More on the "Religion of Peace."

In the first place, most of the violence in your stupid RANTburg link is in the combat theaters of the Middle East -- Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. My point is that there is a disparity of the export of the "revolution" outside of these areas given the allegation of the size of the jihadist community internationally.

Secondly, who the fuck do you think your kidding? When were YOU concerned about any deaths at the hands of jihadists other than white deaths? Shia and Sunni Muslims have been slaughtering each other for centuries. When did you ever give a shit?

"Kill 'em all!" is your meme, I believe. ISIS is your dream come true. They are far more concerned with beheading Sunnis than you. If they manage to catch you with the same pooper scooper, all well and good. But if you really believe they have a ghost of a chance of actually realizing their "goal" of having a caliphate ruling over Western Europe and the United States, you are truly dumber than I ever thought you were.
you misunderstand

I want EURO TRASH dead, by the MILLIONS, nay, TENS OF MILLIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never ever hidden that....I just dont want ANY MUSLIMS in teh US

read, http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1233144
 
Mohammad Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, was not only a watch list but was in the country in his own name on a student visa. A few of the other hijackers were also on lists and in this country under their own names.

Perhaps Bush should have taken your advice and 3,000 people wouldn't have died in a few hours.

after 911

the FBI head turd testified in front of Congress said they KNEW that MUSLIMS were in flight school learning to fly and not land

they DIDNT investigate cause they didnt have manpower to investigate ALL people in flight school, so they investigated NO ONE

didnt wanna be called RACIST

its called HOGANISM:cool:

we learned NOTHING
 
if you had 100 little diamonds in a bowl

and you were TOLD 10 had POISON and you would die instantly if you picked it

40 maybe had a 25% chance of being poisoned

the rest, were clear and you could keep it

HOW MANY WOULD YOU TAKE?

answer the question

Tell me something. Did you actually graduate from the College of the Dumbest Possible Analogies?

I don't "take" poisoned diamonds. Make it a food product, okay? Poison apples. Let's go with that.

Poison apples don't jump in my mouth. They don't actively select me out of a random population from which to target. As a result of that happy fact, I do not advocate destroying the global crop of apples KNOWING that there are tainted ones out there that could theoretically find their way into a bin of 100 placed before me. If I KNEW such a bin was tainted, I would NOT select ANY apples from it.

But given that I have NEVER selected poisoned fruit from any fruit bin I have picked from throughout my life, I rest upon the APPARENT fact that my food supply is REASONABLY protected. Just like you do.

There are places in my own city that I would not walk through after dark. That doesn't mean I am not reasonably safe in MOST places in my city. Neither fact contradicts the other. It's mere rationality and common sense.

The same rationality and common sense could rule your world. If you'd only let it.
 
Tell me something. Did you actually graduate from the College of the Dumbest Possible Analogies?

I don't "take" poisoned diamonds. Make it a food product, okay? Poison apples. Let's go with that.

Poison apples don't jump in my mouth. They don't actively select me out of a random population from which to target. As a result of that happy fact, I do not advocate destroying the global crop of apples KNOWING that there are tainted ones out there that could theoretically find their way into a bin of 100 placed before me. If I KNEW such a bin was tainted, I would NOT select ANY apples from it.

But given that I have NEVER selected poisoned fruit from any fruit bin I have picked from throughout my life, I rest upon the APPARENT fact that my food supply is REASONABLY protected. Just like you do.

There are places in my own city that I would not walk through after dark. That doesn't mean I am not reasonably safe in MOST places in my city. Neither fact contradicts the other. It's mere rationality and common sense.

The same rationality and common sense could rule your world. If you'd only let it.

you didnt answer the question
 
Tell me something. Did you actually graduate from the College of the Dumbest Possible Analogies?

I don't "take" poisoned diamonds. Make it a food product, okay? Poison apples. Let's go with that.

Poison apples don't jump in my mouth. They don't actively select me out of a random population from which to target. As a result of that happy fact, I do not advocate destroying the global crop of apples KNOWING that there are tainted ones out there that could theoretically find their way into a bin of 100 placed before me. If I KNEW such a bin was tainted, I would NOT select ANY apples from it.

But given that I have NEVER selected poisoned fruit from any fruit bin I have picked from throughout my life, I rest upon the APPARENT fact that my food supply is REASONABLY protected. Just like you do.

There are places in my own city that I would not walk through after dark. That doesn't mean I am not reasonably safe in MOST places in my city. Neither fact contradicts the other. It's mere rationality and common sense.

