unr3al

I just did. I did so because the German to English translation gave me exactly what I told you they said. If you think you can translate it better than Google can, go ahead. You can't claim something is the truth or that it happened if you can't back it up with anything. I could sit here and tell you I'm the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard; that doesn't make it true, no matter how many times I say it. I'd have to provide some sort of proof. There are things in the world called facts; and they're measurable, usually with numbers. Start over with those, and then we can continue to talk. That's evident, and that's a problem. I'm telling you that you put a spin on it by using a word like 'only'. I'm not putting words in your mouth or paraphrasing, I'm only pointing out what you said and telling you why I resent how you said it. It's obvious at this point we're not going anywhere with this, so why don't we quit while we're behind?

It's your right to think I'm nitpicking. Yes I would absolutely feel the same way, but we're not talking about car crashes, we're talking about a religion that perpetuates mass killings which is why minimizing things (whether it was intentional or not) only serves to motivate others out there who might take a statistic like 8 out of 11 and put a positive spin on it. That's what it looks like. Car crashes will happen as a result of careless people and random acts of nature, not due to theology. If you don't see my point, that's fine. I said what I wanted to say. A few of those websites aren't what I'd call credible news sources. Especially when they use terms like "there are allegations that...", "police officers are accused...", and "it's difficult to shed light with any detail". This is like when Americans who are either hardcore Republicans or hardcore Democrats subscribe to their favorite website that feature articles that specifically reinforce their political agenda and pander to people who already believe what's going to be written. Those aren't news outlets. Those are tabloids. And any credible information that is taken from sources like Reuters will only be given in bits and pieces to help construct the story the author wants to write. I can't stop you from falling for that kind of crap, but I can at least point it out. I find it odd that you're supposedly too lazy to find me statistical proof but you're happy to copy and paste links to German tabloids or rubbish news sites that offer opinions on what might have happened rather than what actually did. If you're too lazy to make a point you can't defend, then you shouldn't be making it. I don't classify myself as a liberal, I'm registered as an independent voter; but I'm certainly not from the party that advocates ideas like "legitimate rape", "don't ask don't tell", "don't retreat, reload", "Mexicans are criminals and rapists" and "ban all Muslim immigration". I'm heavily critical of religion, especially Islam considering the events that have happened during my lifetime, but I support the right to be able to be critical of something publicly. So if believing in values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality for women, equality for minorities and LGBT people makes me a liberal, and not just a human being with compassion for other people who don't fit my mold, then sure, call me a liberal if you want. But every American ought to believe in those things since those are principles this country was supposed to be founded on, regardless of what party you vote for.

So you think everybody should just turn a blind eye to a very large group of people who wish to commit genocides, kill innocent children, covert people to a religion under the threat of beheading and obtain a nuclear weapon for the purpose of eradicating people who will not follow their values? Human rights should be rights for all humans, not just those who live in the Untied States, Canada, Europe and Australia. I'd also like to point out that people in western countries are becoming increasingly agnostic/atheist/secular. The countries in Europe that are doing the best economically and sociologically are the least religious by percentage, and the United States has reached a record number of "nones" under the category of religious affiliation in the most recent Gallop Poll issued. To say there is nothing bad about those books is to more or less pretend that you read them when you actually didn't, or to simply "forget" the terrible verses. The Old Testament is arguably the most horrible book ever written, but at least it's not used to tell people how to live their lives in a literal sense on a massive scale anymore. Those kind of people have been reduced to being involved in small cults (see the Westboro Baptists Church) or being lone wolves. The Qur'an still is, which is why all of these terror attacks and terrible human rights violations are still occurring today.

Let us know when the tally gets to 6.5 million from firing squads and gas chambers in an attempt to wipe an entire ethnic group from the face of the earth. Until then, apples and oranges.

Just because I was the only one to call you out on it doesn't mean I'm the only one on the entire planet who'd look at it that way. Let's not pretend. Just understand my point of how it looks.

List your system specs (in detail), please. Also read articles like this: https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/200929003-GTA-IV-Fatal-Error-Texp-70 When upgrading to a new operating system, old installs of extra .NET or C++ libraries that were necessary for LCPDFR to run are no longer going to be there, so you will need to re-download and re-install them.

