Terror attack in St.Petersburg Metro, 14 dead

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

The entire religion isn't our enemy, but some of the most rapidly growing denominations are.

If we want to fight Islamic terrorism, we have to acknowledge it. If world leaders refuse to acknowledge it, it will simply grow, and these attacks will continue. The dancing around the issue needs to stop. Wahhabism is Satanism, and it needs to be destroyed. No ifs, ands, or butts.

Indeed it does. Ceterum censeo Wahhabismus esse delendum!

[Bakery Hill]

Satanism is far better to be fair.

...Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Have you seen Satanists? They're a bunch of pretentious edgelords. They have neither the capacity or inclination for real violence.

[Crockerland]

Apparently, no city except Tel Aviv did anything to honor the victims of this attack or show solidarity with the people of Russia. http://theduran.com/tel-aviv-israel-is-only-country-to-light-up-city-in-russian-flag-colors-video/

[Shofercia]

Apparently, no city except Tel Aviv did anything to honor the victims of this attack or show solidarity with the people of Russia. http://theduran.com/tel-aviv-israel-is-only-country-to-light-up-city-in-russian-flag-colors-video/

That was a mistake on their part.

[Galloism]

I am. We don't deal with legality on things like terrorism. You get due process if you rob a bank. You get due process if you avoid taxes. You get due process if you're driving drunk, but don't hurt anyone. You don't get due process if you're a terrorist. When we knew that a black widow was a suicide bomber, and that a text was going to set off the bomb, we sent the text disguised a spam. How's that for due process?

(Image)

I want to see a source that the Russian security services "sent a text disguised as spam". A quick google search seems to indicate it WAS spam.

[Novus America]

I am. We don't deal with legality on things like terrorism. You get due process if you rob a bank. You get due process if you avoid taxes. You get due process if you're driving drunk, but don't hurt anyone. You don't get due process if you're a terrorist. When we knew that a black widow was a suicide bomber, and that a text was going to set off the bomb, we sent the text disguised a spam. How's that for due process?

(Image)

I want to see a source that the Russian security services "sent a text disguised as spam". A quick google search seems to indicate it WAS spam.

Also that terrorists get no due process. I mean Russia is not great with due process but they have not gone full on death squads outside of Chechnya.

[Shofercia]

I want to see a source that the Russian security services "sent a text disguised as spam". A quick google search seems to indicate it WAS spam.

Also that terrorists get no due process. I mean Russia is not great with due process but they have not gone full on death squads outside of Chechnya.

You do realize that you shouldn't be using death squads in the modern age, nor that terrorists should get public execution, right? My point was very simple: if the SpetzNaz knows who did it, they can go ahead and eliminate said murderers without due process. That's all I said. Oh, and there haven't been full on death squads in Chechnya either, aside from the fantasy portrayed in the press. Again, cut the politicized crap in this thread, you're the only one who seems to be doing that, Novus America.

[Novus America]

Also that terrorists get no due process. I mean Russia is not great with due process but they have not gone full on death squads outside of Chechnya.

You do realize that you shouldn't be using death squads in the modern age, nor that terrorists should get public execution, right? My point was very simple: if the SpetzNaz knows who did it, they can go ahead and eliminate said murderers without due process. That's all I said. Oh, and there haven't been full on death squads in Chechnya either, aside from the fantasy portrayed in the press. Again, cut the politicized crap in this thread, you're the only one who seems to be doing that, Novus America.

Sending people out to commit extrajudicial killings is death squads. And without a trial, you have no way of knowing.
Also look up human rights in Chechnya.

[Shofercia]

You do realize that you shouldn't be using death squads in the modern age, nor that terrorists should get public execution, right? My point was very simple: if the SpetzNaz knows who did it, they can go ahead and eliminate said murderers without due process. That's all I said. Oh, and there haven't been full on death squads in Chechnya either, aside from the fantasy portrayed in the press. Again, cut the politicized crap in this thread, you're the only one who seems to be doing that, Novus America.

Sending people out to commit extrajudicial killings is death squads. And without a trial, you have no way of knowing.
Also look up human rights in Chechnya.