The same rationality and common sense could rule your world. If you'd only let it.
yet YOU supported ALL THE TYLENOL BOTTLE recalls

ALL the Chipotle store closings
 
you misunderstand

I want EURO TRASH dead, by the MILLIONS, nay, TENS OF MILLIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never ever hidden that....I just dont want ANY MUSLIMS in teh US

read, http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1233144

Well, it sure sucks to be you then. Stuck here with a black Muslim President, no less. And millions of fellow Muslim American citizens as your "neighbors."

Doesn't it scare you shitless? I don't know why you didn't slash your wrists and put yourself out of your misery years ago.

What if they built a Mosque next door to your house? :cool::cool:
 
Well, it sure sucks to be you then. Stuck here with a black Muslim President, no less. And millions of fellow Muslim American citizens as your "neighbors."........yes, it does....if it doesnt you, you are insane

Doesn't it scare you shitless? I don't know why you didn't slash your wrists and put yourself out of your misery years ago.

What if they built a Mosque next door to your house?........inevitable....its a JEW HOUSE OF WORSHIP now, so its turn to MUSLIM is inevitable :cool::cool:

:cool:
 
yet YOU supported ALL THE TYLENOL BOTTLE recalls

ALL the Chipotle store closings

Even more amazing, I now take Tylenol almost daily, and if I had the slightest interest in shitty Mexican food, I would probably eat at Chipotle.

Because they BOTH are now, most certainly, SAFE.
 
Even more amazing, I now take Tylenol almost daily, and if I had the slightest interest in shitty Mexican food, I would probably eat at Chipotle.

Because they BOTH are now, most certainly, SAFE.

that ISNT the point

is it:cool:
 
that ISNT the point

is it:cool:

Yes. It is.

The point is not your right or responsibility to eliminate all danger and risk. The point is to LAWFULLY, REASONABLY and RESPONSIBLY eliminate most of it and realize when you have done that.

In my opinion, our government and law enforcement has done and is doing a reasonable, although not perfect, job in doing that.

For normal people that is good enough. For the hopelessly paranoid, it never is.
 
after 911

the FBI head turd testified in front of Congress said they KNEW that MUSLIMS were in flight school learning to fly and not land

they DIDNT investigate cause they didnt have manpower to investigate ALL people in flight school, so they investigated NO ONE

didnt wanna be called RACIST

its called HOGANISM:cool:

we learned NOTHING

False. Depending on which source one looks at, the FBI was either told not to investigate the reports of people learning to fly a jet but not land or take off, or ignored the reports. Take your pick.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-was-warned-about-flight-schools/

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130327&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1748982&page=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-fbi-ignored-moussaoui-warnings/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/08/19/did-fbi-ignore-11-warnings.html

And not only that, Bush classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report to prevent the leak that Saudis in Florida, who were allowed to leave almost immediately after the attacks, may have had links to the hijackers:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/13/10656262-classified-documents-contradict-fbi-on-post-911-probe-of-saudis-ex-senator-says
 
it is NOT a criminal event

its WAR

You haven't done real well here lately with your analysis of legal circumstances and events. If you don't think WAR is governed by the LAWS of WAR and international treaties like Geneva then you are sadly mistaken.

Additionally, if attacks like that in San Bernardino are acts of war then why were the perpetrators killed by police rather than military infantry? Or airstrikes?

Attacks on American soil are governed first and foremost by American law unless it is obvious at the outset that the attack is a product of a foreign government or organized hostile force.

That does NOT include whole religions or practitioners of that religion who have displayed no hostile intent or actions against the United States.

Your wishes not withstanding, we don't get to declare or wage war against whoever we wish, AND within ANY context of war we have a MORAL and LEGAL obligation to avoid killing non-combatant "civilians." to the best of our ability.

Niggling little details that don't mean shit to lunatics who want to wage genocide against an entire religion under the guise of war. :rolleyes:
 
You haven't done real well here lately with your analysis of legal circumstances and events. If you don't think WAR is governed by the LAWS of WAR and international treaties like Geneva then you are sadly mistaken.

Additionally, if attacks like that in San Bernardino are acts of war then why were the perpetrators killed by police rather than military infantry? Or airstrikes?

Attacks on American soil are governed first and foremost by American law unless it is obvious at the outset that the attack is a product of a foreign government or organized hostile force.

That does NOT include whole religions or practitioners of that religion who have displayed no hostile intent or actions against the United States.

Your wishes not withstanding, we don't get to declare or wage war against whoever we wish, AND within ANY context of war we have a MORAL and LEGAL obligation to avoid killing non-combatant "civilians." to the best of our ability.

