I dont exactly love sadiq khan but this is so out of context that it's ridiculous

I didn't think the ref was that bad this time

the bayern game, on the other hand...

this

I think you guys are being way too harsh on mustard just for winning a playoff match, he's a cool cat with mad skills and sex appeal
https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/5/5e/Snrub.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140416021517

someone give me $510 and ill make a solid 2-14 team

too bad he wont let his workers unionize

ok, I set myself up for that one haha

not gonna lie, feel like there's been a rise in medics who arent sure how to find middle in pugchamp as of late

leogeo2
m0lk
djfivenine
schetter

(not rly but I just wanted to show off how old I am tee hee)

dude code red is good too #factz

axiomatic always and 4eva

rip what.cd

and as for this point

every religion has people who hold a prejudice against it. ISIS, for instance, could be described as anti-semitic and anti-Christian. however, we live in the west, and extreme Islamophobia is more common here. When a white Christian neo-Nazi kills people, we don't tend to propose measures to crack down on the rights of other whites or other Christians or even other confirmed neo-Nazis. but because Muslims have been racialized (people don't tend to picture an Indonesian guy around these parts when they think of a Muslim) and otherized, lots of people are in favor of blanket bans as a solution to the problem.

it's not that Islam has nothing to do with these lunatics blowing themselves up, it's that the way we respond to these sorts of things is so fixed on religion above all else.

and on top of that, as one of the articles I posted earlier points out, this holy war rhetoric is a self-fulfilling prophecy. we went from groups like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, who had specific geopolitical motives and whose faith permitted them to not think twice about horrible civilian atrocities to achieve those goals, to ISIS, who have said that they want to completely annihilate all non-believers regardless of our geopolitical actions. they are what we erroneously projected onto previous terrorist groups. I am extremely worried that, as might be the case with climate change, we have reached a point of no return in this religious conflict stuff. it was bad enough when you had dick cheney and donald rumsfeld on one side, and al-qaeda on the other, but it's a lot worse when it's steve bannon and steven miller vs ISIS.

no one is arguing that religious fundamentalism, when under the right conditions, can lead to horrible acts of violence. we're simply disputing the idea that there's something inherent in Islam that makes it more violent than any other religion. I think the history of the world disproves the idea that circumstance + dogma can't lead to violence in a lot of different faiths.

and putting that aside, where does this argument over what % of the reason for terrorism is strictly religion and what % is geopolitical get us? shouldn't we be talking about what to do to prevent terrorism from happening? and two things we can do without harming any non-terrorist Muslims along the way are pretty obvious: 1) end the imperialist US/UK/etc. presence in the Middle East, and 2) stop giving money to the most radical Islamic terror state in the world. how are either of those things controversial?

ewing theory for the celtics???