So did the US Private Contractors send out death squads in Iraq? Should members of the Bush Administration be put on trial for it? Oh, and without a trial I have no way of knowing if someone committed a terrorist act? Really? So if they threatened to do it, took responsibility for it, had evidence of planning it found in their apartment, had wire transfers to fund it... all of that doesn't tell you that they did it? You need a trial for that? And yeah, I know that you're desperate to make Russia look like the bad guys, even in a thread about Russian Victims of a brutal terrorist attack, just like John McCain. That's why you sneakily mentioned "Russian Death Squads" in Chechnya, so that you can derail a condolences and information thread to your whims, because fuck everyone else who's participating in it, Novus needs to make Russia look bad... even though Chechnya has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

[Galloism]

Should members of the Bush Administration be put on trial

Yes, some of them anyway.

There's quite a few things that Bush administration officials should be put on trial for.

[Novus America]

Sending people out to commit extrajudicial killings is death squads. And without a trial, you have no way of knowing.
Also look up human rights in Chechnya.

So did the US Private Contractors send out death squads in Iraq? Should members of the Bush Administration be put on trial for it? Oh, and without a trial I have no way of knowing if someone committed a terrorist act? Really? So if they threatened to do it, took responsibility for it, had evidence of planning it found in their apartment, had wire transfers to fund it... all of that doesn't tell you that they did it? You need a trial for that? And yeah, I know that you're desperate to make Russia look like the bad guys, even in a thread about Russian Victims of a brutal terrorist attack, just like John McCain. That's why you sneakily mentioned "Russian Death Squads" in Chechnya, so that you can derail a condolences and information thread to your whims, because fuck everyone else who's participating in it, Novus needs to make Russia look bad... even though Chechnya has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

Fair enough, I will leave Chechnya out of it.
Thing is you are literally advocating death squads. Did Bush authorize contractors to kill anyone in the US the suspected of being terrorists? No.
But Bush is not a model to emulate, right? So leave out the Tu Quoque.

You are the one trying to make Russia to look like the bad guys. Thankfully I doubt Russia will do what you advocate.

Now if you want to bomb terrorists fighting against you in Syria or Libya? Fine. That is war, and because law and order does not exist in those places there may be no other choice.

But Russia has police, laws and courts. Which should deal with things according to the law inside Russia.
Russian citizens should have a right to a fair trial regardless of the crime the are suspected of. I am sure that is in your constitution is it not? Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die"?
And if you are not having a trial who determines when the evidence is enough?

[Shofercia]

So did the US Private Contractors send out death squads in Iraq? Should members of the Bush Administration be put on trial for it? Oh, and without a trial I have no way of knowing if someone committed a terrorist act? Really? So if they threatened to do it, took responsibility for it, had evidence of planning it found in their apartment, had wire transfers to fund it... all of that doesn't tell you that they did it? You need a trial for that? And yeah, I know that you're desperate to make Russia look like the bad guys, even in a thread about Russian Victims of a brutal terrorist attack, just like John McCain. That's why you sneakily mentioned "Russian Death Squads" in Chechnya, so that you can derail a condolences and information thread to your whims, because fuck everyone else who's participating in it, Novus needs to make Russia look bad... even though Chechnya has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

Fair enough, I will leave Chechnya out of it.
Thing is you are literally advocating death squads. Did Bush authorize contractors to kill anyone in the US the suspected of being terrorists? No.
But Bush is not a model to emulate, right? So leave out the Tu Quoque.

You are the one trying to make Russia to look like the bad guys. Thankfully I doubt Russia will do what you advocate.

Now if you want to bomb terrorists fighting against you in Syria or Libya? Fine. That is war, and because law and order does not exist in those places there may be no other choice.

But Russia has police, laws and courts. Which should deal with things according to the law inside Russia.
Russian citizens should have a right to a fair trial regardless of the crime the are suspected of. I am sure that is in your constitution is it not? Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die"?
And if you are not having a trial who determines when the evidence is enough?

I am advocating covert elimination of terrorists. The problem with death squads is that they spread terror. That's why I said that the first step is to make sure that you find terrorists. The second step is to take them out. Was Obama heading off a death squad when he ordered the raid that killed Osama? That's what I'm advocating. So it's not unless I think you should die; did you commit, or attempt to commit, an act of mass murder against innocent civilians? If so, hasta la vista bitch. If not, then the suggestion doesn't apply.

