Don't allow players and clans named after terrorists

We should stop acting like that.. it not a problem about clans.... It there own will, not that they will make any difference however if they started to do suspicious activity on the forums and global ... Then they should be taken down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paddyflynn

I am not islamophobic. I am fine with any religion, as long as they don't think that the way to please god is through slavery, forced conversions, torture, etc. Religion isn't a free-for-all that you can use to justify whatever you want.

I'm against all kinds of racist and terrorist behavior, not just those related to Muslims. Some clans are called Nazi and KKK also, and I don't think SC should allow that either.

I really don't get your "as long as it isn't directly offensive" comment. What could be more offensive than a group that advocates cutting people's hands off for smoking, stoning people who commit adultery, raping and enslaving women captured in battle? Are you trying to say that this is not offensive but a name containing profanity would be? I have to disagree.

---

You do realize Christianity condones that stuff too.
So should a player named Christian be banned.

There are good parts to every religion; the bad just gets displayed while people ignore the good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gama321

But terrorists are people too and it is only natural that other people share those names. Reporting someone who happens to share the same name as a terrorist seems unacceptable and completely unnecessary to me

---

Its true that there might be people born with the same name as a terrorist. As for names such as Isis or jihad etc those are unacceptable

oh FFS.

is this real?
it cant be.

ive seen some dumb posts in my time over many different forums, but man, this has to take the cake.

FOX news has really done a number on you if you are so scared and afraid of someone in a video game with the name of bin laden, or a clan name relating to some jihadist movement.

do you honestly believe that these people are recruiting in a mobile game app?
do you honestly think that someone is gonna join a clan with the name of some jihadist movement so they can go to isis?
paranoid much?

in the end its like this, just because you are offended, does not mean you are right.

would someone please close this ridiculously nonsensical thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinner7980

oh FFS.


do you honestly believe that these people are recruiting in a mobile game app?
do you honestly think that someone is gonna join a clan with the name of some jihadist movement so they can go to isis?
paranoid much?

---

I think people join these clans because they are sympathetic to the cause. Why else would they join those clans, when there are so many alternatives?

If I were recruiting for a terrorist organization, and I knew that there was a clan of 30 or 40 sympathizers playing a certain game, I'd see that as an opportunity to make some contacts.

Names like, 'Al-Baghdadi' or 'Bin Laden' are others people's name too.

'Al-Baghdadi' can refer to alot of people, as it means 'from Baghdad'.

'Bin Laden' means 'son of Laden'.

Though, I do agree as clans with names, such as 'IS' should be dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paddyflynn

I am not islamophobic. I am fine with any religion, as long as they don't think that the way to please god is through slavery, forced conversions, torture, etc. Religion isn't a free-for-all that you can use to justify whatever you want.

I'm against all kinds of racist and terrorist behavior, not just those related to Muslims. Some clans are called Nazi and KKK also, and I don't think SC should allow that either.

I really don't get your "as long as it isn't directly offensive" comment. What could be more offensive than a group that advocates cutting people's hands off for smoking, stoning people who commit adultery, raping and enslaving women captured in battle? Are you trying to say that this is not offensive but a name containing profanity would be? I have to disagree.

---

What is being said is that everyone has different viewpoints and ideas about what is morally right and wrong. The Maori used to eat thie enemy's flesh after a battle if they had no food to sustain them on the way back. It wasn't cannibalism. They just needed meat and their dead enemy provided them that. Viewpoints.

US citizens are like a flock of sheep.. You respond so well to propaganda. You think you're independent and unaffected by it but everything you know about these terrorist groups comes from the news. The news is utterly controlled by the government. They want you to be paranoid so that their inhumane actions in the middle east continue to get support. The terrorists aren't the real threat. Its the government placing the terror in your hearts.

If a child looks up 'Bin Laden' or any other terrorist name in the 'clan search', they ALREADY know about it...
And people can still talk about terrorism in the chat... Your "solution" would solve nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coloradokiwiboy

US citizens are like a flock of sheep.. You respond so well to propaganda. You think you're independent and unaffected by it but everything you know about these terrorist groups comes from the news. The news is utterly controlled by the government. They want you to be paranoid so that their inhumane actions in the middle east continue to get support. The terrorists aren't the real threat. Its the government placing the terror in your hearts.

---

Totally agree with this, during the American election campaign there was some stupid ad by republicans about Obama shaking hands with Putin, that Obama had Russian sympathies and was 'handing America over to Russia' and communism. We all know about the rampant propaganda that happened during the Cold War but this is the 21st century, I was astounded that they still feed that sort of ♥♥♥♥ to the public. As soon as the war against fascism was over they started the war against communism, since Russia collapsed they needed a new war, so they went with the 'war against terrorism' as their justification to dominate global relations