If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   That Mother Jones article saying more right-wingers have killed Americans than Islamists? Yeah, it's about as accurate as you'd expect from that bunch   (breitbart.com) divider line 326
    More: Followup, Mother Jones, Islamists, Americans, Dr. George Tiller, Islamic terrorism, von Brunn, Ruby Ridge, Scott Roeder  
•       •       •

3335 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2013 at 8:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



326 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 12:17:35 PM

Cletus C.: I guess you're saying it's not a political debate, then. I agree.


No, for me, that part isn't. It's a descriptive, factually-accurate, statement. Radical Islamists, white nationalists, and Christian extremists are  all right-wing.

It's when people mistake calling a right-wing ideology a right-wing ideology, and think that is a blanket indictment of the right wing moderates and all, and circle the wagons for it, does it become a political debate.
 
2013-04-26 12:19:55 PM

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: Nah, the fanatics don't seem all that fond of the Bush policies (invade countries)...

The biggest expansion of radical Islamism since the Iranian revolution occurred under the Bush administration. The Bush administration opened up an entire country that previously had been entirely off-limits to radical Islamism (Iraq), and through heightened support for Israel coupled with Iraq and Afghanistan as well as heightened anti-Islamic rhetoric provided the entire Arab and Muslim world with cause, not to mention validated radical Islamists' claims about the West and neocolonialism.

The Bush administration was  fantastic for radical Islamism, and you're blind if you don't understand or see it.


Do you have a citation for that? Sounds anecdotal, is why I ask. But the bottom line is, radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.

Republicans also have done great work hating on women and gays recently, or a select few Republicans have.

Those moronic comments and bizarre laws, proposed and enacted, have actually helped further the cause of equality for gays and rights for women. Therefore, women and gays must love Republicans. They're right-wingers, you might say.
 
2013-04-26 12:26:51 PM
Lots of dissembling going on in this thread. Gotta go.......enjoy.....
 
2013-04-26 12:29:00 PM

Cletus C.: radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.


Are you really too blind to understand the concept that the Republican party makes a much better scapegoat for recruiting and fundraising for Islamic fundamentalists than a more liberal one?
 
2013-04-26 12:31:45 PM

SilentStrider: And with such a credible source such as Breitbart telling us this, you know it has to be true.


Done in one.
 
2013-04-26 12:32:12 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Philip Francis Queeg: And we all know Tatsuma's reaction to civilians being killed in the name of fighting terrorism...

Came for Tatsuma's "jumping for joy". Staying for the rationalizations.

/consistantly posting that is one of the reason's he ignored me.
//i think it was adding "Hooray! Tatsuma is here!" to the image that eventually pushed it over the edge


He may not have you on ignore. Way back during the Bomb-head Mohamed threads, he congratulated me on visiting white supremacist sites (I don't), slagged my then-home town's hockey team (boy, that one hurt) and told me he was putting me on ignore. Some time later he responded to one of my posts.

He lies, go figure :-)
 
2013-04-26 12:33:03 PM
 
2013-04-26 12:33:40 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?



Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."
 
2013-04-26 12:42:58 PM
Although Subby's headline may very well be true, it's probably best not to use Brietbart as your source.
 
2013-04-26 12:43:46 PM

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: Do you have a citation for that?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930185929/http://www.jamestown.org/pu b lications_details.php?volume_id=400&&issue_id=3179">http://web.archiv e.org/web/20070930185929/http://www.jamestown.org/pub lications_details.php?volume_id=400&&issue_id=3179

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3677658.stm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0728/p01s04-woiq.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12913317/ns/politics/t/intel-report-iraq-c au se-clbre-extremists/#.UXqqcrWG1Xk

http://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0407_me1.htm


I didn't disbelieve what you were saying but throwing up links where only two even come close to addressing your assertion was weird. Of those two, the Christian Science Monitor, is purely anecdotal, while the NBC report relies on a declassified intelligence report during the Bush administration. That seems to have some credibility. Should have just left it at that.
 
2013-04-26 12:46:17 PM

Smackledorfer: Cletus C.: radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.

