because conditions were ostensibly better than the desperation found back home. And things were better—until those individuals began forming families and raising children. Living on meager wages far below the French standard of living, they could offer their kids nothing more than life in the Parisian suburbs and street culture. Being culturally, racially, religiously, and socially isolated from the rest of the country, these alienated youths never had a fair shot at a normal upbringing or education. In such a volatile environment, even a tiny drop of extreme Islamist doctrine is enough to turn people into weapons.

Ultimately, Muslims must confront the fact that certain interpretations within their faith allow for the kind of radicalization that fuels modern evil. Simultaneously, the West must accept its share of historical and contemporary responsibility for the current state of affairs in Africa and the Middle East. Further division, finger-pointing, border closures, and extreme policies will only serve to make the situation worse. Islam acts as the vehicle through which terrorists are radicalized, but it isn't the root cause of their existence. The cause runs much deeper.

By the way, has the individual identified by the passport actually been confirmed as the attacker, or was the passport simply found at the scene without proving that the owner was actually present?

Word is they have a fingerprint from the suspect that links them to that passport...

Alex Brown50 said:Maybe dig a little deeper into history—and while you're at it, check out how Islam actually started. 😉

The mental virus currently running through the Islamic world is basically just a mutation of something that’s been baked into Western civilization for ages—honestly, our past is even more brutal. It just got more sophisticated over time instead of disappearing.

Take the American elite, for example—they aren't just greedy when they export terror globally; there's this deep-seated religious fundamentalism woven right into them.

Look, I’m not defending fundamentalists—keep them far away from me—but I highly doubt closing borders is going to fix anything long-term. It's not like the rest of the world is just going to stop existing on the other side of the fence. It'll resurface eventually, and probably looking way uglier than before.

Closing the borders is a textbook political move. There is always a way through—even back during the Cold War under those old regimes... regardless of who was in charge.
Take, for instance, how people managed to work under the table in Europe for years and slip back home without a hitch... if that's what we're talking about... then 🙏 it's always been this way, and it always will be.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, the Crusaders were "fake" Christians, while these guys are the "real" Muslims? What exactly are you basing that conclusion on? And why on earth do you assume that material interests aren't also lurking beneath the surface of this current chaos?

To me, trying to justify violence by waving around some two-thousand-year-old book is either pure insanity or blatant manipulation.

I honestly don't get what part of boldfox88's point is tripping you up. Look—a Christian fighting (whether for money or whatever other motive)—they do it to make their life better here on Earth. Most Islamic attacks boil down to suicide bombers who genuinely believe they're heading straight to Allah after that "sacred" act. Bottom line? They're gone. They didn't do it for millions, or even a hundred million of anything. They did it in the name of God. That's just a fact.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, the Crusaders were "fake" Christians, while these guys are the "real" Muslims? What exactly are you basing that conclusion on? And why on earth do you assume that material interests aren't also lurking beneath the surface of this current chaos?

To me, trying to justify violence by waving around some two-thousand-year-old book is either pure insanity or blatant manipulation.

You call it insanity. Here in the States, it feels that way because we don't have a religious stranglehold on our institutions. You can be a believer—honestly, most people here are—but the government stays separate from it. The church might offer some comfort or hope, sure, but in any meaningful civic sense, its influence is dead. Even in modern Europe, you won't find a significant chunk of the population that takes holy scripture as literal, daily instruction.

But things are different in the Middle East. Groups like ISIS are incredibly blunt about their views; they aren't hiding their agenda. The problem is that we refuse to believe them. We insist on calling them "sick" or claiming they have nothing to do with Islam just to make ourselves feel better.

Let me repeat myself. There are 1.6 billion Muslims globally. If you look at surveys conducted in supposedly "moderate" or free nations, the data tells a story. For instance, about 24% of Muslims in a country like Albania view Sharia as divine law handed down by the Creator. In places like Canada, that number jumps to 52%, and in Pakistan, it’s a staggering 80%. And remember, Albania and Canada are European. How are we supposed to coexist with people who genuinely believe a set of primitive, psychopathic, and twisted rules is God's will? It might work for a while, but eventually, it's going to escalate. I simply cannot wrap my head around those views, nor can I accept them. To them, my views are the ones that are incomprehensible.

That's just one symptom of a much larger issue. When you ask these groups about the punishment for leaving the faith, or their views on women and LGBTQ+ rights, you see a massive amount of regression and primitivism. Just look at the backlash following those controversial cartoons in Denmark. It's constant. We end up living in a state of perpetual fear, afraid to even joke about or criticize ideas that we find deeply disturbing.

Look, you can interpret any book however you want. I could kill fifty people and claim I found the inspiration in *Harry Potter*. But there are objective verses in the Quran that you just don't find in, say, Taoism. If you lived strictly by the word of the Quran versus living strictly by the teachings of Buddha, the outcomes would be worlds apart. The Quran is filled with regressive, dangerous ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with our American values.

To claim Buddhists are some non-violent, peaceful crowd while ignoring everything they're pulling in places like Myanmar? That’s just straight-up delusion. It's total madness.

William Gomez5 said:To claim Buddhists are some non-violent, peaceful crowd while ignoring everything they're pulling in places like Myanmar? That’s just straight-up delusion. It's total madness.

Fair enough. Then please, show me a single verse where Buddha actually advocates for violence. Show me where he calls for the kind of actions we see happening there. Or look at Taoism. Or Jainism. Even Jesus. Where are the verses calling for bloodshed? Because you find plenty of those in the Quran.

I'll say it again. Anyone can twist words to fit their own agenda. But to take the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, or Lao Tzu and leap all the way to decapitation... well, that requires a massive stretch of the imagination.