Elerond

No but there are many people in the West who wont call ISIS Islamic because they are acting in a way that many Islamic commentators say they aren't Muslim. Obama for example doesn't refer to them as Islamic For me I don't know why people think it matters. As I said earlier most people know they don't represent the Muslim community Actually as long as we call them ISIS or ISIL we are calling them Islamic as we accept them to be part of Islam in their name. It is clever branding trick from their leaders. Even Daesh term, which said leaders are said to hate, has implication that they are Islamic. I would not be so bold and assume that most of people know that they don't represent Islam and Muslim community, because even though there isn't actually any good study about subject, so polls and political behavior seem to show that people link them more and more heavily to mainstream Islam.

Funnily didn't got actually any of your facts right. But on other hand you got them just so as people from Nordic Countries seem to want to represent their countries to outside world. First Finland is not actually part of Scandinavia (and also there isn't one single approach that Nordic countries have adopted towards any immigrants, but they all have quite different way to approach the subject) Second Nordic countries don't actually give special privileges for Muslims or other immigrants, but instead immigrants often have difficulties to get same utilities that typical members of original population have. Third Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland actually have given military assistance against ISIS for quite long time now. Which is thing that comes as surprise for quite many Nordic people. Forth there isn't not actually those certain districts (where ambulances and firefighters need police escort) even in Sweden where those "news" about it come. I would say that reason why Nordic countries aren't targeted by Islamic terrorists (although Denmark was already target of such attack), is because they are poor targets for them. Because even in Sweden, that has largest Muslim population in Nordic Countries, Muslims make only 5% of total population, which means that amount of people that could be recruited to do such attacks is low. Also attacks in Nordic countries will produce much less coverage for their ideology. Also it is worth to note that Islam isn't actually one single religion, which has quite big influence in current crisis in Iraq and Syria. And it is also quite important factor when it comes to question how probable it is that some members of Muslim population become radicalized. Interesting article to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/11/21/whatever-the-heck-bernie-sanders-is-talking-about-its-not-socialism/ The senile old man is confused, or more likely lying. He says he's against capitalism, so he has to be a Socialist, what else is there? Or may be he just doesn't know what all those big words actually mean. Main idea behind socialist movements is to lower economical disparity between people. In classical marxism that means moving means of production from individuals to collective ownership of people, but that is not only way to approach the subject. Sanders seems to follow more right-wing version of socialistic ideologies where social equality is produced with market centered ways like progressive taxations, central buying system for social services, income support for poor and so on. But ownership of everything would still be private and government's role is to equalize money distribution instead of production.

So more rebels, terrorist and supporters of al-Assad is answer to current crisis, I see.

I would say that double edged lasersaber could be used in similar fashion as quarterstaff(short staff in half-staff grip. And it could have some advantages over regular lightsaber like ability block and bind opponent's saber with one edge and attack with another. But I would say also that it don't have similar reach advantage as staff does as you can't move to grip to quarter of staff grip to give you longer reach and jabs have much shorter distance and don't have similar reach and speed advantage as they have in regular staff fighting. Of course laser edges bring some of their own advantages (and disadvantages) that regular staffs (even edged staffs) don't have. But really there is no logic in lasersabres as if star wars universe would have even close similar physics than our universe lasersaber would be mostly weaker choice than regular sword. But we know that it isn't true and Star Wars universe have its own physics that differ from ones that we are familiar with. And overall lasersaber is very unpractical choice of weaponry especially in context where it is used, but do people really care of that fact? Probably not .

It should remembered that every jedi and sith should make their own lightsabers and current sith didn't really have anybody to show and teach what they should aim towards (like how Luke just copied his father's lightsaber design, who used Obi-Wan Kenobi's design and so on), so its unique look in Star Wars universe could be because of that.(even though in reality it is just because movie's costume designer liked that look)

What is EU4? Europa Universalis IV, it is grand strategy game, that focuses on civilization management, from Paradox Interactive.

It is just like western countries have never killed anybody it is just made look like they have done so by using dummies. And western countries have never enslaved anybody, or occupied lands like Malaysia, all those are acted ruses that didn't really happen.

No. Vailian Republics is like Canada, Australia or New Zealand and Old Vailian is Great Britain. (Or maybe Brasil as Vailian Republics and Portugal as Old Vailian would be better example as Vailian language has it roots in romance languages)

There is a ongoing terrorist attack in Mali where terrorist are holding 170 people in hotel. Media sources say jihadists, no knowledge if they belong ISIS or boko haran or some other group

It was added in Treaty of Lisbon this is fist time it's triggered.

France in war against ISIS/terrorism is at least somewhat understandable after two terrorist attacks in one year, but what I find more troubling is how quietly and bit celebrating at least Finnish media has taken the fact that article 222 from Treaty of Lisbon was triggered by France and EU's Defense ministers accepted it, so whole EU is now effectively in war with ISIS/terrorism at least in sense of giving military assistance and troops for France.

They constantly reminded themselves during development what were the core values they promised in KS pitch and what were the additional promises in stretch goals. You can see that Obsidian has tried to realise every promise that they made, even if they didn't have ability to implement it on such level that it is meaningful addition to the game. So I would say that they would had done different decision during development if they hadn't been so locked by their promises during KS.