You don't really understand these terrorists, otherwise you'd be working alongside them yourself. The United States and the rest of NATO didn't just randomly start blowing crap up in the middle east for no good reason. Besides the now defunct I.R.A., only one group of people have been constantly hi-jacking planes, blowing buildings up and launching suicide attacks against allied countries on a consistent basis over the last 30-40 years. This goes back even before the first Gulf War, because Muslims and Israelis can't get along, so Palestinian terrorist groups feel the need to kill civilians to make a moot point about why they got screwed by having a bunch of barren, unused sand taken away from them. Countries that back Israel even from merely a moral or political standpoint come under attack. They don't actually have to fire any shots to attract the ire of middle easterners who hate Jews. Therefore the United States is guilty by association from the get-go. It also doesn't help that the countries we are locked in an ideological battle with (and it is an ideological one, whether the white house wants to admit that or not) include horrible human rights violations as part of their day to day life; women being forced to sleep in bags, having limbs cut off for thievery, children being crucified on the side of the road, throwing suspected homosexuals from rooftops, decapitating people who wish to leave the religion or take up a different faith, etc. Killing innocent people in the 20th and 21st centuries attracts a lot of unwanted attention from the advanced civilizations of the western world (NATO) and any uneasy or difficult to classify allies we have in the east (Russia, former USSR countries). As a result of all of these human rights violations, genocides, threats of war against western countries and terrorist attacks; the U.S. kicked down some doors in the early 1990's and early 2000's. On that point, I'd also suggest that you don't weep too hard over some of the civilians who are caught in the crossfire. Iraq during the peak of the insurgency had a ton of people who decided to stay in hostile cities where they had been instructed to evacuate or risk being injured or killed. Now I don't live in a concrete apartment equivalent to the size of a shed in the middle of a dust bowl, but if some military men told me that there would be some heavy fighting in the coming days and my family is in danger; I'd get the **** out. Take anything important to me and evacuate. It would be a massive blow psychologically and perhaps financially to lose access to my home, but myself and my family are more important. Lots of people in Iraq stayed where they were because they either didn't care, or they were sympathetic to the insurgency and are just as responsible for not only military casualties on foreign soil, but also the terrorist attacks on allied soil due to their showing of solidarity despite allied armies occupying their country. Stopping bombing won't make hostilities magically end. As I've discussed in previous threads, these attacks are motivated by religion and it has become a war of faith and cultures that has been instigated by Islam. Christianity; being the major religion in the U.S. and the biggest around the world, had a horrible period of seemingly constant slaughter during the crusades era. Islam is going through that phase now, only it's during a period where nuclear weapons exist, and it is a documented goal, said on tape by Osama Bin Laden himself that getting nuclear weapons should be the goal of all Muslim people. Moreover, the Qu'ran clearly outlines plans for a day when the earth will literally cry out loud for the blood of the Jews, and that it will be the duty of all Muslim men to take up their swords and kill them. This can be read directly from their doctrine of faith. It is not a wacky interpretation. As a result of all of those things I outlined above, simply "not bombing" them anymore isn't going to cut it. Hostilities won't stop until they've killed everyone and Islam is the sole religion of everyone remaining on the planet. As ISIS once said; they "love death more than you love life", so we need to treat the threat in the middle east as the real problem that it is and not try and shrug it off. These terrorist organizations need to be wiped out, and Muslims who have a good head on their shoulders will be able to speak out publicly about the flaws in Islam and help to reform or re-interpret the religion among people of this generation without the fear of being killed by said terrorist groups or even fellow Muslims.

-You have provided absolutely no statistical proof that the majority of Muslim immigrants into Europe are violent terrorists. That kind of attitude is part of the problem because it does nothing to motivate ethnic Germans to clean up those neighborhoods, invest into police forces who will go there or attempt to construct community outreach programs to new families. -At no point have I ever insinuated that these attacks are not occurring due to a religious motive; quite the opposite, actually, if you read any of my posts in threads regarding attacks conducted by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers. I've stated numerous times that all religions are dangerous generally speaking, but at this particular point in time, Islam is the only one causing the kind of havoc and misery across the globe on a large scale that we see on the news constantly. The Danish cartoonists, the French satirists, Salman Rushdie, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and countless others have all been either threatened with death or actually hurt/killed. It's not a coincidence, and it's fair to say that the version of the Qu'ran that Osama Bin Laden was teaching is not a radical one, it's a very paint by the numbers interpretation of it. -Not all countries have the same immigration laws, even within the EU. Some immigrants may be forced to move on after a certain amount of time, or there may be instances where some people can speak English as a 2nd language (as it is the most common 2nd language in the world), but not French, Italian Sweedish, German, etc, so it would make little sense to stay put when England used to be a hop, skip and a jump north east of those places. -That's once again an opinion until you provide me with some kind of proof to back yourself up. -Because Saudi Arabia is arguably one of the most strictly Shariah Law countries to live in and has a specific tribe of Muslims ruling over the majority of the country which may persecute or just simply kill people who are from the wrong tribe or don't live life they way the government wants it. -You "think". Nice. Again, nobody is arguing that Islam is the major motivator behind these attacks, but you're just making things up when you say "nobody" wants to integrate. You haven't shown me any polls or surveys that suggest that. Only anecdotal references to things that may or may not have happened in the town in Germany you live in.