Are you really too blind to understand the concept that the Republican party makes a much better scapegoat for recruiting and fundraising for Islamic fundamentalists than a more liberal one?


OK, like I said it also serves that purpose for women and gays. Does that mean they support the Republican Party?
 
2013-04-26 12:52:00 PM

Cletus C.: I didn't disbelieve what you were saying but throwing up links where only two even come close to addressing your assertion was weird. Of those two, the Christian Science Monitor, is purely anecdotal, while the NBC report relies on a declassified intelligence report during the Bush administration. That seems to have some credibility. Should have just left it at that.


I had two assertions there, one about Islamic extremism in Iraq and in the entire Muslim world, and was unsure for which you were asking citation. Moreover, I felt it important to cite the topic from a number of sources and viewpoints.

Hence, citing a center-left media organization, a center-right media organization, a foreign news organization, and two right-wing think tanks.
 
2013-04-26 12:52:22 PM
Breitbart?

fc03.deviantart.net
 
2013-04-26 12:56:38 PM
that bosnian sniper: ...and two right-wing think tanks.

Most compellingly, I might add, and sorry for the double-post but I accidentally hit send too quickly, the latter right-wing think tank's article advocates as a policy position peaceful economic and political reform in Arab countries opposed to invasion and nation-building as a means to contain the spread of Islamic extremism. That is to say, approach it from a peaceful and moderate, but forceful, position in order to prevent spread of extremist belief.
 
2013-04-26 12:57:01 PM

Shvetz: Hey, remember when Andrew Breitbart had a fatal heart attack at 43? I'm sure cocaine had nothing to do with it.


Behave yourself.  Stop raping people.  Freak.
 
2013-04-26 01:09:26 PM

edmo: Our country is riddled with crime: rapists, murderers, thieves --  almost all Christians.

But let just one non-Christian set off a bomb...


90% of violent crimes are committed by men.

Men must truly be dangerous and should have at least one eye kept on them at ALL TIMES.
 
2013-04-26 01:24:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Tatsuma: IdBeCrazyIf: To be fair, in years past instead of targeted drone strikes it would have been indiscriminate bombing miles high from B52 with thousands of 500 to 2000 pound bombs, so we've gotten at least a little better right?

I know I was just kidding around (the Obama killing people = Islamic terrorism should have clued you in)

I personally give an A- to the Obama Administration's policies on fighting terror. I think it's their best achievement in fact.

And we all know Tatsuma's reaction to civilians being killed in the name of fighting terrorism...
[www.gambooge.net image 625x415]


Fixed that for you.
 
2013-04-26 01:30:18 PM
I'm pretty sire Breightbart is still pissed at Mother Jones for releasing the 47% video on the world.
 
2013-04-26 01:30:40 PM
Reading that article, you can almost feel how angry Shapiro is at being tarred with the same brush as right wing terrorists. He points out that is wrong to gather everything from neo-nazis to anarchists under the label "right wing extremist". But at the same time, he has no problem using the phrase "islamic terror" in his headline. Can he really not see the hypocrasy?
 
2013-04-26 01:31:32 PM
Since the source is Breitbart, does this mean that the opposite is actually true?
 
2013-04-26 01:38:10 PM

Cletus C.: Smackledorfer: Cletus C.: radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.

Are you really too blind to understand the concept that the Republican party makes a much better scapegoat for recruiting and fundraising for Islamic fundamentalists than a more liberal one?

OK, like I said it also serves that purpose for women and gays. Does that mean they support the Republican Party?


You're literally missing every single point he's making.

1. American women and gays aren't foreign terrorists.
2. While both parties can help the Islamic fundamentalist movement, Republicans are better. Same can't be said for women and gays.
3. The people in power making plans and recruiting =/= the recruits. Same can't be said for women and gays.
4. Right-wing doesn't necessarily mean "Republican", even when we're only talking about people in America. Usually it does, but someone could have a radical, right-wing ideology and still vote for Obama. Poor people and old people vote for Republicans.
 
2013-04-26 01:38:17 PM
Breitbart going up against Mother Jones?