Do you really not see a difference between Not taking initiative to publicly mourn something, as long as no-one is asking you to.and Actively showing disrespect and spite for other people's mourning, like booing(!) a minute of silence.? Let's just disingenuously group both of those under "not caring enough" and equivocate away? PS: Also, it makes perfect sense for FIFA to a have a minute of silence when a major terrorist attack happened right next to its own soccer game, and the terrorists in fact tried to target that game's audience and players - while not having a minute of silence for every other unrelated tragedy around the world. The core of the problem is, that no one asked anyone to mourn for Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kenya... Some people then might come to conclusion, that some lives are not as worthy as others... Although people have been asked to mourn Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kenya, Tunisia, Nigeria (most recent victim), etc, tragedies. But ones doing the asking aren't necessary always same also stage where mourning is done changes. But tragedies in home front get always more recognition than tragedies else where. So tragedies, in west get more notice in west than tragedies that happen in somewhere else. Because not in sight not in mind is very real psychological phenomenon that effects most of the people in world. Western tragedies are often more noticeable around world because western media is so dominant compared to other medias. And of course all western countries aren't equal, like for example tragedy in Finland gets much less notice than similar tragedy in USA. But it is just reality that those with more power and influence get more notice than those with less.

Victim is always the predator, if we listen those that support the attacker. There are always things that victim did to provoke the attack at least for the attacker, because attackers very rarely accept that fault is solely in them.

Grenades are excellent in areas that are infested by feral ghouls as you can throw one every time you see ghouls starting to spawn (wake up and crawl in from windows and other holes) as they usually kill most of the spawning ghouls. But I hate fact that they are binded in same key as bash

Like this Answer is usually nothing happens. Really? http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fired-anti-semitic-cartoonist-ridiculing-judaism-2009/ As I said usually nothing, but in this case Charlie Hebdo had to pay Maurice Sinet 40000€ for wrongful termination. Meaning that his firing was against law. EDIT: Also just to point out he is also person that said this, in interview shortly after terrorist attack against Jews in Paris 1982, "Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it ... I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die." EDIT2: Also it isn't only speaks against Jews that can get you fired. As also openly speaking against Islam and Muslims can cause same reaction. http://www.dw.com/en/prominent-french-journalist-and-tv-personality-fired-for-islamophobia/a-18145516 (dated 22.12.2014) "Polarizing French journalist and writer, Eric Zemmour, has been sacked from his recurring gig on a French chat show for the iTELE channel following remarks widely seen as anti-Islamic last week."

Like this Answer is usually nothing happens.

Muslims would make so good communists if there wasn't that part of communism that say that all religions are evil and should be banned. People don't act without realizing when they are drunk, their ability to control their impulses weakens significantly, as do their ability for fine motor control over their body. So if you one might to commit murder, rape, adultery or some other nasty act when they are drunk there is high change that they also could do such acts when they aren't drunk. Bad behavior is not caused by alcohol, but those person themselves that behave badly. Alcohol may cause them act bad way in public because their ability to think consequences of their actions has been weakened, but behavior itself comes from people themselves.

They burned lots more than just books from Jews. They also burned books from communists and some other groups of people the didn't like, like for example Muslims. Germans achieved as high technology as most other nations with resources in that time. They had bit lead in military technology as they prepared to war where other nations focused to make everyday lives of their citizens better, like for example penicillin and other medical breakthroughs that have given us ability vanquish lots of deadly diseases.

That is funniest claim that I have read today. 10/10 and parrot mark. I approve. It is not a claim, watch the video, Germans was devout Catholic and practicing Catholic laws under the Nazi. True Christians don't get drunk. Today Christians are secular Christians and drunk Yeah, but I am currently drinking German beer that comes from brewery that is founded 1543 AD. And I know that there are hundreds, even thousands such old breweries in German. Also Catholic church and other major Christian religions don't ban consumption of alcoholic beverages. It should be noted that one of the miracles that Christians believe Jesus did is to change water to wine so that everybody in party can continue to drink. There are Christian religions that look badly drinking and encourage or even ban drinking alcoholic beverages, but those have been always minority within Christians and are most of the time considered to be extremist movements. But true and not so true Christians have drunk alcohol as long as Christianity has existed.

Such book would be allowed in most western countries without second glance from our governments. Private citizens would probably organize book burning events and lament how bad said book is, but that probably would be it. Because there is no point to ban such books as people could easily read same thing from internet and banning such books just give them more power. As far as i know, only in America having "burn the Quran day".....no country ever burn any books. Book banning is not book burning. Bans can be lifted, otherwise it remain in storage, or not even allowed to enter the country Most of banned books are destroyed, some time literally burning them most of time they are just recycled and paper from them is used from somewhere else. This of course don't mean that every copy of banned books are destroyed, but usually most of them. (This of course references cases where banner is government) Nazis for example burned thousands of books, and similar burnings have been actually quite common in history. USA maybe only country that has "burn the Quran day", but it is not only country which citizens have done such acts. But these are cases where private citizen burning books that they usually own themselves, not government banning and destroying them. And yes bans can be lifted and there can be new runs of said books. As said banning and burning books don't destroy/prevent content of those books.

That is funniest claim that I have read today. 10/10 and parrot mark. I approve.

Such book would be allowed in most western countries without second glance from our governments. Private citizens would probably organize book burning events and lament how bad said book is, but that probably would be it. Because there is no point to ban such books as people could easily read same thing from internet and banning such books just give them more power.

That is name that Jewry use of their god/the God (if we take idea that all Abrahamic religions worship same god). Bible if it is Christian bible should not have any specific name for the God as naming him is one of the worst sins that a Christian can do. Although I know that there are some religions that use Bible and they give name for the God, but they aren't considered to be Christians by main Christian religions.