You've been brainwashed into that ridiculous nonsense since birth, so I can sympathize with you thinking it's "truth." But it isn't. It's ancient voodoo that your iron-age ancestors were forced to accept at swordpoint if they wanted to keep their heads.
And it's disappointing that you aren't smart or informed enough to be able to see that just like anyone who didn't grow up brainwashed into the cult.
a delivery system capable of reaching the US without detection and interception is as high of a wall as the bomb itself.
I think that's wishful thinking. Fewer than 10% of shipping containers are inspected; there just isn't the manpower. If a foreign power wanted to deliver a nuke to the U.S., they wouldn't need an ICBM. They'd just need to shove it on a cargo ship and label it "MRI machines."
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
You believe that the purpose of life is to apologize to a dead carpenter who was actually a god who impregnated a woman with himself so he could sacrifice himself to himself so he could accept your apology.
Christians don't like that paraphrase, but it's literally what their dipshit religion is.
And then you confidently strut around saying "Have you heard the good news? It's normal to be this retarded! And only I get to talk ad nauseam about my dumbfuck beliefs; everyone else should keep quiet about theirs."
I use italics so you can sort of hear in your head which words I'm emphasizing. It takes virtually no time at all to hit shift-8.
It's not like this place is some deep dark secret. I was on Ruqqus for a while, which I really liked. Then I was on Saidit, which was sort of okay. Then I tried Discuit, which was a complete fucking nightmare and I hate those people. Then I tried Gab, which absolutely fucking sucked. Now I'm looking at Scored.
I think the "How did you find this place?" question is supposed to imply that I'm not supposed to use a forum unless I share the attitude and opinions of most of the people on the forum. Well, that's exactly what I want to avoid, and exactly why I'm not on Reddit. Fuck conformity.
No, of course it's not normal to pick up isolated kids and drive them around. But the question of why someone is doing it is critical to figuring out what to do with them. That's basically the most obvious thing in the world, but most of the people here are like "Dude. Come on, read the room, we're just being racist for fun, we don't actually care about kids or crime or really anything else."
They're the people who had access to Rudakubana. Skepticism is a good thing, but in this case, if you ascribe any other motive to him, you're literally just making shit up for fun.
And you sound like a lonely faggot who wants to suck up to insane people because he can't find real friends.
That's a weird question to ask about a crime that took place in a constitutional monarchy with some democratic features.
It can be your opinion that the government is lying and Rudakubana actually had a political motive. But you'd just be making shit up in your own head to feel like a big bad rebel.
The finding of the police was that he wanted to bathe in any blood, and preferred soft targets.
No, it's not sane to "assume pedophile." It's sane to suspect it; it's not sane to assume it. Mental illness is a perfectly plausible motivation for what he did; there might not have been any sexual component to it at all.
I feel like there's got to be some rational part of you that knows that. Maybe I'm overestimating you.
Why would I whine about Christianity? Religion is suited only for drooling retards, but that's not a whine - it's a simple observation.
THAT’s literally the source you trust.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
No, months of interviews with detectives and forensic psychologists, who then reported their findings to the press.
No, you repeated yourself because you didn't have an answer to my argument and you didn't feel like shutting up.
Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
Obviously you don't want any Indian "here" (I guess "here" in this case is all of North America), so what do the facts of the case even matter to you? He could have saved the kid from a burning building and you'd still want him deported.
Meanwhile, over in some framework where people are actually sane, I'm a lot more interested in whether he's a child molester and whether he needs to be locked away for life for that. Or whether he's having mental health issues and another response is more appropriate.
You didn't even bother making an argument. You just sneeringly repeated yourself.
An observation: I've heard the phrase "demonstrating inferior intelligence" about fifty times at this point, and not once have I heard it from anyone who has ever had anything remotely intelligent to offer in any discussion.
We can't read his mind, but we can check his phone and computers and browsing history and interview a variety of people who know him. There's almost no pedophile who doesn't leave some kind of evidence trail that a search warrant will turn up.
The articles I read aren't clear on whether this was done. I hope it was. If it was, then obviously the search didn't turn anything up, since if it had he'd be looking at a much longer sentence.
I'm also hoping he's had a psychiatric evalution. The defense "It's okay to take strange children for rides in India" is an insane one. Of course it's not. It's not okay anywhere.
Motive is everything in a case like this. It's all I'd want to know if I were somehow in charge of sentencing him.
If he wanted to molest this kid, I want him locked away for life. If he just wanted to push the kid on a swing and drive him back home, I want him locked up for maybe like two months and then put under supervision for a few years, just as a very strong "Don't do that shit, you might think it's harmless but it terrifies parents. It's downright fucking traumatic. Never do anything like that again."
Of course all of that shit matters. If someone walks up to a 9-year-old and says "Hey, little man!" and offers a high-five, we don't call for death by firing squad. It may not be a perfectly appropriate thing to do, but it's not monstrous, either.
I don't know what his motive was. I don't know if he's simply a pedophile, or if he had some emotionally-fucked-up reason to want to play Big Brother for a few hours, or if there are voices in his head telling him to protect the kid from the Terminator, or just what the fuck that was all about.
Obviously it's wrong to take a kid for a drive while his parents panic. And obviously it's a lot more wrong if he was about to molest the kid than if the kid was never in any real danger. Those two crimes are quite different, and the penalty for them should be very different.
Looked it up. Weird fucking story.
So, Manoj Govindbalunikam saw a 9-year-old boy fishing at the river and asked if he wanted a ride home and offered him a fidget spinner to play with. He told him to go ahead and leave his fishing tackle and bike behind because it wouldn't fit in his car.
Then he took the boy out for ice cream. Then he asked the boy for his home address. He drove to the home address, but apparently didn't come to a complete stop. He slowed down to like two miles an hour and started accelerating again.
The boy's father saw his son in the car with a stranger, and came out screaming to get the fuck away from his son, which Govindbalunikam did.
Nothing sexual or violent happened, and he doesn't have any other history suggestive of being a pedo, but it's a huge what the fuck was that. In any culture, I'd think. I don't think there's any culture where it's cool to just pick up other people's kids and drive them around town.
He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, and I don't believe there's been a deportation hearing yet.
Women with sexual domination fantasies are pretty rare, but they do exist. It's definitely less than 10% of women, maybe even less than 5%. And the women who would brazenly act on those fantasies, even when the man was resisting? That's got to be a one-in-a-million occurrence. It's just so fucking rare.
Meanwhile, men with fantasies of being sexually dominated by women are a dime a dozen. Now, mentally ill men who would write their crazy kink stories into an actual lawsuit and actually file it in court - well, that's quite rare, but probably well more than one-in-a-million.
I'm gonna go with there being a >90% chance that he's making all this up, and a <10% chance that - holy shit, she actually played out a non-consensual racial-humiliation-sex-slave porn story in real life just because she wanted to and she had the opportunity.
Consider the question "what are the five best hamburgers in the United States."
If the only metric that matters is "units moved," then the best five hamburgers in the country are 1. The McDonald's Cheeseburger; 2. The Big Mac; 3. The Whopper; 4. The McDonald's Quarter Pounder With Cheese; 5. Dave's Single.
It's interesting that when it comes to hamburgers, we can all agree that these are not the best five hamburgers. In fact, these are all examples of garbage food, and are some of the worst hamburgers on the planet.
I tend to see music the same way. Mariah Carey is the Whopper of music. People who listen to Mariah Carey while eating a Whopper give a shit about neither music nor food. They just want to consume product, and that particular product has the distinction of being the most readily available.
Careful, there. Throughout history, people who have been too gleefully casual about talking about handing out "the rope" have often been among the first against the wall.