/gets popcorn

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-26 01:43:54 PM

Close2TheEdge: . Those are suspects who are very difficult to detect without the US becoming a police state, and that is simply not going to happen.


Wow. What would have to happen before you considered the US a police state?

The government can listen to you without a warrant. You need to provide travelling papers to get in or out of the country. States regularily use the national guard to help enfore laws. The government uses emergencies to put limits on your rights and freedoms. The government has an internment camp for people it does not think it could convict in a legal trial. The government can use a robot to kill you without accusing you of a crime, even if you are a citizen.
 
2013-04-26 01:52:31 PM

Dan the Schman: Cletus C.: Smackledorfer: Cletus C.: radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.

Are you really too blind to understand the concept that the Republican party makes a much better scapegoat for recruiting and fundraising for Islamic fundamentalists than a more liberal one?

OK, like I said it also serves that purpose for women and gays. Does that mean they support the Republican Party?

You're literally missing every single point he's making.

1. American women and gays aren't foreign terrorists.
2. While both parties can help the Islamic fundamentalist movement, Republicans are better. Same can't be said for women and gays.
3. The people in power making plans and recruiting =/= the recruits. Same can't be said for women and gays.
4. Right-wing doesn't necessarily mean "Republican", even when we're only talking about people in America. Usually it does, but someone could have a radical, right-wing ideology and still vote for Obama. Poor people and old people vote for Republicans.


I just find it amusing that when the liberal wet dream of a tea party bomber vanished the regrouping strategy led to "radical Muslims are right-wingers" talking point. It's totally tarded and deserves repeated mockery.

It deserves to be picked apart with the same level of  reasonable, even, intelligent rebuttal that birthed it.
 
2013-04-26 01:57:20 PM

Cletus C.: Smackledorfer: Cletus C.: radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.

Are you really too blind to understand the concept that the Republican party makes a much better scapegoat for recruiting and fundraising for Islamic fundamentalists than a more liberal one?

OK, like I said it also serves that purpose for women and gays. Does that mean they support the Republican Party?


It does not serve that purpose for the majority women and gays. Women and gays don't need an evil to point to. They don't even want one, for without that bigotry they would be marrying and getting birth control and fair labor treatment.

I am sure there are some people abusing the plight of pther minority groups in order to gain power. Still, I don't think that compares to the way religious fundamentalism is used to control the masses.

Or are you saying a gay rights org is primarily not there for gay rights but rather for a power grab?
 
2013-04-26 02:10:42 PM

Cletus C.: Dan the Schman: Cletus C.: Smackledorfer: Cletus C.: radical Muslims love Republicans because Republicans hate radical Muslims.

Are you really too blind to understand the concept that the Republican party makes a much better scapegoat for recruiting and fundraising for Islamic fundamentalists than a more liberal one?

OK, like I said it also serves that purpose for women and gays. Does that mean they support the Republican Party?

You're literally missing every single point he's making.

1. American women and gays aren't foreign terrorists.
2. While both parties can help the Islamic fundamentalist movement, Republicans are better. Same can't be said for women and gays.
3. The people in power making plans and recruiting =/= the recruits. Same can't be said for women and gays.
4. Right-wing doesn't necessarily mean "Republican", even when we're only talking about people in America. Usually it does, but someone could have a radical, right-wing ideology and still vote for Obama. Poor people and old people vote for Republicans.

I just find it amusing that when the liberal wet dream of a tea party bomber vanished the regrouping strategy led to "radical Muslims are right-wingers" talking point. It's totally tarded and deserves repeated mockery.

It deserves to be picked apart with the same level of  reasonable, even, intelligent rebuttal that birthed it.


It's not a new talking point. It's a statement of fact, and has been for a long time. From earlier in the thread:

In favor of a rigidly hierarchical society? Check.

Support for ethnic, religious, or national identity? Check.

Resistance to societal change (i.e. traditionalism)? Check.

Preoccupation with religious texts, especially as the basis for law? Check.
 
2013-04-26 02:16:46 PM

Cletus C.: Does that mean they support the Republican Party?


The logical corollary, of course, being "does the Republican party support radical Islamism?".