Niggling little details that don't mean shit to lunatics who want to wage genocide against an entire religion under the guise of war. :rolleyes:

What if it is done in furtherance of CO2 and methane emission reduction because the climate continues to change?

Admittedly, stone age peoples being eliminated has a lesser effect, given that they have low carbon (but high chick-pea) footprint, but we need to start somewhere.
 
You haven't done real well here lately with your analysis of legal circumstances and events. If you don't think WAR is governed by the LAWS of WAR and international treaties like Geneva then you are sadly mistaken.

Additionally, if attacks like that in San Bernardino are acts of war then why were the perpetrators killed by police rather than military infantry? Or airstrikes?

Attacks on American soil are governed first and foremost by American law unless it is obvious at the outset that the attack is a product of a foreign government or organized hostile force.

That does NOT include whole religions or practitioners of that religion who have displayed no hostile intent or actions against the United States.

Your wishes not withstanding, we don't get to declare or wage war against whoever we wish, AND within ANY context of war we have a MORAL and LEGAL obligation to avoid killing non-combatant "civilians." to the best of our ability.

Niggling little details that don't mean shit to lunatics who want to wage genocide against an entire religion under the guise of war. :rolleyes:
the US bombed a hospital, and yesterday said it wasnt a WAR CRIME...Russia does it all the TIME

FUCK THE GC and LAWYERS

We need to win the WAR

and this isnt France yet with troops in teh street

Hoganism says we have a MORAL and LEGAL obligation to avoid killing non-combatant "civilians." to the best of our ability....BUSYBODY says, we cant tell the difference, KILL EM ALL
 
As I told you, I don't give a damn about NOT admitting Syrian refugees.

But if you truly believed in YOUR numbers your would believe in the 90% of Muslims who represent NO THREAT to you whatsoever. "No threat whatsoever" includes those who might believe you were "worthy" of a violent infidel's death but, for whatever reasons, will never raise a hand against you. I don't propose you invite these people into your home for a sleep over. But "threat" speaks to their SPECIFIC LIKELIHOOD of hostile action against you. And there is no realistic threat in breathing the same air with these people on a street corner or shopping with them in a grocery store. They are fanatical and twisted in thought, but not violent. If they even had a significant propensity for violence, your 10% figure would be growing rapidly. Why isn't it? YOUR OWN numbers damn your insane paranoia.

If you want to fight a war, shoot BACK at the people shooting at you. Leave the Fifth Column penetration to the intelligence experts. They're better at it than you are.

Dear Col.,

We ARE in a war already, we, the leadership of the Western world, just seem to refuse to admit it. And the problem is is that they aren't shooting at us. They're using improvised munitions. By the time we do shoot back a great deal of damage has been done. And that assumes that they didn't blow themselves up as well and there was anything to shoot at at all.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, that being that ALL Muslims aren't terrorists. A point that I have readily conceded at every turn. But how do you know which are and which aren't? How do you know which are providing material support even if they aren't actively engaged in the death and destruction themselves? It was a rhetorical question, you DON'T know. No one knows for certain. And that being the case they are ALL under suspicion. Or is the proper term 'person(s) of interest' now?

The whole 'innocent until proven guilty' notion is a fine standard to adhere to when you're dealing with an orderly society populated here and there with the run of the mill criminal elements. They've always been around and always will be. But that noble concept begins to fall apart when faced with a group, and a rather sizable group at that, whose purpose is the utter destruction of said society. Their belief system is immiscible with secular law. It really is just that simple. Lincoln said it best, "the constitution is not a suicide pact."

Ishmael
 
I know I should read before i ask, but has the role of women in the religion of Islam been touched upon in this thread?
 
I know I should read before i ask, but has the role of women in the religion of Islam been touched upon in this thread?

No. This is a very Muslim thread. Women are neither allowed to talk or be talked about. Same goes for the gaz....
 
stfu and get back in teh house


And as a woman, I'm expected to embrace this dismissal based upon gender?

Oh, and hope my presence on a porn board is never discovered lest i be stoned to death...or is it beheaded?
 
I know I should read before i ask, but has the role of women in the religion of Islam been touched upon in this thread?

Don't worry, the Christian Taliban in the U.S. is doing its part to uphold the doctrine that since men are weak and incapable of controlling themselves around women who show off their skin, they've once again told a girl at prom she was wearing something too revealing:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/student_shamed_over_revealing.html#incart_2box
 
Back
Top