Mere suspicion is not enough. You have to have concrete proof. Like the proof I listed earlier. And I trust that the Special Forces trained just for this, who are the best, or some of the best, at their jobs, would be able to do their jobs. Every sane country does this, or should do this. The point is to find out exactly who did it, and eliminate them. We trust expert witnesses over laymen, when it comes to their tasks. Same thing applies here.

Let me give you hypothetical example, since you're still confused. Terrorist writes on his blog "I am going to kill as many civilians as I can because... [insert random shit here]" Before that, terrorist downloads bombing instructions. Terrorists then proceeds to strap bombs to himself, and head to the city center. The Special Forces intercept him on the way. A sniper is in position. He has two choices: kill terrorist or fire off a tranquilizer round. I'd be fine with him killing said terrorist.

Or lets say that someone committed an act of terror, and then turned himself in. Everyone saw him do it. After he committed said act, he surrenders. What's wrong with shooting him right then and there, if he just killed scores of innocent people and several hundred people saw him do it.

Or lets say that someone has little kids in her garage, that she's murdering on camera. After murdering all 20 of them, she smiles at the camera and turns herself in. Again, I'm not seeing an issue if, on the way to the Courthouse, there was an "accident" where she "flew" out of the car, and died.

Again, the proof has to be blatant. It cannot simply be "I think this person did it, but I'm not sure."

[Novus America]

Fair enough, I will leave Chechnya out of it.
Thing is you are literally advocating death squads. Did Bush authorize contractors to kill anyone in the US the suspected of being terrorists? No.
But Bush is not a model to emulate, right? So leave out the Tu Quoque.

You are the one trying to make Russia to look like the bad guys. Thankfully I doubt Russia will do what you advocate.

Now if you want to bomb terrorists fighting against you in Syria or Libya? Fine. That is war, and because law and order does not exist in those places there may be no other choice.

But Russia has police, laws and courts. Which should deal with things according to the law inside Russia.
Russian citizens should have a right to a fair trial regardless of the crime the are suspected of. I am sure that is in your constitution is it not? Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die"?
And if you are not having a trial who determines when the evidence is enough?

I am advocating covert elimination of terrorists. The problem with death squads is that they spread terror. That's why I said that the first step is to make sure that you find terrorists. The second step is to take them out. Was Obama heading off a death squad when he ordered the raid that killed Osama? That's what I'm advocating. So it's not unless I think you should die; did you commit, or attempt to commit, an act of mass murder against innocent civilians? If so, hasta la vista bitch. If not, then the suggestion doesn't apply.

Mere suspicion is not enough. You have to have concrete proof. Like the proof I listed earlier. And I trust that the Special Forces trained just for this, who are the best, or some of the best, at their jobs, would be able to do their jobs. Every sane country does this, or should do this. The point is to find out exactly who did it, and eliminate them. We trust expert witnesses over laymen, when it comes to their tasks. Same thing applies here.

Let me give you hypothetical example, since you're still confused. Terrorist writes on his blog "I am going to kill as many civilians as I can because... [insert random shit here]" Before that, terrorist downloads bombing instructions. Terrorists then proceeds to strap bombs to himself, and head to the city center. The Special Forces intercept him on the way. A sniper is in position. He has two choices: kill terrorist or fire off a tranquilizer round. I'd be fine with him killing said terrorist.

Or lets say that someone committed an act of terror, and then turned himself in. Everyone saw him do it. After he committed said act, he surrenders. What's wrong with shooting him right then and there, if he just killed scores of innocent people and several hundred people saw him do it.

Or lets say that someone has little kids in her garage, that she's murdering on camera. After murdering all 20 of them, she smiles at the camera and turns herself in. Again, I'm not seeing an issue if, on the way to the Courthouse, there was an "accident" where she "flew" out of the car, and died.

Again, the proof has to be blatant. It cannot simply be "I think this person did it, but I'm not sure."

Osama was killed in combat scenario. That is different. If Spetnaz want to go into Raqqa and get al-Baghdadi and shoot him if he resists sure, great go for it, just obey the laws of war, and I will support it 100%. Or drop a bomb on him. That is war.