And by the way, radical Islam being a right-wing ideology? That's a statement of fact. It was true before 9/11, during 9/11, after 9/11, and before the Boston bombing, during, and after.  And, people like myself who said outright and consistently throughout that whether the bomber was some derivation of American right-wing ideology or radical Islamist,the bomber was still right-wing.

The only people denying this are the ones trying (tacitly or explicitly) to obfuscate their own ideology's ever-present extremist element.
 
2013-04-26 02:25:06 PM

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: Does that mean they support the Republican Party?

The logical corollary, of course, being "does the Republican party support radical Islamism?".

And by the way, radical Islam being a right-wing ideology? That's a statement of fact. It was true before 9/11, during 9/11, after 9/11, and before the Boston bombing, during, and after.  And, people like myself who said outright and consistently throughout that whether the bomber was some derivation of American right-wing ideology or radical Islamist,the bomber was still right-wing.

The only people denying this are the ones trying (tacitly or explicitly) to obfuscate their own ideology's ever-present extremist element.


See what you're doing there? You're taking the threadbare right-wing Muslim terrorist argument and connecting it to the Republican Party. It's weak and lazy.
 
2013-04-26 02:40:59 PM
Cletus C.: ...the threadbare right-wing Muslim terrorist argument...

Are radical Islamists in favor of a rigidly hierarchical society?

Do radical Islamists support ethnic, religious and/or national identity?

Are radical Islamists  heavily traditionalist, do they exert resistenace to societal change and the forces behind them?

Are radical Islamists  preoccupied with religious texts, especially as the basis for law?


If the answer to these questions is  yes, then radical Islamism is a right-wing ideology, as these are key identifiers of right-wing ideologies.  Theseare not rhetorical questions. I fully expect answers from you, without equivocation or prevarication, before this discourse will continue.
 
2013-04-26 02:45:46 PM
And, just as a side note, you're taking the argument an ideology can be the beneficiary of an opposing, extremist, ideology, and twisting it to assume that  because an ideology benefits from extremism on the other side, it must therefore  support that ideology. You're making the claim women and gays support the Republican party's extremist positions vis-a-vis those groups, because they benefit from it.

Well, the Republican party benefits from radical Islamism.  By your own logic that must mean the Republican party supports radical Islamism. Does it? Again, not a rhetorical question.
 
2013-04-26 03:04:31 PM

give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?


Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."


No, no he didn't.  He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

/hint for you , Jews are not infidels
//you should read before you spout about subjects
 
2013-04-26 03:11:49 PM

rohar: No, no he didn't. He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.


Except that this is bullshiat.

He made deals with us, then reneged on the deals first change he got, killed all of our men, enslaved our women and children.
 
2013-04-26 03:33:13 PM

rohar: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?


Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."

No, no he didn't.  He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

/hint for you , Jews are not infidels
//you should read before you spout about subjects



Hint for you: Nowhere in the post you responded to is a mention of "Jews."

//you should read before you spout about subjects
 
2013-04-26 04:11:27 PM

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: ...the threadbare right-wing Muslim terrorist argument...

Are radical Islamists in favor of a rigidly hierarchical society?

Do radical Islamists support ethnic, religious and/or national identity?

Are radical Islamists  heavily traditionalist, do they exert resistenace to societal change and the forces behind them?

Are radical Islamists  preoccupied with religious texts, especially as the basis for law?

If the answer to these questions is  yes, then radical Islamism is a right-wing ideology, as these are key identifiers of right-wing ideologies.  Theseare not rhetorical questions. I fully expect answers from you, without equivocation or prevarication, before this discourse will continue.


I cannot speak to philosophies or  motivations of radical Islamists with any authority. I do suspect, however, they interpret things to fit their beliefs, reject any dissenting voices and seek to build a society based on those beliefs. So, the discourse ends here.
 
2013-04-26 04:20:15 PM

Cletus C.: that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: ...the threadbare right-wing Muslim terrorist argument...

Are radical Islamists in favor of a rigidly hierarchical society?

Do radical Islamists support ethnic, religious and/or national identity?

Are radical Islamists  heavily traditionalist, do they exert resistenace to societal change and the forces behind them?

Are radical Islamists  preoccupied with religious texts, especially as the basis for law?

If the answer to these questions is  yes, then radical Islamism is a right-wing ideology, as these are key identifiers of right-wing ideologies.  Theseare not rhetorical questions. I fully expect answers from you, without equivocation or prevarication, before this discourse will continue.

I cannot speak to philosophies or  motivations of radical Islamists with any authority. I do suspect, however, they interpret things to fit their beliefs, reject any dissenting voices and seek to build a society based on those beliefs. So, the discourse ends here.


Translation: I don't know much about Muslim extremists, but by golly I know they ain't right-wing!
 
2013-04-26 05:03:40 PM

give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?


Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."

No, no he didn't.  He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

/hint for you , Jews are not infidels
//you should read before you spout about subjects


Hint for you: Nowhere in the post you responded to is a mention of "Jews."

//you should read before you spout about subjects


Ok, sure.  There's no mention of Christians, Barbors or Vikings as infidels in any of the Muslim texts.

Kindof a biatch to your theory ain't it?
 
2013-04-26 05:24:33 PM
Cletus C.: ...they interpret things to fit their beliefs, reject any dissenting voices and seek to build a society based on those beliefs.

...riiiiiiight.
 
2013-04-26 05:53:02 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Cletus C.: that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: ...the threadbare right-wing Muslim terrorist argument...

Are radical Islamists in favor of a rigidly hierarchical society?

Do radical Islamists support ethnic, religious and/or national identity?

Are radical Islamists  heavily traditionalist, do they exert resistenace to societal change and the forces behind them?

Are radical Islamists  preoccupied with religious texts, especially as the basis for law?

If the answer to these questions is  yes, then radical Islamism is a right-wing ideology, as these are key identifiers of right-wing ideologies.  Theseare not rhetorical questions. I fully expect answers from you, without equivocation or prevarication, before this discourse will continue.

I cannot speak to philosophies or  motivations of radical Islamists with any authority. I do suspect, however, they interpret things to fit their beliefs, reject any dissenting voices and seek to build a society based on those beliefs. So, the discourse ends here.

Translation: I don't know much about Muslim extremists, but by golly I know they ain't right-wing!


Actually, I think you'd need to define right wing within their context. They are religious extremists, to begin with. They obviously believe in a state that adheres to their religious beliefs and forces its morals and religious doctrines on the masses, often in brutal, brutal ways.

You and others may see parallels between that and the right wing of this country but hardly. Our non-religion is built into the constitution, in fact. Politicians mostly bow to the predominant deity but, if anything, society and politics are moving further away from the religious state of the extreme Muslim.

Having elected fundamentalists and activists who WOULD impose portions of their religious doctrines on us all has been going on since our founding. If you go further right wing, to the white supremacists and militia types, they're marching to some internal drummer, often basing their beliefs on this hatred or another. Or fear. Not so lockstep to one ideology, unless you consider batshiat crazy an ideology.

But really, what's going on here is a bitterness from the left that the Boston bombings were perpetrated by Muslims for a Muslim cause. Many, many of you hoped so dearly it was a Tea Party type. That's how deep the hatred runs. Grasping for something, people have now landed on their own contrived connection between the far right in this country and Muslim fanatics.

That's laughable and transparent. Sorry.
 
2013-04-26 06:05:39 PM

Cletus C.: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Cletus C.: that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: ...the threadbare right-wing Muslim terrorist argument...

Are radical Islamists in favor of a rigidly hierarchical society?

Do radical Islamists support ethnic, religious and/or national identity?

Are radical Islamists  heavily traditionalist, do they exert resistenace to societal change and the forces behind them?

Are radical Islamists  preoccupied with religious texts, especially as the basis for law?

If the answer to these questions is  yes, then radical Islamism is a right-wing ideology, as these are key identifiers of right-wing ideologies.  Theseare not rhetorical questions. I fully expect answers from you, without equivocation or prevarication, before this discourse will continue.

I cannot speak to philosophies or  motivations of radical Islamists with any authority. I do suspect, however, they interpret things to fit their beliefs, reject any dissenting voices and seek to build a society based on those beliefs. So, the discourse ends here.

Translation: I don't know much about Muslim extremists, but by golly I know they ain't right-wing!

Actually, I think you'd need to define right wing within their context. They are religious extremists, to begin with. They obviously believe in a state that adheres to their religious beliefs and forces its morals and religious doctrines on the masses, often in brutal, brutal ways.

You and others may see parallels between that and the right wing of this country but hardly. Our non-religion is built into the constitution, in fact. Politicians mostly bow to the predominant deity but, if anything, society and politics are moving further away from the religious state of the extreme Muslim.

Having elected fundamentalists and activists who WOULD impose portions of their religious doctrines on us all has been going on since our founding. If you go further right wing, to the white supremacists and militia types, they're marching to some internal drummer ...


Please, continue...
 
2013-04-26 06:16:00 PM

Tatsuma: El Morro: See, man... I read that post ribbing you for the picture you posted in the thread about the Iranians dying in the plane crash and was JUST about to come to your defense (foolish thing to post, but you clearly didn't know the whole story at that point), and you go and post that "unwashed masses" bullsh*t about "liters".

... I'dBeCrazyIf posted that line about the unwashed masses, not me.


See, that's what I get for rushing posts on my phone.  Please accept my most sincere apologies.

I'dBeCrazyif can go f*ck himself, instead.
 
2013-04-26 06:27:41 PM

slayer199:

Tatsuma: When you have crazy and throw more crazy on it, it doesn't cancel itself, it becomes squared.

Pretty much.  I don't bother attempting most of the drivel from either site unless it's something like this (where one site blasts another site).  On occasion, I find those blog wars an amusing diversion.

Exactly -- that's the best use of a seriously biased outlet -- they'll research the seriously biased outlets on the other side, and tell you where THEY are farking up.   Then go to those outlets to find out where the first one is dropping the ball.  It saves me a lot of work, and both sides seem to enjoy it.
 
2013-04-26 06:41:59 PM

rohar:

Really?  The whole article comes down to

"Those weren't terrorists!  They were white so they were patriots!"  ?

I've always wondered who would be dumb enough to buy all that asinine crap from the socialist end of the spectrum.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
2013-04-26 06:49:38 PM

GeneralJim: Exactly -- that's the best use of a seriously biased outlet -- they'll research the seriously biased outlets on the other side, and tell you where THEY are farking up. Then go to those outlets to find out where the first one is dropping the ball. It saves me a lot of work, and both sides seem to enjoy it.


GeneralJim: I've always wondered who would be dumb enough to buy all that asinine crap from the socialist end of the spectrum. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Hypocrisy at it's finest in back to back posts.

/I'm sure he'll be here all night folks
//try the veal
 
2013-04-26 07:04:04 PM

Cletus C.: Actually, I think you'd need to define right wing within their context. They are religious extremists, to begin with. They obviously believe in a state that adheres to their religious beliefs and forces its morals and religious doctrines on the masses, often in brutal, brutal ways.

You and others may see parallels between that and the right wing of this country but hardly. Our non-religion is built into the constitution, in fact. Politicians mostly bow to the predominant deity but, if anything, society and politics are moving further away from the religious state of the extreme Muslim.

Having elected fundamentalists and activists who WOULD impose portions of their religious doctrines on us all has been going on since our founding. If you go further right wing, to the white supremacists and militia types, they're marching to some internal drummer, often basing their beliefs on this hatred or another. Or fear. Not so lockstep to one ideology, unless you consider batshiat crazy an ideology.

But really, what's going on here is a bitterness from the left that the Boston bombings were perpetrated by Muslims for a Muslim cause. Many, many of you hoped so dearly it was a Tea Party type. That's how deep the hatred runs. Grasping for something, people have now landed on their own contrived connection between the far right in this country and Muslim fanatics.