Because using words like "only", especially with very large ratios like 8 out of 11 makes it sound like you're marginalizing this problem.

Do you have any proof you can provide that says nobody in the rest of Europe holds hostilities towards Muslims? Have you heard of 'Brexit'? Perhaps you should look that up on Google, because the waves of refugees coming to England from the middle east was a major talking point for a lot of people. Get a grip. It's not bigotry in the sense the word is normally used, per se. The expression 'soft bigotry of low expectations" more or less means that it only devalues these Muslim immigrants to find it acceptable that 8 out of 11 terrorist attacks are religiously motivated. As if that's all we can expect of them. (There should be none that are religiously motivated. We should be able to hold them to a higher standard than 8 out of 11.) It doesn't mean you hate them from an ethnic standpoint. The phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" was coined by a speech writer for George W. Bush for a speech written about 'No Child Left Behind' regarding the attitude some people have that the stupid will always remain stupid, and the poor will always remain poor. In this case, it's the attitude the western world has that Islam will always be the way it is and we can't say anything negative about it or that it should be reformed and we just need to respect their differences and try not to stop on anybody's toes so we don't get bombed or shot or stabbed to death. I'm not accusing you of doing anything intentionally wrong, so I apologize if it came across that way. I just think it's ridiculous that we more or less tolerate these terrorist attacks the way we do and basically shrug our shoulders and say "what are you gonna do?" when it's glaringly obvious that religion is usually playing the major role in motivating these people. We as westerners always seem to try to find ways to marginalize this problem, or apologize for it or write it off as a cultural difference that we have to respect and allow. We don't. David Cameron, the Prime Minister who resigned said himself that while England should welcome cultures from all over the world to intermingle with English culture, that not all aspects of Islam are compatible with it; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of dress/expression, equality for women, homosexuals and ethnic or religious minorities. People can call me salty if they want, but I think that's an inappropriate response considering the nature of these recent attacks, especially the Orlando shooting specifically targeting homosexual people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/ "..inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik..." Just because he doesn't belong to or pledge allegiance to a terrorist group doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist based on what he did. It's not his fault that he's a certain ethnicity, but he was brought up in a Muslim household, and was apparently picked on at school and ostracized for it. Another example of bad integration into the rest of society. Despite the psychotherapy he was receiving for his depression, he took out his frustrations on innocent people.

Without trying to debunk any of the points you were making to another person, I need to address this as it seems to be the elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore (not just on this forum board either, this applies much more broadly). Only 8 of 11? I'm sorry, but that's what I'd call the soft bigotry of low expectations. We cant expect any better than 3 out of 11 people (predominantly Muslim) who commit terrorist attacks to do them for reasons that aren't based on religion? That's ridiculous. This is clearly a war of cultures between east and west, and America, Europe and the Middle East as individual sections of the world have some work to do to try and end this or at least try and turn this boiling over of aggression into a gentle simmer. America only has about 3 million Muslims living within its borders, compared with the rest of the 1.5/1.6 billion all around the world. They are reasonably well integrated into the country, and while not all of them loosen their religious restrictions on things like clothing, prayer and treatment of wives; many of them do, especially as time goes on. They largely live in normal neighborhoods like everyone else, attend normal schools and integrate themselves with everyone else, becoming a useful member of society just like the rest of the people from other ethnicity that make America what it is today; an imperfect country, but a country I enjoy living in. Europe has a problem with its borders/immigration as some residents earlier in this topic mentioned, but it's possibly just as important to mention that they have a problem with properly integrating these people into the rest of society. Their Muslim residents live in slums, do not get the same education everyone else gets and do not have the same sort of police presence (if any) in these neighborhoods. There is also evident open racism, documented in the news and on the web (this is true of America as well, and is becoming more acceptable to show in public thanks to a certain candidate running for U.S. President). They house a large population of people who live in the west but may in fact still hate the west due to their lack of integration into society with everyone else. They likely feel like outcasts. This is not only ill-planned, it's also dangerous, as events like the ones in Germany, France and England prove. I strongly suggest immigration overhaul for all of these countries (not ceasing it, but doing a better vetting process and pre-planning housing, educational and community outreach arrangements) to not just benefit the newcomers, but also the citizens that already live there.