There is a big difference between policing and war. And policing should be used wherever the courts are working and the law can be enforced.

But you are still advocating UNECCESARY extrajudicial killing. You absolute should not be murdering prisoners in custody without trial, regardless of how much proof you have.
If someone is arrested, turned themselves in, they absolutely must be given a fair trial.
Again. Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die" in the Russian constitution?

And again who makes the determination when it is okay?

We have courts for a reason.

[Shofercia]

I am advocating covert elimination of terrorists. The problem with death squads is that they spread terror. That's why I said that the first step is to make sure that you find terrorists. The second step is to take them out. Was Obama heading off a death squad when he ordered the raid that killed Osama? That's what I'm advocating. So it's not unless I think you should die; did you commit, or attempt to commit, an act of mass murder against innocent civilians? If so, hasta la vista bitch. If not, then the suggestion doesn't apply.

Mere suspicion is not enough. You have to have concrete proof. Like the proof I listed earlier. And I trust that the Special Forces trained just for this, who are the best, or some of the best, at their jobs, would be able to do their jobs. Every sane country does this, or should do this. The point is to find out exactly who did it, and eliminate them. We trust expert witnesses over laymen, when it comes to their tasks. Same thing applies here.

Let me give you hypothetical example, since you're still confused. Terrorist writes on his blog "I am going to kill as many civilians as I can because... [insert random shit here]" Before that, terrorist downloads bombing instructions. Terrorists then proceeds to strap bombs to himself, and head to the city center. The Special Forces intercept him on the way. A sniper is in position. He has two choices: kill terrorist or fire off a tranquilizer round. I'd be fine with him killing said terrorist.

Or lets say that someone committed an act of terror, and then turned himself in. Everyone saw him do it. After he committed said act, he surrenders. What's wrong with shooting him right then and there, if he just killed scores of innocent people and several hundred people saw him do it.

Or lets say that someone has little kids in her garage, that she's murdering on camera. After murdering all 20 of them, she smiles at the camera and turns herself in. Again, I'm not seeing an issue if, on the way to the Courthouse, there was an "accident" where she "flew" out of the car, and died.

Again, the proof has to be blatant. It cannot simply be "I think this person did it, but I'm not sure."

Osama was killed in combat scenario. That is different. If Spetnaz want to go into Raqqa and get al-Baghdadi and shoot him if he resists sure, great go for it, just obey the laws of war, and I will support it 100%. Or drop a bomb on him. That is war.

There is a big difference between policing and war. And policing should be used wherever the courts are working and the law can be enforced.

But you are still advocating UNECCESARY extrajudicial killing. You absolute should not be murdering prisoners in custody without trial, regardless of how much proof you have.
If someone is arrested, turned themselves in, they absolutely must be given a fair trial.
Again. Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die" in the Russian constitution?

And again who makes the determination when it is okay?

We have courts for a reason.

Once again, it's not unless I think you should die. Did you commit an act of terror? If so, hasta la vista. If not, then not. Otherwise you're encouraging terrorism. The consequence of terrorism should be death. And when you are committing an act of terror, you get dealt with by the military, not the police. It is war rather than policing. The solution is quite simple: don't massively kill innocent people in large numbers. Why don't you actually talk to the people who were affected by acts of terror, rather than comfortably sitting and typing behind your computer screen. Actual knowledge might change your mind.

And yes, like I said earlier, it would be technically illegal in Russia. I also doubt that anyone would convict you, if you killed a terrorist. Does Jury Nullification ring a bell? There was this giant Hollywood movie, where a black girl gets raped, and murdered, and her rapist and murderer goes free. The father tries working the system, fails. So the father of the girl kills him. Through Jury Nullification, he goes free. And what happened there was a rape & murder, not an act of terror, which is several times worse.

Why don't you ask the parents of the kids he murdered, how they feel about Anders Breivik having the ability to go free.

[Luminesa]

...Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Have you seen Satanists? They're a bunch of pretentious edgelords. They have neither the capacity or inclination for real violence.

When you put it that way...lol.