And you're not understanding what we're telling you.  That list that the bosnian sniper gave you that you deflected answering by claiming ignorance?   Those are part the objective definition of right wing.  Not, "right wing in the US", but what it means to be politically right wing anywhere.  We're not saying that Muslim extremists are right wing because they're similar to right wing groups in the US, we're saying they're right wing because they fit the definition of the damned term.

This would be like someone saying "Middle Eastern men have nearly identical secondary sexual characteristics as American men, so it's safe to say that Middle Eastern men have penises." and you coming back with, "You're only saying that Middle Eastern men have penises because you wish they were like American men!"  It's farking retarded and you should feel bad.
 
2013-04-26 07:28:53 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: And you're not understanding what we're telling you.  That list that the bosnian sniper gave you that you deflected answering by claiming ignorance?   Those are part the objective definition of right wing.  Not, "right wing in the US", but what it means to be politically right wing anywhere.  We're not saying that Muslim extremists are right wing because they're similar to right wing groups in the US, we're saying they're right wing because they fit the definition of the damned term.

This would be like someone saying "Middle Eastern men have nearly identical secondary sexual characteristics as American

men, so it's safe to say that Middle Eastern men have penises." and you coming back with, "You're only saying that Middle Eastern men have penises because you wish they were like American men!"  It's farking retarded and you should feel bad.

Go with it. It's meaningless in that context and never should have become a discussion. There is no point. Get it? Oh, unless:

But really, what's going on here is a bitterness from the left that the Boston bombings were perpetrated by Muslims for a Muslim cause. Many, many of you hoped so dearly it was a Tea Party type. That's how deep the hatred runs. Grasping for something, people have now landed on their own contrived connection between the far right in this country and Muslim fanatics.

But I'm satisfied with your assurances that is not the case.
 
2013-04-26 07:59:51 PM

rohar: give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?


Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."

No, no he didn't.  He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

/hint for you , Jews are not infidels
//you should read before you spout about subjects


Hint for you: Nowhere in the post you responded to is a mention of "Jews."

//you should read before you spout about subjects

Ok, sure.  There's no mention of Christians, Barbors or Vikings as infidels in any of the Muslim texts.

Kindof a biatch to your theory ain't it?


No. And you still need to read, and understand, a post before you comment on it.

You are just making yourself look foolish.
 
2013-04-26 08:08:18 PM

give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?


Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."

No, no he didn't.  He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

/hint for you , Jews are not infidels
//you should read before you spout about subjects


Hint for you: Nowhere in the post you responded to is a mention of "Jews."

//you should read before you spout about subjects

Ok, sure.  There's no mention of Christians, Barbors or Vikings as infidels in any of the Muslim texts.

Kindof a biatch to your theory ain't it?

No. And you still need to read, and understand, a post before you comment on it.

You are just making yourself look foolish.


Here's the fun thing, there's no mention of infidels anywhere in the Qur'an or generally accepted Islam.

That's the joke.

Thanks for playing along.
 
2013-04-26 09:13:31 PM
Cletus C.: ...You and others may see parallels between that and the right wing of this country but hardly...

You're the one making a connection between the American right wing at large, with right-wing extremism and particularly radical Islamism.

I'm asking you if radical Islamism is a right-wing ideology. I'm  not asking you if it's a right-wing extremist ideology. I'm  not asking you if it's an American right-wing ideology. I'm  not asking you if there are even American right-wing extremists.

I'm asking you, "is radical Islamism a right-wing ideology?". Even if they are, if you're a right-winger, what if anything at all does that have to do with you? What, if anything at all, does right-wing extremism have to do with you?
 
2013-04-26 09:29:35 PM
The point I was trying to making was that Brevik, Rudolph, the Unabomber, and McVeigh were all christians.  I may have been wrong about the religious justifications of the Unabomber, he was a very complicated man, but McVeigh was bombing in response to the ATF burning a bunch of radical seventh day adventist christians.

Eric Rudolph and Brevik are undeniably religiously motivated.

THE POINT is that regardless of their religion these people have one thing in common with Muslims who kill people, they kill people, so attacking one saying one religions is full of bombers and murders while one is full angels is bullshiat.
 
2013-04-26 09:44:06 PM
300
 
Displayed 50 of 326 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report