Why do "liberals" support Islam, when it so "Vehemently"...

[TJ8869]

You throw in "high on drugs" in order to discount the religion, just as you do with "lunatic" on the PP guy. The only thing that would change in your scenario is if she weren't muslim, and goddamnit you know it. If she were high = terrorist. If she were diagnosed schizo = terrorist. The only things that changes the rhetoric from terrorism is a) her religion and b) nationality.

I write a perfectly rational response to another poster and you chime in with a full-bore, baseless character assassination.

I draw a logical distinction between a woman who crashes her car into pedestrians because she's high on drugs and a woman who deliberately shoots dozens of people with an AR15 after pledging her allegiance to ISIS, and you blatantly call me a bigot without any sort of justification.

Clearly you've given up on the task of trying to formulate any sort of intelligent thought.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I write a perfectly rational response to another poster and you chime in with a full-bore, baseless character assassination.

I draw a logical distinction between a woman who crashes her car into pedestrians because she's high on drugs and a woman who deliberately shoots dozens of people with an AR15 after pledging her allegiance to ISIS, and you blatantly call me a bigot without any sort of justification.

Clearly you've given up on the task of trying to formulate any sort of intelligent thought.

Never once called you a bigot, and certainly didn't do it blatantly.

It was a cogent response to your invented scenarios:

Yet another second grade level analysis of America's right. If the dipshit in Vegas had turned out to be a Muslim who had a friggin' bomb factory in her apartment and had pledged allegiance to ISIS on social media then it would have been terrorism. If she was just some random Muslim chick who was high on drugs and had no vendetta against Americans then she would have been shrugged off as some "crazy chick", just as if she was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant who happened to be batshit crazy.

 

[theIowaHawk]

TJ, you seem to be saying that "terrorism" = international terrorism, as in some sort of act by some sort of foreign body. That is as best as I can decipher because you won't define your use of "terrorism", but feel free to chime in.

 

[Nat Algren]

Persecutes women and homosexuality? Can anyone explain this to me?

My guess is the Oligarchs wish to use the divide and conquer strategy to divert attention from them. Easier to point to a bogeyman. Nothing to see here.

The state loves to collectivize people into groups. Unions? Got a leader. They will tell us they have a leader and will flash him/ her onto TV regularly, as if that person speaks for the whole group. Mush easier to control. Think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They make for a larger voting block as well.

 

[TJ8869]

Never once called you a bigot, and certainly didn't do it blatantly.

Liar.

If you weren't blatantly calling me a bigot then explain what you meant by this:

You throw in "high on drugs" in order to discount the religion, just as you do with "lunatic" on the PP guy. The only thing that would change in your scenario is if she weren't muslim, and goddamnit you know it. If she were high = terrorist. If she were diagnosed schizo = terrorist. The only things that changes the rhetoric from terrorism is a) her religion and b) nationality.

 

[TJ8869]

TJ, you seem to be saying that "terrorism" = international terrorism, as in some sort of act by some sort of foreign body. That is as best as I can decipher because you won't define your use of "terrorism", but feel free to chime in.

Any time you find yourself starting a paragraph with "you seem to be saying...", just stop. Delete the post and save yourself the time and trouble of writing the rest of it, because every single time you fail spectacularly at grasping the point. Your reading comprehension skills are among the worst I've seen since the days of AOL chat rooms.

 

[naturalmwa]

Any time you find yourself starting a paragraph with "you seem to be saying...", just stop. Delete the post and save yourself the time and trouble of writing the rest of it, because every single time you fail spectacularly at grasping the point. Your reading comprehension skills are among the worst I've seen since the days of AOL chat rooms.

You seem to be saying theIowaHawk got your position wrong.

 

[TJ8869]

You seem to be saying theIowaHawk got your position wrong.

That's one of your patented euphemisms, isn't it?

 

[naturalmwa]

That's one of your patented euphemisms, isn't it?

I don't usually speak a lot when they get the position wrong, I just turn them over.

 

[22*43*51]

Except "one was a foreigner" is simply furthering your hypocritical approach to the subject. The guy was an American, he was a "home grown nut", the fact that he had a foreign wife doesn't change that. If he had acted alone you would still call it terrorism, and still have no understanding of how/why it occurred.