The guy on the mini bike is at 7:21. It was part of the intro used for several seasons of the show, not used any longer since it's not an HD episode (it pre-dated wide screen TVs). You probably won't be able to find the actual episode of COPS unless you have access to a channel like SpikeTV which runs re-runs of the show constantly. The guy pulling the golf carts on the trailer, I can't find that on YouTube at a glance. A segment of that was also featured in the COPS intro cinematic for a few seasons I think, but I don't know which ones. It was within the last few years. I know it was in Texas, might have been Harris county (which Houston sits in), all major agencies were involved in the chase, and the state troopers initiated the chase due to the driver failing to stop after being signaled to pull over for an insecure load. Turned out he stole the truck and all of the golf carts on it. Back on the topic of drunk/stupid people driving un-road-worthy vehicles, typing 'cops golf cart texas' into the YouTube search engine produces hilarious results instantly. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cops+golf+cart+texas

Actually things like this do happen semi-often in the states. For years the COPS intro featured a guy being stopped by the police on a mini-bike going through peoples lawns trying to find a lost kid. And a few years ago a police chase through Houston on COPS featured a guy in a pickup hauling a giant trailer full of golf carts that wound up falling off the side and spraying sparks all over the roadway.

What game are we talking about here? Because this is in the Grand Theft Auto V section, but you're taking about LCPDFR, which is for Grand Theft Auto IV.

Why have I never seen this before? Good video series.

PTSD can't be "taken care of", it's not that simple. War breaks peoples minds, and you can't repair them once that happens.

I was informed by a co-worker when discussing this today that the total number of police officers killed by a murderer was 33. We're almost at that number now and it's only July, and I fear there will be more before the year's out.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/16/europe/france-attack-on-nice-isis/ Confirmed terrorist attack. The interior minister says he was "radicalized very quickly", and this is now considered to be a terrorist attack that was at least inspired by ISIS video messages suggesting that Muslims should rise up against the western coalition that has come together to fight ISIS in the middle east. A phone number on the deceased perp's phone ties into a man by the name of Omar Diaby; who commands a French branch Islamic Jihadi battalion in Syria that is loyal to Al Queda.

It appears that ISIS has indeed taken credit for the attack.

Glad you're safe despite all of that chaos. Keep your eyes peeled, but at the same time; don't be afraid to live your life. People of France, and the rest of the free world: Don't let yourself be bullied into changing how you live.

Reading through short articles from FOX, CNN, etc, the number may have risen to 84 dead, 18 severely injured. French police shot the man dead; he had a ton of weapons in the truck including grenades. Turns out this man was known to police, and he was from Tunisia, supposedly a "moderate" Muslim country compared to others; where it turns out no other country has sent more fighters to help ISIS, 62% of people think a leader with a strong hand is better than a democratic form of government, and 83% of people think Tunisian law should either follow or strictly follow the Qu'ran. This is likely another ISIS inspired or ISIS sanctioned attack. Sources: http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/15/tunisian-confidence-in-democracy-wanes/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/tunisia-breeding-ground-islamic-state-fighters