[Luminesa]

Apparently, no city except Tel Aviv did anything to honor the victims of this attack or show solidarity with the people of Russia. http://theduran.com/tel-aviv-israel-is-only-country-to-light-up-city-in-russian-flag-colors-video/

"Hey, people died in a terrorist attack in Paris! Let's all change our FB profile-pics to show flags of France! LET'S STAND WITH FRANCE!!!"
"Oh wait, the people who died were in RUSSIA?! Eh. We don't like Russia. No support for them as countless people undergo a tremendous and violent loss of their family members to a psychotic terrorist."

Absolutely disgusting. The mass media has turned us into psychopaths. We ignore the innocent people who have died, and refuse to extend even our slightest sympathies, because "RUSSIA IS INHERENTLY EVIL SO WE CANNOT EVEN LOOK AT THEM WITHOUT SHOWING DISGUST." After the 9/11 attacks in the United States, Russia extended her sympathies alongside many other countries in the world. Obviously, this attack was not quite anywhere near the catastrophic scale of 9/11, but it was a terrorist attack in a majority city on a civilian population. We should at least show solidarity with the people who are suffering these losses, who are not a part of the politics, and who will have to deal with these losses for a very long time.

[Novus America]

Apparently, no city except Tel Aviv did anything to honor the victims of this attack or show solidarity with the people of Russia. http://theduran.com/tel-aviv-israel-is-only-country-to-light-up-city-in-russian-flag-colors-video/

"Hey, people died in a terrorist attack in Paris! Let's all change our FB profile-pics to show flags of France! LET'S STAND WITH FRANCE!!!"
"Oh wait, the people who died were in RUSSIA?! Eh. We don't like Russia. No support for them as countless people undergo a tremendous and violent loss of their family members to a psychotic terrorist."

Absolutely disgusting. The mass media has turned us into psychopaths. We ignore the innocent people who have died, and refuse to extend even our slightest sympathies, because "RUSSIA IS INHERENTLY EVIL SO WE CANNOT EVEN LOOK AT THEM WITHOUT SHOWING DISGUST." After the 9/11 attacks in the United States, Russia extended her sympathies alongside many other countries in the world. Obviously, this attack was not quite anywhere near the catastrophic scale of 9/11, but it was a terrorist attack in a majority city on a civilian population. We should at least show solidarity with the people who are suffering these losses, who are not a part of the politics, and who will have to deal with these losses for a very long time.

I do agree with you on this. As much as I dislike the Russian government, the neo-McCarthyism is crazy. Talk to the Russian ambassador? Traitor! Burn him!
Imagine if the Trump lit up the white house like the Russian flag? The media would go insane and call for him to be impeached.

It is sad that innocent Russians died, and also sad that there is this neo-McCarthyist crap.

When I of all people say the anti-Russian thing has gone too far, it has definitely gone to far.

[Luminesa]

"Hey, people died in a terrorist attack in Paris! Let's all change our FB profile-pics to show flags of France! LET'S STAND WITH FRANCE!!!"
"Oh wait, the people who died were in RUSSIA?! Eh. We don't like Russia. No support for them as countless people undergo a tremendous and violent loss of their family members to a psychotic terrorist."

Absolutely disgusting. The mass media has turned us into psychopaths. We ignore the innocent people who have died, and refuse to extend even our slightest sympathies, because "RUSSIA IS INHERENTLY EVIL SO WE CANNOT EVEN LOOK AT THEM WITHOUT SHOWING DISGUST." After the 9/11 attacks in the United States, Russia extended her sympathies alongside many other countries in the world. Obviously, this attack was not quite anywhere near the catastrophic scale of 9/11, but it was a terrorist attack in a majority city on a civilian population. We should at least show solidarity with the people who are suffering these losses, who are not a part of the politics, and who will have to deal with these losses for a very long time.

I do agree with you on this. As much as I dislike the Russian government, the neo-McCarthyism is crazy. Talk to the Russian ambassador? Traitor! Burn him!
Imagine if the Trump lit up the white house like the Russian flag? The media would go insane and call for him to be impeached.

It is sad that innocent Russians died, and also sad that there is this neo-McCarthyist crap.

When I of all people say the anti-Russian thing has gone too far, it has definitely gone to far.

Absolutely. I also recalling reading that, after 9/11, while all of these countries were consoling us, I remember Iraq going on and saying, "The American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity." Is that the message that we're giving Russia, during this time of crisis? Have we really lowered ourselves to this level?

[Novus America]

Osama was killed in combat scenario. That is different. If Spetnaz want to go into Raqqa and get al-Baghdadi and shoot him if he resists sure, great go for it, just obey the laws of war, and I will support it 100%. Or drop a bomb on him. That is war.

There is a big difference between policing and war. And policing should be used wherever the courts are working and the law can be enforced.

But you are still advocating UNECCESARY extrajudicial killing. You absolute should not be murdering prisoners in custody without trial, regardless of how much proof you have.
If someone is arrested, turned themselves in, they absolutely must be given a fair trial.
Again. Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die" in the Russian constitution?

And again who makes the determination when it is okay?

We have courts for a reason.

Once again, it's not unless I think you should die. Did you commit an act of terror? If so, hasta la vista. If not, then not. Otherwise you're encouraging terrorism. The consequence of terrorism should be death. And when you are committing an act of terror, you get dealt with by the military, not the police. It is war rather than policing. The solution is quite simple: don't massively kill innocent people in large numbers. Why don't you actually talk to the people who were affected by acts of terror, rather than comfortably sitting and typing behind your computer screen. Actual knowledge might change your mind.

And yes, like I said earlier, it would be technically illegal in Russia. I also doubt that anyone would convict you, if you killed a terrorist. Does Jury Nullification ring a bell? There was this giant Hollywood movie, where a black girl gets raped, and murdered, and her rapist and murderer goes free. The father tries working the system, fails. So the father of the girl kills him. Through Jury Nullification, he goes free. And what happened there was a rape & murder, not an act of terror, which is several times worse.

Why don't you ask the parents of the kids he murdered, how they feel about Anders Breivik having the ability to go free.

Once again, who decides? If not the courts who? Who writes your death list? How are they held accountable so that it is not abused?

And is Russia in such anarchy and chaos the civil authorities cannot function? No.
So civil authorities should handle it. Plain and simple.

I know people who have experienced these things. But how angry they are, no matter how justifiably angry, does not justify extrajudicial killings.
Ans argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

We have courts for a reason. And I am very glad such extreme and immoral action is illegal in Russia.
And I am not "encouraging terrorism" any more than saying murderers should have a right to trial is encouraging murder.

And what do you define as terrorism anyways? What if a terrorist kills one person, and a mass shooter with no political cause 30? Why is the terrorist worse?
Who decides and how and who gets put on your death lists?

And I have no problem with the outcome being death. Hold a trial, find them guilty, sentence them to death, execute them. If they resist arrest by violence? Well shooting could certain be justified. If taking them peacefully is impossible you might HAVE to kill them. See there are certainly times killing them without trial may be justified, but not all the times.
You should not kill them where a trial is possible.

That is the law, and the law needs to be enforced. Want them dead? Make the crime punishable by death.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

If we want to fight Islamic terrorism, we have to acknowledge it. If world leaders refuse to acknowledge it, it will simply grow, and these attacks will continue. The dancing around the issue needs to stop. Wahhabism is Satanism, and it needs to be destroyed. No ifs, ands, or butts.

Satanism is far better to be fair.

Of course, because worshipping the enemy of kindness is so much better. Sarcasm/

[Luminesa]

Satanism is far better to be fair.

Of course, because worshipping the enemy of kindness is so much better. Sarcasm/

I mean...saying Satanism is better than Wahhabism is not much.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Of course, because worshipping the enemy of kindness is so much better. Sarcasm/

I mean...saying Satanism is better than Wahhabism is not much.

Oh yes.

[Gim]

If we want to fight Islamic terrorism, we have to acknowledge it. If world leaders refuse to acknowledge it, it will simply grow, and these attacks will continue. The dancing around the issue needs to stop. Wahhabism is Satanism, and it needs to be destroyed. No ifs, ands, or butts.

Satanism is far better to be fair.

No...not really.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Satanism is far better to be fair.

No...not really.

Yes it is.

Wahhabism is one of the most vile and reprehensible forms of religion out there. Satanism is far better.

[Gim]

No...not really.

Yes it is.

Wahhabism is one of the most vile and reprehensible forms of religion out there. Satanism is far better.

Neither is better. They are both highly reprehensible and vile.