EVERYBODY wants to talk about international terrorism, it is all that has been talked about for weeks (two decades) now. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest. Yes, they do hope it never happens again, which is why so many (you, apparently) will just label the PP guy as a "nut", so that you can pretend it won't happen again.

Your hypocrisy is that one is just a "nut" while the other is apparently an evil villain sent by Mohamed himself.



Using swear words, especially f***, are for emphasis, not symptoms of "deficient emotional intelligence", there is nothing improper about their use.

Where was the other shooter from potty mouth?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Liar.

If you weren't blatantly calling me a bigot then explain what you meant by this:

You throw in "high on drugs" in order to discount the religion, just as you do with "lunatic" on the PP guy. The only thing that would change in your scenario is if she weren't muslim, and goddamnit you know it. If she were high = terrorist. If she were diagnosed schizo = terrorist. The only things that changes the rhetoric from terrorism is a) her religion and b) nationality.

Obviously you don't know what bigot means, let alone blatant.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Any time you find yourself starting a paragraph with "you seem to be saying...", just stop. Delete the post and save yourself the time and trouble of writing the rest of it, because every single time you fail spectacularly at grasping the point. Your reading comprehension skills are among the worst I've seen since the days of AOL chat rooms.

You spent more time writing that and refusing to define your terrorism than answering.

Must mean I got it right.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Where was the other shooter from potty mouth?

You do realize I put that she was foreign directly in my post, don't you?

 

[22*43*51]

You do realize I put that she was foreign directly in my post, don't you?

Yes. And?

 

[TJ8869]

You spent more time writing that and refusing to define your terrorism than answering.

Must mean I got it right.

You didn't understand my definition the first time I wrote it. What good would it do to type it again?

 

[naturalmwa]

Where was the other shooter from potty mouth?

There is so much material to work with here.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You didn't understand my definition the first time I wrote it. What good would it do to type it again?

With the quote function you wouldn't have to, but we all know why you are now refusing.

 

[TJ8869]

With the quote function you wouldn't have to, but we all know why you are now refusing.

Very well, dumbass. Here it is again. See if you can even come close to figuring it out this time.

If the dipshit in Vegas had turned out to be a Muslim who had a friggin' bomb factory in her apartment and had pledged allegiance to ISIS on social media then it would have been terrorism. If she was just some random Muslim chick who was high on drugs and had no vendetta against Americans then she would have been shrugged off as some "crazy chick", just as if she was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant who happened to be batshit crazy.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

And there is the hypocrisy. Carry on.

I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is and I go back and forth as to whether you are deliberately trolling by constantly making obtuse interpretations of what people write here OR you just cannot grasp what is being said. You, more so than most, are very often at the center of wild misunderstandings between posters here. Why do you think that is? What is the common denominator?

If you tried your hardest to come up with a list of "Christians" that performed acts of terrorism, as you apparently define it, in the name of their God, you couldn't come CLOSE to the amount of people killed, and disparate acts of radical violence and mayhem by avowed Muslims.

This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, which would likely be the first place you would go with your deliberate/unintentional misinterpretations, but to ignore the many occasions of terrorism/murder/mayhem that are associated with Muslims that proclaim that they are acting on behalf of their god is ridiculous...no matter how hard you contort your words and the words of others.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Your entire post is the hypocrisy. That you are upset that people point to all Christians when a Christian does a bad act. So much so that you deliberately pointed out how those guys the poster named weren't actually Christians ... Ion your opinion. Because you wanted to distance yourself from them.

But then you immediately do the same to Muslims.

That.is.hypocrisy. Complaining about something you do yourself.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Very well, dumbass. Here it is again. See if you can even come close to figuring it out this time.

Again you spend more effort dodging than defining.

I already asked you about exactly this: is it the allegiance to ISIS? What about ISIS makes it terrorism than to any other group or not to a group at all?

Here is a simple definition of terrorism for you to start with:

"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

Apparently, your definition includes something like, "with an allegiance to ISIS."