Yes BLM does have membership. http://blacklivesmatter.com/find-chapters/ 'Card carrying member' is a figure of speech, not to be used literally in this instance. The point I was trying to get across is that few, if any of these people who attend these protests or riots are actual members of BLM. Regarding coverage, I could ask you the same question about police shootings caught on tape and aired on the news vs. the heroic or saintly things they do each day. I would argue with BLM however, that the bad is outweighing the good as the hostility levels between civilians and the police in this country is at an all-time high due to this movement spreading via social media. I don't think that's unfair at all to lump these troublemakers at BLM protests in with BLM themselves, because they cite BLM's cause(s) for their motivation of instigating riots, or killing cops, or spreading hate over the internet, or blocking the road ways at random so children trying to get to St. Jude's Hospital can't get through. http://patriottribune.com/43651/blm-block-child-st-jude-hospital/ Can I blame people for "being pissed off" and then behaving like this? Yes. This is the year 2016, and we're supposed to be the most advanced form of life on this planet, in a country that's supposedly the greatest in the world, and here we are in the U.S., with millions of morons who can't figure out that you need to use the political system to get political policies passed. Yelling at people on Facebook, posting like a know-it-all on YouTube police body cam videos, blocking the road ways with your bodies and rioting in large cites isn't going to help much with changing laws or getting stiffer penalties put in place for using force. This whole thing has turned into a big excuse to cause chaos. If people really wanted stuff to get done, they could properly organize themselves into an activist group that can get some laws passed or at least elect the right people to do so. And an intellectual at a BLM protest? Those guys in jorts with their shirts off, and a bandanna over their faces in the middle of the freeways are not intellectuals. That lady who "shut **** down", is not an intellectual. The closest people to that description would be the people who organized the protests, and I would still highly question the judgement of somebody who thinks blocking 70mph traffic with human bodies is a good idea. I appreciate the movement's cause, I appreciate their efforts, and I appreciate that they want to make a difference and instigate change; but I don't see any effort to reel back the nitwits among their ranks who are causing all the trouble, or educating people who have ill-will towards police or white people for the incorrect reasons or no reasons at all. BLM stands back and lets it happen; they act as a catalyst, as I mentioned earlier, for these riots, these shootings, these obstructive protests. An alternate view on this subject that everyone here on both sides of the BLM issue may consider interesting would be this man's post on Facebook: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36777582 BBC News calls it "The Black Cop Who Has a Problem With 'BLM'" He was quoted as saying "Black lives do not matter to most black people, only the lives of those taken at the hands of cops or white people matter." I suggest everybody give it a read, not just you or anyone specifically. It's a viewpoint very few, if any people on this forum can give us.

Which takes away your credibility to think out things with reason 100% of the time. You're getting faith and color involved, which is a bad mix. You live in America, and you can practice any religion you want, and you can feel free to dislike any skin color you want or believe that whatever skin color you like is better or incompatible with another, or however you want to spin it. But that does not make you free from criticism by your peers, which is what you're experiencing here on this forum board. I'd like to ask you to put your feelings and beliefs aside and rationalize these shootings (or not) by looking at the facts. That's not what happened but I'm not going to argue that with you, as I don't have the lifespan to debate you into seeing what's on screen vs. what you want to see. But I'd like to explain a couple of things to you regarding carrying a concealed weapon. When you are contacted by the police, you are required by law to inform the officer(s) upon first contact that you have a weapon and have a permit to carry it. You must be able to present that permit upon request. This is a requirement in most states, the only exception to this law I can think of off the top of my head is Alaska. For your safety, it's best to say something along the lines of "Hello, sir. Just so you know, I have a CCW permit and I am carrying. How would you like to handle that?" Failure to do those two things are arrest-able offenses. Furthermore, in many states police have the right to check whether a firearm you are carrying is loaded or not, and even in states where they don't, police officers can temporarily disarm you for the duration of a traffic stop or foot stop that was conducted under probable cause or under a terry stop, as by law; you are detained at that point. And that pretty much sums it up. You're going to see what you want to see based on the video provided, not what actually happened. Even if I could theoretically explain every nuance of that interaction to you, which I won't do; the bottom line is there was a lot of stuff you did not see, and never will see, because you weren't there. There are only three people who have a first hand account of what happened. One of them is dead, the other two have body camera footage leading up to the struggle that knocked their cameras loose. Any idiot can armchair quarterback a police shooting in a YouTube comment or on a Facebook post. It takes detailed knowledge of the law and law enforcement to actually analyze the video and determine fault. In the case of the CD "salesman", my view is that he had a concealed weapon on him, he put up a fight, the bottom officer was preoccupied trying to secure his legs, the top one had a free hand to draw his pistol when the bottom officer shouted that he had a gun and his right hand disappeared behind his torso. Where that hand went; nobody knows except the three involved in the fight, and body camera footage may show us. The shot was likely fired by the officer on the top because there was a perceived threat of him reaching for the concealed gun. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Agreed, but the "nice kid" narrative is getting old, And yes, "troll" is one of many choice words to describe him. My discussion with him might not go much longer as I can't make somebody un-see something they think they saw.

No, I was just pointing out that Eric is portrayed as an innocent martyr, as are other victims of these police shootings when in fact they weren't nice, innocent guys who did absolutely nothing wrong.