search results matching tag: the killers

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (725)     Sift Talk (20)     Blogs (52)     Comments (1000)   

IT - Official Teaser Trailer

Shepppard says...

Yeah... in a book about a killer clown.. thing, that was actually the part that stood out as the most "wtf" for me.

I just... really?

Mordhaus said:

I know which scene you speak of, it would be exceedingly difficult without advancing the ages of the protagonists.

Atomic Blonde - Charlize Theron will fuck you up

lucky760 says...

Ho Lee Fuk.

While that opening fight scene felt too choreographed, it's still awesome to see her in an extended hands-on-violence scene all shot in a single take! American movies far too often turn every punch in a fight scene into pile of a dozen different cuts spliced together.

Overall, this looks pretty killer to me. I can't wait until it's released [on TPB].

Feed a Bee

poolcleaner (Member Profile)

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

newtboy says...

When asked about the innocent 8 year old girl shot through the neck, you replied 'they advocate killing children, killing them (and their children) lowers the overall body count' but really it increases it, because every child that's collateral damage creates 100+ more violent enemies bent on revenge.

Again, context, bombing a nation we are at war with is 100% a different thing from targeted assassination by multiple drone strike or assassination squad on a group. I see that's how you insist on seeing things, but it's not reality. You can't declare war on a group, it's a total intentional misapplication of the term.

If we only targeted known (not suspected) fighters and killers and didn't bomb weddings to get one guy, ok, but we attack large groups and then attack the first responders coming to their aid, then claim they are all terrorists because one of them might be one....creating more terrorists by murdering innocents and then washing our hands smugly. Can you admit that?


By your standard for designating proper targets, we should have bombed the royal family in Saudi Arabia long long ago, but that's not on the table because.....oil and cash.

bcglorf said:

How about I quote Steven Erickson's succinct summary of humankind:
Children are dying.

I never advocated killing children, I advocated quite the opposite, killing the people who are killing children.

Again, it's context. Should the allied bombing campaign in WW2 have been abandoned because of the huge toll of children they were killing?

I get it, and even said upfront I know you refuse to acknowledge the act of war context, just at least acknowledge that's the context within which my statements were made.

All I really can ask is acknowledge that children are still dying even if we steadfastly sit safely on this side of the ocean ignoring the rest of the world's problems. Acknowledging the possibility that killing the killers could at least theoretically have the potential to reduce the body count would be even better, but I'm not crossing my fingers that you accept that as a possibility.

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

bcglorf says...

How about I quote Steven Erickson's succinct summary of humankind:
Children are dying.

I never advocated killing children, I advocated quite the opposite, killing the people who are killing children.

Again, it's context. Should the allied bombing campaign in WW2 have been abandoned because of the huge toll of children they were killing?

I get it, and even said upfront I know you refuse to acknowledge the act of war context, just at least acknowledge that's the context within which my statements were made.

All I really can ask is acknowledge that children are still dying even if we steadfastly sit safely on this side of the ocean ignoring the rest of the world's problems. Acknowledging the possibility that killing the killers could at least theoretically have the potential to reduce the body count would be even better, but I'm not crossing my fingers that you accept that as a possibility.

newtboy said:

You used the accusation that they advocate killing children to excuse us killing their children during our assassinations by drone.
EDIT: You strongly implied it's OK and smart to kill children as collateral damage because it "lowers the overall body count" and because we don't target the children specifically, but they do (but we don't not target them).
You don't have to say the exact words you put in quotes to mean it. I did not quote you saying those specific words, did I?

We aren't at war, war is between nations. This is an international police action at best.
And again, you aren't being honest to play a semantics game and conflate active attacks on a battlefield with supportive speeches. We aren't at war, and there's no American citizen filled battle group, and never has been one fighting Americans. (not since the civil war, that is)

You are being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT war, war as a legal concept only occurs between nations, not groups of individuals. That is not opinion, it's international law. It is war like, but that's a completely different legal situation, one that until recently would not allow us to kill Americans.

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

newtboy says...

EDIT: No, I certainly don't know that. They often operate in places where the local government is not strong, but that's different from no law but their own by FAR.

It's not what I refuse to acknowledge, it's the constitution and American law. You can't murder American citizens without due process and conviction. Period. Al Awlaki was not killed on the battlefield taking up arms against Americans, the only legal acceptation.

So, you THINK they are inhuman monsters that kill innocent children (in order to spread their 'our way or the grave' message), and maybe some of them do, so you want to go ahead and kill their children (to spread our "our way or the grave" message), because killing children makes the killer the kind of human trash that we all agree should be eradicated without process, huh? Think about that.

bcglorf said:

You obviously know that jihadists like Anwar operate outside of the regions in the world that recognise any law but their own. You have what are essentially stateless powers launching acts of war on the civilised nations of the world. I understand that you refuse to acknowledge that justifies treating them as combatants in a war. I just don't think you have valid grounds to be smug about that obviously being the more moral course. Jihadists like those Anwar was counselling and guiding kill Muslim children like his grand daughter every day. The bonus is they do it on purpose and proudly claim it afterwards as a warning to others who won't convert to their true religion. There is a pretty strong argument to be made that the death of leaders like him lowers the overall body count.