 

[22*43*51]

Your entire post is the hypocrisy. That you are upset that people point to all Christians when a Christian does a bad act. So much do that you deliberately pointed out how those guys the poster named weren't actually Christians ... Ion your opinion. Because you wanted to distance yourself from them.

But then you immediately do the same to Muslims.

That.is.hypocrisy. Complaining about something you do yourself.

You are not going to convince us that our citizens are the enemy no matter how hard you try.

Comrade.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Your entire post is the hypocrisy. That you are upset that people point to all Christians when a Christian does a bad act. So much do that you deliberately pointed out how those guys the poster named weren't actually Christians ... Ion your opinion. Because you wanted to distance yourself from them.

But then you immediately do the same to Muslims.

That.is.hypocrisy. Complaining about something you do yourself.

I do not think you understand then what I was trying to say. It isn't hypocrisy if the comparison is invalid...and in this case, it is.

 

[22*43*51]

Again you spend more effort dodging than defining.

I already asked you about exactly this: is it the allegiance to ISIS? What about ISIS makes it terrorism than to any other group or not to a group at all?

Here is a simple definition of terrorism for you to start with:

"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

Apparently, your definition includes something like, "with an allegiance to ISIS."

You are on the America hating side.

Not common, but not unusual.

Your guidance counselor likely missed.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I do not think you understand then what I was trying to say. It isn't hypocrisy if the comparison is invalid...and in this case, it is.

Yes, because YOU claim those people aren't Christians.

Obviously a Muslim could simply do the same...distancing themselves from those they wish not to be compared to.

Even easier just to call all the Christian ones lunatics...because Christians wouldn't do things like that. Muslims, on the other hand ...

 

[theIowaHawk]

You are on the America hating side.

Not uncommon, but not unusual.

Your guidance counselor likely missed.

See, now that is pathetic. Got to rally around your invented idea of America in order to justify yourself and your beliefs. Just like calling a bad Christian a whacko ... it makes you feel better to call people who disagree with you unamerican, easier to insulate yourself that way.

 

[22*43*51]

See, now that is pathetic. Got to rally around your invented idea of America in order to justify yourself and your beliefs. Just like calling a bad Christian a whacko ... it makes you feel better to call people who disagree with you unamerican, easier to insulate yourself that way.

You still have no care for National Security.

Own it. You hate our citizenry, more than foreign entities who wish us harm.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You still have no care for National Security.

Own it. You hate our citizenry, more than foreign entities who wish us harm.

Where are you even trying to bring this in from? What have I said that supports this gibberish?

Which foreign "entity" wants to do us harm that I don't hate? Has ISIS filed for asylum?

I can only presume you are trying to talk about Trumps Muslim-exclusion plan?

 

[22*43*51]

You don't acknowledge the San Bernandino shooting as being a international terrorist action.

You want to guilt all of that upon us all.

 

[TJ8869]

Again you spend more effort dodging than defining.

I already asked you about exactly this: is it the allegiance to ISIS? What about ISIS makes it terrorism than to any other group or not to a group at all?

Here is a simple definition of terrorism for you to start with:

"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

Apparently, your definition includes something like, "with an allegiance to ISIS."

I didn't dodge anything. I used the quote function, just like you suggested.

Look, I'm going to explain this for you one last time. And if you still can't figure it out then I'm going to permanently assume you're just a worthless troll, because nobody is this stupid in real life.

BelemNole claimed that if the woman who crashed into pedestrians in Las Vegas turned out to be a Muslim, right wingers would automatically declare her a terrorist regardless of her motives.

I disagreed and explained that if she was a Muslim who had a bomb factory in her apartment and had declared her allegiance to ISIS on social media then she would be labeled a terrorist. Even a simpleton like yourself should be able to deduce that this was a direct reference to Tashfeen Malik, who had numerous bombs in her home and declared her allegiance to ISIS on social media the day that she and her husband used semiautomatic weapons to kill or injure dozens of people in San Bernardino.

I think most reasonable people would agree that Tashfeen Malik was a terrorist.

I went on to say that the woman in Las Vegas would not be considered a terrorist if she was a Muslim but she had no vendetta against the United States and her motives were something else - for example, she was high on drugs or out of her right mind for some reason.