Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

You seem nice.

:-/

not a fan of grossout humor, personally

great

Taliban never weren't in control: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=map+of+the+military+situation+in+afghanistan&ia=web

Look at how much green is in this map Aug 1, 2020: https://pic8.co/sh/SzIfU0.jpeg

If I was Pompeo, I'd play pawn to C3 so I could do something with that black-squared bishop and the advanced knight.

He will be tried in abstentia as he can't be extradited to Burkina Faso

That's the idea.

If you build pro-freedom tools that empower users, you understand you'll empower bad users and good, but consider it a net benefit. This applies to most technology and infrastructure. Putting a gatekeeper on the tech isn't the answer.

There's only one empire?

You could get Michel Thomas on Ye Corsair Cove and listen to it offline. That's pretty private.

Anki is good.

It's likely to be pretty figure-out-able from the debate and statements surrounding it.

Some countries have laws against covering the face in general, including motorcycle helmets and Guy Fawkes masks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law

Some are scurred of anonymous suicide bombers in burqas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa#Chad

I think that when assessing the actions of a state/implementation of laws you’ve got to ask who is doing it and why they are doing it

Lawmakers usually give some explanation or justification, like the Danes banned it because it's incompatible with Danish cultcha and the Chinese because they think it's linked to extremism and terrorism.

But in this specific situation also the things mentioned are not part of the actual traditional culture of the region and the people, but something deliberately spread by a more extreme tendency of the religion

Does that make it more justified or less?

Folks love a controversy.

Removed by mod