But it's real easy to observe that war is bad and just stop thinking about it.

Life of Black Tiger - Worst PS4 game ever?

Best medieval weapons for women

MilkmanDan says...

I took fencing in college, and had some preconceived ideas about men probably being better at it on average due to higher strength on average.

At least for foil fencing, that turned out to be quite wrong. With foils, strength is far less important than dexterity and footwork skill, which in my class the girls tended to be noticeably better at.

...However, aggressiveness / competitiveness / "killer instinct" was in many ways more important than either strength OR dexterity, and the males tended to exhibit those qualities far more than the females in my class. So even though the women were more technically proficient, the men tended to win matches at a much higher rate.

I found that interesting. Can't say that my experiences would speak to any sort of universal trend, but it was the clear trend in my beginner's level course.

Adamski - Killer

"Papa Was A Rolling Stone"- The Temptations-live

George Michael - Killer / Papa Was A Rollin' Stone

George Michael - Killer / Papa Was A Rollin' Stone

An American-Muslim comedian on being typecast as a terrorist

gorillaman says...

One of the great intellectual catastrophes of the modern world, and probably the harbinger of the ultimate doom of our civilisation, is the collapse in the distinction between 'compare to' and 'equate with'. We can reasonably compare almost anything to almost anything else, and how unfortunate that we can expect immediately to be confronted by some aggrieved outrage-peddler who imagines they have a right to find the comparison insulting.

It is a literal fact that any group of two or more people, or living things, or indeed most objects of any kind, will possess some internal differences. As a matter of certain truth, not subject to doubt, muslims share with rats and serial killers the trait that they evince diversity of behaviour and belief. This demonstrates the total banality of the 'but they're all different' argument. It's not for their differences that these groups are disliked.

That's probably enough of a lesson for one day, and certainly @oritteropo ought to know better. I don't want to take the trouble to argue deranged claims like 'there are muslims who don't believe in god', or tiresome diversions on how christians and other jews can be just as bad, or to debate the relative merits of various religiously mandated dress codes; but you are right about one thing @SDGundamX: I would much prefer that islamic violence and oppression were a harmless and overblown bogey, but ethics is not a children's game - these are real people, with real victims, and too many of both.

An American-Muslim comedian on being typecast as a terrorist

SDGundamX says...

@gorillaman

The only thing I see failing completely is your absurd attempt at rationalizing your bigotry--more aptly labelled in this case by its proper name: Islamophobia. I don't for a second believe what I'm about to post will change your mind about Islam or Muslims in general but I do believe that this kind of bigotry needs to be called out when it rears its ugly head. And my, you went full ugly there, didn't you... comparing Muslims to rats and seriel killers? Classy.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, there are in fact Muslims who do not believe in God but for a variety of reasons (keeping peace with religious family members, maintaining a connection to their cultural heritage, networking, etc.) continue to attend services and identify as Muslims. This is true of many believers in all the major religions, including Christianity and Judaism.

You see, as much as you'd like Muslims to all be boogeymen coming to bring Sharia law down on the rest of world, anyone who has actually met and talked with a Muslim (and god-forbid actually visited one of the countries StukaFox listed) realizes that Muslims, like all people, are extremely diverse (again, despite your protestations to the contrary).

Indeed there are Sharia zealots. But there are also moderates and reformers and even liberal radicals. Mostly, though its just a lot of people trying to get on with their lives the best way they know how.

Now, I find most religious beliefs to be repugnant. However, I don't find the ideas expressed in the Koran to be much more repugnant than, say, the Bible. In fact, I'm less concerned about what is written in supposedly holy books and more concerned with how believers attempt to implement those ideas in reality. I do indeed find particular forms of this implementation, such as forcing women to wear a bhurka, disturbing (just as I find Christians' attacks on LGBT rights disturbing). It's important to note, though, that such practices are NOT universal. For example, in some Islamic countries like Malaysia it's enough to simply cover your hair with a colorful scarf.

On the other hand, other practices that you mentioned such as Female Genital Mutilation and virginity tests ARE NOT Islamic. FGM predates Islam and is still practiced in the locales where it originated (places such as Mali, for instance) that now happen to be Islamic majority areas. The Indonesian virginity tests as well do not stem from some universal commandment in Islam but from Indonesian culture which sees women as "the symbol of the nations moral guardians".

Again, I don't suppose any of this makes any difference to you. You want to see the world in black and white, us versus them, "rats" and "serial killers" versus you, the white knight who is just trying to save us all from our cultural relativistic blindness. And so the shades of grey I am describing to you will likely go overlooked. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect the reality is I'll receive some lengthy reply that can be distilled down to, "Islam bad, hur." Or perhaps, "All religions bad, but Islam worst, hur." To which I can only reply, that demonizing the practitioners of any particular religion is unlikely to bring about the reforms you seek.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon