Do you have adblock enabled?
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 325
    More: Followup, Mother Jones, Islamists, Americans, Dr. George Tiller, Islamic terrorism, von Brunn, Ruby Ridge, Scott Roeder  
•       •       •

3341 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2013 at 8:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-26 08:21:45 AM  
And with such a credible source such as Breitbart telling us this, you know it has to be true.
 
2013-04-26 08:24:08 AM  
Our country is riddled with crime: rapists, murderers, thieves --  almost all Christians.

But let just one non-Christian set off a bomb...
 
2013-04-26 08:28:05 AM  
Brietbart might as well become a fact checking organization. All others have turned biased within a short time
 
2013-04-26 08:30:30 AM  

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

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


People are scared of what is different. It is human nature.

It doesn't excuse them from not being enlightened, however...
 
2013-04-26 08:31:40 AM  
It's truly a Golden Age for us here at Amalgamated Goalpost Transport.
 
2013-04-26 08:34:58 AM  
Are they including drone strikes in those numbers?
 
2013-04-26 08:35:33 AM  
So we move from Mother Jones to Breibart?

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


/Also we already debunked that a couple of posts in the last thread
 
2013-04-26 08:36:15 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Are they including drone strikes in those numbers?


I guess if you personally consider Obama responsible for those deaths, you'll have to add a few hundred deaths in the Islamic terrorism column.
 
2013-04-26 08:38:36 AM  

Tatsuma: I guess if you personally consider Obama responsible for those deaths, you'll have to add a few hundred deaths in the Islamic terrorism column.


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?
 
2013-04-26 08:39:48 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-26 08:42:09 AM  

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


This.
 
2013-04-26 08:42:29 AM  
The DeadLiar site says what?  Never mind.
 
2013-04-26 08:42:52 AM  

Tatsuma: IdBeCrazyIf: Are they including drone strikes in those numbers?

I guess if you personally consider Obama responsible for those deaths, you'll have to add a few hundred deaths in the Islamic terrorism column.


3/10. It'll get a few bites.
 
2013-04-26 08:43:03 AM  

sammyk: Brietbart might as well become a fact checking organization. All others have turned biased within a short time


wat
 
2013-04-26 08:43:14 AM  
Done in one.
 
2013-04-26 08:43:45 AM  
Hey, remember when Andrew Breitbart had a fatal heart attack at 43? I'm sure cocaine had nothing to do with it.
 
2013-04-26 08:43:55 AM  
The article says only two of the cases listed were right-wingers. Just by reading it, I can see it's a lot more. If they're going to lie, they need to get better at it.
 
2013-04-26 08:46:11 AM  
I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread: what's the point of this exercise?

Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.

Let's care more about drunk-driving, about giving poor children in inner cities a choice so they don't turn to gangs, and the hundreds of other causes that kill more people every year than these things.

It's under control, nothing to see, move along citizens.
 
2013-04-26 08:47:25 AM  

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


Every irony meter on the planet just exploded.

Sounded like popcorn.
 
2013-04-26 08:48:07 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: It's truly a Golden Age for us here at Amalgamated Goalpost Transport.


I wouldn't call this goalpost moving. It's a dispute of whether or not a particular instance can fall under the sometimes ambiguous definition of terrorism.
 
2013-04-26 08:50:09 AM  

Tatsuma: I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread: what's the point of this exercise?

Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.

Let's care more about drunk-driving, about giving poor children in inner cities a choice so they don't turn to gangs, and the hundreds of other causes that kill more people every year than these things.

It's under control, nothing to see, move along citizens.


It was penned purely to give liberals talking points that they can circle jerk over. I know my somewhat off putting language will be met with sour defenses, but you know it be true.
 
2013-04-26 08:50:25 AM  

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
 
2013-04-26 08:50:45 AM  
Brietbart fact checking, that about ruined my keyboard.
 
2013-04-26 08:51:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: sammyk: Brietbart might as well become a fact checking organization. All others have turned biased within a short time

wat


The right-wing derpsphere is annoyed that the "lamestream press", before we had actual suspects in the Boston bombings, said a few times that it could very well be domestic terrorism or right wing groups, not Muslim terrorists.  To them, the fair and balanced way to cover this would have been to say when first reporting the explosions, "Some raghead did this."
 
2013-04-26 08:52:14 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-26 08:52:38 AM  

Tatsuma: I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread: what's the point of this exercise?

Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.

Let's care more about drunk-driving, about giving poor children in inner cities a choice so they don't turn to gangs, and the hundreds of other causes that kill more people every year than these things.

It's under control, nothing to see, move along citizens.


Nice. Accurate. Concise. Reasonable. Correct.  Kudos and accolades......
 
2013-04-26 08:53:30 AM  

Tatsuma: Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.


One the one hand, you're right that the number of murders is tiny. On the other hand, you may be giving the government a bit too much credit. I think its more likely that there simply aren't that many people out there who actually want to commit mass violence or religious warfare in any real sense, and almost all who actually do want to are incapable of it. The amount of actual competent, able people who want to commit religious murder is simply not very large, and our fear of them has always been outsized.
 
2013-04-26 08:54:38 AM  

Frank N Stein: Tatsuma: I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread: what's the point of this exercise?

Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.

Let's care more about drunk-driving, about giving poor children in inner cities a choice so they don't turn to gangs, and the hundreds of other causes that kill more people every year than these things.

It's under control, nothing to see, move along citizens.

It was penned purely to give liberals talking points that they can circle jerk over. I know my somewhat off putting language will be met with sour defenses, but you know it be true.


Breitbart.com: liberal false flag operation
 
2013-04-26 08:55:10 AM  
Comparing Mother Jones to Breitbart? Really? A slightly left-of-center publication (MJ) vs reactionary batshiat-insane Repubilcan propaganda rag? Talk about comparing apples and screwdrivers...
 
2013-04-26 08:55:53 AM  

Tatsuma: 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.


I know, I was just ribbing, hoping to start some shiat amongst the unwashed masses (read liters)
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-26 08:56:09 AM  
Does the Confederacy count as "right wingers"?
 
2013-04-26 08:56:09 AM  
Wow, another troll headline on Fark.com...I am not even surprised anymore, this is getting old
 
2013-04-26 08:57:01 AM  

GoodScout: The article says only two of the cases listed were right-wingers. Just by reading it, I can see it's a lot more. If they're going to lie, they need to get better at it.


This.
 
2013-04-26 08:58:09 AM  

sammyk: Brietbart might as well become a fact checking organization. All others have turned biased within a short time


They can start with their own archives.
 
2013-04-26 08:58:15 AM  

DamnYankees: One the one hand, you're right that the number of murders is tiny. On the other hand, you may be giving the government a bit too much credit. I think its more likely that there simply aren't that many people out there who actually want to commit mass violence or religious warfare in any real sense, and almost all who actually do want to are incapable of it. The amount of actual competent, able people who want to commit religious murder is simply not very large, and our fear of them has always been outsized.


I wish you were right, but yeah
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id =a dec6e10-68ed-4413-8934-3623edc62cef

Either way, as I said, it's still irrelevant because the FBI seems to stop at least 99% of these crimes in their track, so we should concentrate on more pressing matters as a society and not try to fix something that is not broken. Or concerns ourselves with it
 
2013-04-26 08:59:41 AM  
I always go to Breitbart to find out who is trustworthy and who isn't.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm thirsty so I'm going to drink a tall glass of sand, rock salt, and glass shards.
 
2013-04-26 08:59:58 AM  

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
 
2013-04-26 09:00:10 AM  
There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....
 
2013-04-26 09:01:32 AM  
How many Americans have died because of the right wing terrorists in congress
 
2013-04-26 09:01:36 AM  

GoodScout: The article says only two of the cases listed were right-wingers. Just by reading it, I can see it's a lot more. If they're going to lie, they need to get better at it.


The problem is the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you can show where someone believed anything critical of conservatives than they can't be right wing. Andrew Stack may have attacked the IRS because he hated the government, felt he was Taxed Enough Already, complained about union thugs, and was outraged by the overreach of the bailouts... but he ended his suicide note saying that the current capitalist system as being corrupt and greedy, making him anything but a conservative.
 
2013-04-26 09:02:04 AM  
Breitbart uses the Beltway sniper as a counterweight in statistics. That's like using some random car accidents.  Those killings were not religious in nature.  They were an extended plot to kill his wife.
 
2013-04-26 09:03:41 AM  

mrlewish: Breitbart uses the Beltway sniper as a counterweight in statistics. That's like using some random car accidents.  Those killings were not religious in nature.  They were an extended plot to kill his wife.


Except that there was absolutely no proof to support that, and the judge explicitly told the prosecution to drop that line of reasoning and not bring it up during the trial. According to his own writings, it was in the name of jihad.
 
2013-04-26 09:03:41 AM  

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


All you had to do was look up the cases cited by MOJO.

If a racist white power neo nazi shot their white wife in an act of domestic violence MOJO counted it as right wing terrorism.

Christina Regusters should have been under MOJOs Muslim terrorism category if the fruit was hanging that low.....due duligence would tell you more than Briebart would anyway...why do you rely on the media to spoon feed you opinions?
 
2013-04-26 09:04:08 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I always go to Breitbart to find out who is trustworthy and who isn't.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm thirsty so I'm going to drink a tall glass of sand, rock salt, and glass shards.


Will you at least have flouride with it?
 
2013-04-26 09:04:41 AM  

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


Dr. we need you back in the OR to save this kid, you can post your detailed findings later
 
2013-04-26 09:07:35 AM  
"That bunch?"
 
2013-04-26 09:08:23 AM  
Hey everybody, lets have a silly argument and use Mother Jones and Breibart as our source material?

We are offically through the looking glass now
 
2013-04-26 09:08:24 AM  

Tatsuma: what's the point of this exercise?



That right wing terrorists exist and if we apply criteria loosely, that 8 year old kid killed by one of the Muslim bombers will rise from the dead and shake it off.
 
2013-04-26 09:08:46 AM  

Tatsuma: So we move from Mother Jones to Breibart?

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


/Also we already debunked that a couple of posts in the last thread


And I'm learning about the square root principle right now... What you have to do is take the square root of both sides, then... shiat... i forgot.

/something about isolating the variable
 
2013-04-26 09:10:09 AM  

DamnYankees: Tatsuma: Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.

One the one hand, you're right that the number of murders is tiny. On the other hand, you may be giving the government a bit too much credit. I think its more likely that there simply aren't that many people out there who actually want to commit mass violence or religious warfare in any real sense, and almost all who actually do want to are incapable of it. The amount of actual competent, able people who want to commit religious murder is simply not very large, and our fear of them has always been outsized.


This is true.  But Tatsuma does make a fair point.  The government has uncovered a few genuine terrorist plots before they could be carried out.  Now, it's arguable as to how advanced those plots were or how well organized they were, but the fact is that law enforcement detected them and stopped them.

If there is anything to "fear", it's more of these single individuals carrying out mass attacks like Boston.  Those are suspects who are very difficult to detect without the US becoming a police state, and that is simply not going to happen.  But at some point, are these "terrorists" or simply maniacs with access to better tools of mass death (e.g. homemade bombs, semi-automatic weapons, etc.)
 
2013-04-26 09:10:50 AM  
I don't know why you guys worry so much about this stuff when there are so many better things you could be doing like checking out porn, doing drugs, drinking liquor and passing out in the hot sun.  Stuff like that.
 
2013-04-26 09:10:52 AM  

lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....


Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?
 
2013-04-26 09:10:52 AM  

jake_lex: HotWingConspiracy: sammyk: Brietbart might as well become a fact checking organization. All others have turned biased within a short time

wat

The right-wing derpsphere is annoyed that the "lamestream press", before we had actual suspects in the Boston bombings, said a few times that it could very well be domestic terrorism or right wing groups, not Muslim terrorists.  To them, the fair and balanced way to cover this would have been to say when first reporting the explosions, "Some raghead did this."


It was diaperheads on facebook, but your point remains.
 
2013-04-26 09:12:32 AM  

Rapmaster2000: I don't know why you guys worry so much about this stuff when there are so many better things you could be doing like checking out porn, doing drugs, drinking liquor and passing out in the hot sun.  Stuff like that.


I'm confident someone posting here is doing all of those things right now.
 
2013-04-26 09:12:41 AM  
Breitbart's attempt to take down the Mother Jones position amounts to splitting hairs. In the end, Breitbart's article strengthens Mother Jones'.
 
2013-04-26 09:13:42 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?


Plus we get to ignore all the mason jars of acid thrown in womens faces and all the honor rapings and killings....because thats not terrorism.....its just an expression of culture that we should be tolerant of.

Would you like to join my drum circle?
 
2013-04-26 09:14:38 AM  
Really?  The whole article comes down to

"Those weren't terrorists!  They were white so they were patriots!"  ?
 
2013-04-26 09:14:57 AM  

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?

Plus we get to ignore all the mason jars of acid thrown in womens faces and all the honor rapings and killings....because thats not terrorism.....its just an expression of culture that we should be tolerant of.


Yeah, huge numbers of that going on in the US. And yeah, it's not terrorism.

Would you like to join my drum circle?

No, you're kind of a dick.
 
2013-04-26 09:15:02 AM  

cubic_spleen: Comparing Mother Jones to Breitbart? Really? A slightly left-of-center publication (MJ) vs reactionary batshiat-insane Repubilcan propaganda rag? Talk about comparing apples and screwdrivers...



6/10.  Not bad.
 
2013-04-26 09:15:07 AM  
done in one
 
2013-04-26 09:15:14 AM  

Close2TheEdge: This is true. But Tatsuma does make a fair point. The government has uncovered a few genuine terrorist plots before they could be carried out. Now, it's arguable as to how advanced those plots were or how well organized they were, but the fact is that law enforcement detected them and stopped them.

If there is anything to "fear", it's more of these single individuals carrying out mass attacks like Boston. Those are suspects who are very difficult to detect without the US becoming a police state, and that is simply not going to happen. But at some point, are these "terrorists" or simply maniacs with access to better tools of mass death (e.g. homemade bombs, semi-automatic weapons, etc.)


Yeah the only Islamic attacks that have actually worked since 9/11 have been acts from lone wolves.

Now, lone wolves can be extremely dangerous, the failed Time Square bombing, if it had worked, would have caused possibly hundreds of death. At least hundreds of casualties. It was a massive bomb, but he farked something up with the detonation mechanism. However, when it comes to larger plots, whether from Islamists or left-wingers or right-wingers, the FBI is on the farking ball. And we should all be pretty happy about that
 
2013-04-26 09:15:30 AM  
Two things:

1. I thought the Right is were against "fact-checking", like it had a liberal bias, or something.

2. Fact-checking by Brietbart?
 
2013-04-26 09:15:50 AM  
<csb> Growing up, two of my friends were twins who absolutely, positively hated each other.  Everything the other person did was wrong and perverse.  For the rest of the group, it was so exhausting that we eventually stopped hanging out with either one of them.</csb>

This story is relevant to this scenario.

/Trying to disprove Mother Jones by using Brietbart is like trying to disprove biblical Creationism by citing Hindu texts.
 
2013-04-26 09:17:02 AM  
They are both wrong.

/Vote Kodos.
 
2013-04-26 09:17:40 AM  

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

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


The difference is that they don't rape, murder, and steal in the name of Christianity.
 
2013-04-26 09:17:48 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?

Plus we get to ignore all the mason jars of acid thrown in womens faces and all the honor rapings and killings....because thats not terrorism.....its just an expression of culture that we should be tolerant of.

Yeah, huge numbers of that going on in the US. And yeah, it's not terrorism.

Would you like to join my drum circle?

No, you're kind of a dick.


Aw come on.

I mellow out after a 45 minute jam on  Ob-La-Di.
 
2013-04-26 09:18:26 AM  

Mikey1969: Two things:

1. I thought the Right is were against "fact-checking", like it had a liberal bias, or something.

2. Fact-checking by Brietbart?


Fact Checkers are da devil!
manilovefilms.com
 
2013-04-26 09:19:00 AM  
Well, dumbmitter, considering that Islamists are, by definition, ultra-conservative to begin with, what difference does it make?
 
2013-04-26 09:19:32 AM  

lantawa: there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.


Nah, there are at least a dozen.
 
2013-04-26 09:20:55 AM  

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

Every irony meter on the planet just exploded.

Sounded like popcorn.


www.sundriesshack.com
 
2013-04-26 09:21:15 AM  

Tatsuma: mrlewish: Breitbart uses the Beltway sniper as a counterweight in statistics. That's like using some random car accidents.  Those killings were not religious in nature.  They were an extended plot to kill his wife.

Except that there was absolutely no proof to support that, and the judge explicitly told the prosecution to drop that line of reasoning and not bring it up during the trial. According to his own writings, it was in the name of jihad.


"While imprisoned, Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States.[26] "I have been accused on my mission. Allah knows I'm gonna suffer now", he wrote.[26] Because his rants and drawings featured not only such figures as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but also characters from the film series The Matrix, these musings were dismissed as immaterial.[26] Some investigators reportedly said they had all but eliminated terrorist ties or political ideologies as a motive."

Well if you include The Matrix as part of Islam you would be right.
 
2013-04-26 09:21:38 AM  

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


I will not soil my cursor by clicking on a Breitbart link.
 
2013-04-26 09:21:43 AM  

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?

Plus we get to ignore all the mason jars of acid thrown in womens faces and all the honor rapings and killings....because thats not terrorism.....its just an expression of culture that we should be tolerant of.

Yeah, huge numbers of that going on in the US. And yeah, it's not terrorism.

Would you like to join my drum circle?

No, you're kind of a dick.

Aw come on.

I mellow out after a 45 minute jam on  Ob-La-Di.


Wait when you said acid, did you mean LSD?
 
2013-04-26 09:22:12 AM  
Facism is left wing?

The problem with the Crazy right is they make up false definitions of words to contort to their thoughts.  It's how Obama is a communist, even though by the definition of communism he cannot possibly be that.

The "extreme right" by it's very definition includes neo nazis, fascists and anarchists, by the very fact that they call for their individual being superior to notions of state.  The definition of "extreme right" happens to include nationalists, supremacists, religious theocracy...all the views that perceive their particular group has the "correct" or innately superior views.

These are not definitions from the lame stream media....the political spectrum definitions have been used since the French Revolution.
 
2013-04-26 09:23:04 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?


No assistance during the exam. Now get back to work...
 
2013-04-26 09:23:27 AM  
Old Mother Jones and her crew
Took away from me and you
I hope she goes far away
She better go far away
 
2013-04-26 09:25:07 AM  
When will all the religions and all the people of the world realize that there is no war but class war.
 
2013-04-26 09:25:22 AM  
Na ah! YOUR terrorists are worse than MY terrorist. Check the stats!


/You all sound like Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith.
//Can't we just agree their all bad?
 
2013-04-26 09:25:24 AM  
when your organization's name is literally a synonym for deceptive editing... you have no room to talk about accuracy.
 
2013-04-26 09:25:57 AM  
Ironically ....Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is also "extreme right wing" by definition...it's just that the dominant group in America's right wing happens to be Christian fundamentalists instead of Islamic fundamentalists....but they are both right wing, in that they feel their religious views superseded the collective will of the rest.
 
2013-04-26 09:25:58 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cubic_spleen: Comparing Mother Jones to Breitbart? Really? A slightly left-of-center publication (MJ) vs reactionary batshiat-insane Repubilcan propaganda rag? Talk about comparing apples and screwdrivers...


6/10.  Not bad.


It's not trolling, ace.  Just because you don't share a perspective that is consistent with reality means the problem is yours, bucko.
 
2013-04-26 09:26:52 AM  

lantawa: HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?

No assistance during the exam. Now get back to work...


Already have my answer, honky ass right wingers are the bigger threat. Not that your per-capita reasoning is valid.
 
2013-04-26 09:27:07 AM  

Mikey1969: Two things:

1. I thought the Right is were against "fact-checking", like it had a liberal bias, or something.

2. Fact-checking by Brietbart?


Facts that Breitbart disagrees with are Libfacts™, and therefore not facts at all.
 
2013-04-26 09:27:31 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Na ah! YOUR terrorists are worse than MY terrorist. Check the stats!


/You all sound like Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith.
//Can't we just agree their all bad?


Yes we can...
 
2013-04-26 09:27:32 AM  

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


Show how it isn't true. Your post has zero substance.
 
2013-04-26 09:28:47 AM  

MacWizard: lantawa: there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.

Nah, there are at least a dozen.

profile.ak.fbcdn.net
"I'm going to round - do you mind if I round?"
 
2013-04-26 09:29:03 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?

No assistance during the exam. Now get back to work...

Already have my answer, honky ass right wingers are the bigger threat. Not that your per-capita reasoning is valid.


Who you calling honkies, Negro!.....
 
2013-04-26 09:29:32 AM  
Interactive Google Map of Right Wing Violence in America

But no I'm sure The American Front votes democrat /s
 
2013-04-26 09:32:42 AM  

neversubmit: Interactive Google Map of Right Wing Violence in America

But no I'm sure The American Front votes democrat /s



They have multiple map points for the same crime....why would they do that?
 
2013-04-26 09:33:33 AM  
Considering radical Islamism is a  sub-set of right-wing extremism, and as such still right-wing, this is nothing but an attempt to create a false juxtaposition.

Though, I do love the part where the Dead Asshole writer tries to claim white nationalism and Christian identity theology isn't right-wing.
 
2013-04-26 09:36:19 AM  

neversubmit: Interactive Google Map of Right Wing Violence in America

But no I'm sure The American Front votes democrat /s


Got a less shiatty version of this map?
 
2013-04-26 09:36:28 AM  
"People who do bad things are not right wing".  That is literally their argument.

Ok, we'll bombing people isn't Islam either, you stupid farks.
 
2013-04-26 09:37:50 AM  
Simply reference an opposingly-biased source for the debunking of a particle story and presto, those who really wanted to believe it was actually true can do so again without having to worry about pesky little details such as reality.

Props to subby for the textbook trolling, got bites right from the start.
 
2013-04-26 09:38:06 AM  
Just a thought and probably falls into the "welcome to Fark" category but constitutionally it does not really matter what race or religion the offender is and both arguments are irrelevant hate-baiting BS.
 
2013-04-26 09:39:17 AM  
FTFA: "Jim David Adkisson... The motivation is at best split politically."

It's nice to see that the Breitbart empire is continuing to carry on his legacy of shameless lying and willful ignorance. This quote alone demonstrates the  utter worthlessness of the article.

Yes, I snipped out the middle portion, where they provide their uniquely stupid "explanation" of why they reach that conclusion, but it's pretty much "He hated Liberals, He thought they should be killed; BUT POTATO therefore both sides are bad"
 
2013-04-26 09:39:50 AM  
Is there anything on Breitbart.com that isn't a textbook example of confirmation bias?
 
2013-04-26 09:40:18 AM  

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

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


Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people
 
2013-04-26 09:41:39 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: FTFA: "Jim David Adkisson... The motivation is at best split politically."

It's nice to see that the Breitbart empire is continuing to carry on his legacy of shameless lying and willful ignorance. This quote alone demonstrates the  utter worthlessness of the article.

Yes, I snipped out the middle portion, where they provide their uniquely stupid "explanation" of why they reach that conclusion, but it's pretty much "He hated Liberals, He thought they should be killed; BUT POTATO therefore both sides are bad"


The dude wrote a farking manifesto laying out his case for murdering liberals inside of churches.

But again, gun, so not a terrorist.
 
2013-04-26 09:41:56 AM  

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

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


The middle east is filled with rapists, murderers and thieves.  We don't call every murder and rape an act of terror in those countries either.  Just because a right-winger who listens to Alex Jones kills someone doesn't make them a terrorist.  When they set off a bomb at a public event they are considered a terrorist.  How many of those are on that list?  I'll give you a hint, don't divide by it.
 
2013-04-26 09:44:43 AM  

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

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

Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people



He hated right wingers and said the left wasn't far enough left.......are you sure he carried out the bombings in the name of christianity?
 
2013-04-26 09:45:38 AM  

dehehn: When they set off a bomb at a public event they are considered a terrorist. How many of those are on that list?


www.visi.com
 
2013-04-26 09:46:23 AM  
Is this where we come to point out that, true or otherwise, you will NEVER lend legitimacy to your point by citing Breitbart to back it?
 
2013-04-26 09:46:51 AM  
breitbart vs mother jones? sorry but thats not even popcorn gif worthy. These links are bad and you should feel bad
 
2013-04-26 09:48:09 AM  
But Jesus was a Leftist.
 
2013-04-26 09:48:23 AM  
I think tallying which side is worse is, on the whole, a stupid game, but I think the broader purpose of the MJ article was to counter the voices on the right who are now suggesting that we stop letting Muslims immigrate, or that we need to start wiretapping mosques, because clearly they're all in league with people out to kill us. By showing that there are crazy white Christian good ol' boys who try and kill us in just about the same numbers, maybe we can see who really it is that tend to be the most dangerous: angry, disaffected men, regardless of race, creed, or culture.

The reason people were saying "I hope the bombers weren't Muslim" isn't because we'd prefer it to have been somebody else, it's because we know that if they are Muslim, it will feed a xenophobia which is already all to prevalent in the world today. Which is much worse for us in the long run than the bombs were*.

*Excepting those who were actual victims of the bombs.
 
2013-04-26 09:49:23 AM  

s2s2s2: But Jesus was a Leftist.


Jesus was many things that his followers are not.
 
2013-04-26 09:50:08 AM  
A few lines from the article:

This is conspiratorial nonsense, not right-wing extremism.

The motivation is at best split politically.

That is not right-wing. That is white supremacist.

the Nazi movement was left-wing in orientation.

He was a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He was not a right-winger.

shot a lawyer to death at a gun range so he could steal his gun for use to overthrow the US government in 2010...there is no evidence Peake was a right-winger.

The white supremacist couple killed four people...There is no evidence they were right-wing.

He was brewing in the culture of Nazi hate music. There is no evidence Page was right-wing.


Sorry, Ben.  You aren't allowed to shiat in your own hand, fling it in someone else's face and then say that it is their shiat.
 
2013-04-26 09:51:01 AM  

gshepnyc: Well, dumbmitter, considering that Islamists are, by definition, ultra-conservative to begin with, what difference does it make?


/\
// \\// \\ || || This
 
2013-04-26 09:51:13 AM  
I would like to point out that it is a false division.
Right wing terrorist and violent Muslim terrorist are both Right wing Terrorist.

Both want others to conform to their extreme and twisted right wing ideology.

Before someone blows their top I am aware that there are left wing terror groups, the article was not discussing them
 
2013-04-26 09:51:16 AM  

Hollie Maea: "People who do bad things are not right wing".  That is literally their argument.


If your ideology requires adherence to the rule of law, people who don't follow the rule of law don't share your ideology.
 
2013-04-26 09:51:41 AM  

maddogdelta: /\
// \\// \\ || || This


ASCII art fail  ;(
 
2013-04-26 09:52:14 AM  
This is such a stupid argument.
 
2013-04-26 09:53:03 AM  

Giltric: He hated right wingers and said the left wasn't far enough left.......are you sure he carried out the bombings in the name of christianity?


Ted Kaczynski was a born-again christian later in life, however when he carried out the bombings he considered himself an atheist with strong  positivist views. He was also an anarcho-primitivist and carried out the bombings as a way to get his message widespread attention.
 
2013-04-26 09:53:15 AM  

whistleridge: Is this where we come to point out that, true or otherwise, you will NEVER lend legitimacy to your point by citing Breitbart to back it?


Seems like the points were made in the MOJO thread yesterday without anyone referencing Brietbart.

This was greenlit just to discredit the points made in the other thread.

It is a retroactive  "rule 5" (http://whale.to/m/disin.html), I mean who would want to be share an opinion with kooks like Brietbart unless they themselves were a kook.
 
2013-04-26 09:53:23 AM  
Ben "Friends of Hamas" Shapiro has no credibility.
 
2013-04-26 09:53:53 AM  

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


So True!  Just look at the Christians on their way to church:

www.duila.org
 
2013-04-26 09:55:35 AM  

FilmBELOH20: edmo: Our country is riddled with crime: rapists, murderers, thieves --   almost all Christians.

So True!  Just look at the Christians on their way to church:

[www.duila.org image 381x258]


This just doesn't make any sense.

Noteventrolling/10
 
2013-04-26 09:56:07 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: But Jesus was a Leftist.

Jesus was many things that his followers are not.


Then they aren't followers. They are taking the Lord's name in Vain(ity).
 
2013-04-26 09:56:10 AM  
So basically...

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.
 
2013-04-26 09:57:06 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: But Jesus was a Leftist.

Jesus was many things that his followers are not.

Then they aren't followers. They are taking the Lord's name in Vain(ity).


All righteousness is self-righteousness.
 
2013-04-26 09:57:59 AM  
That Mother Jones article entire Brietbart network of websites saying more right-wingers have killed Americans than Islamists anything? Yeah, it's about as accurate as you'd expect from that bunch
 
2013-04-26 09:58:23 AM  

randomjsa: So basically...

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.


If anyone is qualified to speak on the employment of BS, it is certainly not you.
 
2013-04-26 09:58:26 AM  

Epoch_Zero: All righteousness is self-righteousness.


righteousness |ˈrīCHəsnəs|
noun
the quality of being morally right or justifiable

Looks like you are verifiably wrong.
 
2013-04-26 09:58:36 AM  

Hollie Maea: A few lines from the article:

This is conspiratorial nonsense, not right-wing extremism.

The motivation is at best split politically.

That is not right-wing. That is white supremacist.

the Nazi movement was left-wing in orientation.

He was a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He was not a right-winger.

shot a lawyer to death at a gun range so he could steal his gun for use to overthrow the US government in 2010...there is no evidence Peake was a right-winger.

The white supremacist couple killed four people...There is no evidence they were right-wing.

He was brewing in the culture of Nazi hate music. There is no evidence Page was right-wing.

Sorry, Ben.  You aren't allowed to shiat in your own hand, fling it in someone else's face and then say that it is their shiat.


The entire article is just a string of equivocations and No True Scotsman fallacies. But what else can they do? It will reinforce the rigid authoritarian beliefs of their followers, which is all they really care about anyway
 
2013-04-26 09:58:43 AM  

randomjsa: The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining


Nope.  "Ad Hominem" would be if I said "don't listen to breitbart because they are stupid".  Whereas I'm saying "don't listen to breitbart because the basis of their article is "white supremacists are left wing".
 
2013-04-26 10:00:25 AM  

nmrsnr: I think tallying which side is worse is, on the whole, a stupid game, but I think the broader purpose of the MJ article was to counter the voices on the right who are now suggesting that we stop letting Muslims immigrate, or that we need to start wiretapping mosques, because clearly they're all in league with people out to kill us. By showing that there are crazy white Christian good ol' boys who try and kill us in just about the same numbers, maybe we can see who really it is that tend to be the most dangerous: angry, disaffected men, regardless of race, creed, or culture.

The reason people were saying "I hope the bombers weren't Muslim" isn't because we'd prefer it to have been somebody else, it's because we know that if they are Muslim, it will feed a xenophobia which is already all to prevalent in the world today. Which is much worse for us in the long run than the bombs were*.

*Excepting those who were actual victims of the bombs.


Except a lot of folks don't seem to understand that they're not different sides.  Calling US right-wing extremists a different "side" than Islamic extremists would be like saying the KKK is a different "side" from the Aryan Nation.
 
2013-04-26 10:00:35 AM  
A Brietbart article refuting a Mother Jones article... I think we can safely assume that no one is in the right here.
 
2013-04-26 10:00:36 AM  

Epoch_Zero: randomjsa: So basically...

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.

If anyone is qualified to speak on the employment of BS, it is certainly not you.


Since you seem to have a hard time understanding words and logic, are you under the impression that "Epoch" means "Dividing by"?

Way to be an example of what rando's post.
 
2013-04-26 10:01:23 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: But Jesus was a Leftist.

Jesus was many things that his followers are not.

Then they aren't followers. They are taking the Lord's name in Vain(ity).


But are they Scotsmen?
 
2013-04-26 10:02:20 AM  

randomjsa: So basically... all this crap I am posting below is nonsense.

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2013-04-26 10:02:22 AM  

Rapmaster2000: I don't know why you guys worry so much about this stuff when there are so many better things you could be doing like checking out porn, doing drugs, drinking liquor and passing out in the hot sun.  Stuff like that.


laughingsquid.com
 
2013-04-26 10:03:42 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: All righteousness is self-righteousness.

righteousness |ˈrīCHəsnəs|
noun
the quality of being morally right or justifiable

Looks like you are verifiably wrong.


Morality is a quality of ego. Feeling good about doing the morally correct thing is to satisfy one's own ego.  Therefore, all righteousness is self-righteousness. The actual good is done without expectation of reward, without prior or afterthought. No moral act guided by religious views is done without expectation of reward, since religion is based on ultimate validation for deeds done.

Don't make me go Nietzsche.
 
2013-04-26 10:04:15 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But are they Scotsmen?


You got me. There's a cute saying, so that means that people that claim to be something, without holding themselves to the standards of said something claimed, are what they claim to be for the sake of people who don't like either one.
 
2013-04-26 10:04:23 AM  

Giltric: neversubmit: Interactive Google Map of Right Wing Violence in America

But no I'm sure The American Front votes democrat /s

They have multiple map points for the same crime....why would they do that?


I don't see that but if that's the case idk.

s2s2s2: neversubmit: Interactive Google Map of Right Wing Violence in America

But no I'm sure The American Front votes democrat /s

Got a less shiatty version of this map?


No, I wasn't very happy with it either.
 
2013-04-26 10:04:56 AM  

s2s2s2: Since you seem to have a hard time understanding words and logic, are you under the impression that "Epoch" means "Dividing by"?

Way to be an example of what rando's post.


You're getting straw just everywhere.
 
2013-04-26 10:04:58 AM  

Giltric: whistleridge: Is this where we come to point out that, true or otherwise, you will NEVER lend legitimacy to your point by citing Breitbart to back it?

Seems like the points were made in the MOJO thread yesterday without anyone referencing Brietbart.

This was greenlit just to discredit the points made in the other thread.

It is a retroactive  "rule 5" (http://whale.to/m/disin.html), I mean who would want to be share an opinion with kooks like Brietbart unless they themselves were a kook.


Nice reference....
 
2013-04-26 10:05:51 AM  

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


So one lying journalist accuses another lying journalist of lying.

Who's telling the truth?
 
2013-04-26 10:07:51 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: But are they Scotsmen?

You got me. There's a cute saying, so that means that people that claim to be something, without holding themselves to the standards of said something claimed, are what they claim to be for the sake of people who don't like either one.


Do you believe those who kill innocents in the name of Islam are really followers of Islam?
 
2013-04-26 10:08:04 AM  

Hollie Maea: A few lines from the article:

This is conspiratorial nonsense, not right-wing extremism.

The motivation is at best split politically.

That is not right-wing. That is white supremacist.

the Nazi movement was left-wing in orientation.

He was a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He was not a right-winger.

shot a lawyer to death at a gun range so he could steal his gun for use to overthrow the US government in 2010...there is no evidence Peake was a right-winger.

The white supremacist couple killed four people...There is no evidence they were right-wing.

He was brewing in the culture of Nazi hate music. There is no evidence Page was right-wing.

Sorry, Ben.  You aren't allowed to shiat in your own hand, fling it in someone else's face and then say that it is their shiat.


Once again, it's someone using an awful lot of words to say TINSTAAVC.
 
2013-04-26 10:09:10 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Feeling good about doing the morally correct thing is to satisfy one's own ego


Feeling good about it is to feel good? Name one property of water, QUICK!

Epoch_Zero: Don't make me go Nietzsche.


Nietzsche is Dead.
 
2013-04-26 10:09:16 AM  

Tatsuma: IdBeCrazyIf: Are they including drone strikes in those numbers?

I guess if you personally consider Obama responsible for those deaths, you'll have to add a few hundred deaths in the Islamic terrorism column.


That was funny. Don't worry, people will get the joke.
 
2013-04-26 10:10:40 AM  

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

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

Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people


1. Anders Breivik *WAS* a bomber too.

2.  Ted Kaczynski was as Left-wing as they come, and an atheist.  He didn't use religion as justification

3.  TImothy McVeigh was by no means religious or religiously motivated, describing himself at different times as a lapsed Catholic, an atheist, or an agnostic.  He also didn't use religion as justification.
 
2013-04-26 10:14:14 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Feeling good about doing the morally correct thing is to satisfy one's own ego

Feeling good about it is to feel good? Name one property of water, QUICK!


Hence the self part of self-righteousness. They do it in order to satisfy themselves, not others.

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Don't make me go Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is Dead.


And?
 
2013-04-26 10:16:42 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you believe those who kill innocents in the name of Islam are really followers of Islam?


Does Islam call for the killing of innocents? I don't know. I've heard a lot of quotes from the Quaran, but I don't know context, so I can't say.
 
2013-04-26 10:17:03 AM  
People who use violence to create political change or who respond to political events with violence are terrorists.  People who assault or murder doctors who perform abortions are terrorists.  People who shoot up churches because of the political beliefs of its believers are terrorists.  People who drag gay people behind their moving cards until they're dead, they're terrorists. 

There is a very strong correlation between murderous pro-lifers and right wing political affiliation.  There is a very strong correlation between people who murder gays for their sexual orientation and right wing political affiliation.  But correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.  And personally, I don't see the difference in labeling action terrorist or not coming down to the means by which they chose to kill people.

I used to think that as a Jew, my faith was better than others, not because of any particular characteristic of doctrine or scholarship, but because we didn't use our faith as an excuse to kill people.  We were the people who were constantly murdered because of our faith, but we never used our power to hurt others, mostly because after the Diaspora we didn't have any power.  We'd learned our lesson.  And I was blocking out some of the rather heinous things that Israel was doing in the name of security.  Then a right wing Orthodox nutjob assassinated Rabin.  And that showed me my hypocrisy.
 
2013-04-26 10:19:43 AM  
FFS this is not a freaking content.  Irresponsible rhetoric pushes fundamental extremists on both sides to lose what little shiat they have left and do violent things out of fear and hatred.  The numbers don't matter as much as figuring out and stopping the underlying political extremism so stop trying to say that this group kills more or less than this other group.  They both represent different sides of the same coin.
 
2013-04-26 10:19:46 AM  

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

I will not soil my cursor by clicking on a Breitbart link.


So you saw it was a link to Breitbart and stopped by to let us know that you wouldn't click on it ..... you're as special as your Momma said you was
 
2013-04-26 10:20:36 AM  

YouAreItNoTagBacks: FFS this is not a freaking content.  Irresponsible rhetoric pushes fundamental extremists on both sides to lose what little shiat they have left and do violent things out of fear and hatred.  The numbers don't matter as much as figuring out and stopping the underlying political extremism so stop trying to say that this group kills more or less than this other group.  They both represent different sides of the same coin.


contest* - Too early for not previewing.
 
2013-04-26 10:20:57 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Hence the self part of self-righteousness


Epoch_Zero: All righteousness


So some righteousness, is actual righteousness, and you were wrong.
 
2013-04-26 10:22:00 AM  

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

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

Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people

1. Anders Breivik *WAS* a bomber too.

2.  Ted Kaczynski was as Left-wing as they come, and an atheist.  He didn't use religion as justification

3.  TImothy McVeigh was by no means religious or religiously motivated, describing himself at different times as a lapsed Catholic, an atheist, or an agnostic.  He also didn't use religion as justification.


Weather Underground, starring Obama's pal Bill Ayers, was responsible for more that 30 acts of violence from 1969 to 1987.

Occupy Cleveland terrorist that planned the bridge bombings in 2012

Left-Wing Extremist Plot to Bomb RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota at the 2008 Republican National Convention hoping for mass casualties
 
2013-04-26 10:22:52 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: But are they Scotsmen?

You got me. There's a cute saying, so that means that people that claim to be something, without holding themselves to the standards of said something claimed, are what they claim to be for the sake of people who don't like either one.


See, here is the deal though:  Some of those incidents involve 'Scotsmen' (in that yes, the people are Right-wing assholes), but they aren't terrorism.

Killing your wife isn't terrorism.

Killing the police who respond to a 9/11 call from you Mom after you get into an argument with her isn't terrorism.

Killing people while committing a common bank robbery, even though the intent is to eventually fund terrorism, isn't terrorism.

The source Mother Jones used played fast and loose with the definition of terrorism, as I pointed out in the thread about the article.  I independently Googled the names mentioned, and even relying on sources like the SPLC it was clear that most (but not 100%) of the incidents plainly involved neo-Nazis, etc., something like roughly half of the incidents couldn't be considered terrorism.
 
2013-04-26 10:25:23 AM  

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

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

Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people


McVeigh was a sovereign citizen, he had nothing to do w/ religion
 
2013-04-26 10:25:41 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Hence the self part of self-righteousness

Epoch_Zero: All righteousness

So some righteousness, is actual righteousness, and you were wrong.


No, all righteousness is self-righteousness. There can be good deeds done without moral grounds. However, the religious seem to only do good deeds when it fits into their own moral construction, which itself exists to satisfy their own ego, as they view doing good deeds as a selfish means to an end involving their own eventual reward, hence the satisfaction of ego.
 
2013-04-26 10:25:59 AM  
I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.
 
2013-04-26 10:28:07 AM  

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

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

Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people

1. Anders Breivik *WAS* a bomber too.

2.  Ted Kaczynski was as Left-wing as they come, and an atheist.  He didn't use religion as justification

3.  TImothy McVeigh was by no means religious or religiously motivated, describing himself at different times as a lapsed Catholic, an atheist, or an agnostic.  He also didn't use religion as justification.


Some direct quotes from the Unabomber's Manifesto:

"One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism. . . . [W]e have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal-rights activists and the like...
[T]wo psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call feelings of inferiority and oversocialization. ... By "feelings of inferiority" we mean ... low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc...

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. .. [they hate] America and the West because they are strong and successful...
Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti- individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them. ... The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser...
His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself...
In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle- class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible," they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial- technological system...
[A] movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology..."
~

"Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power."
 
2013-04-26 10:28:21 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The entire article is just a string of equivocations and No True Scotsman fallacies. But what else can they do? It will reinforce the rigid authoritarian beliefs of their followers, which is all they really care about anyway


You say that as if Brietbart wasn't already Where Logic Goes to Die.
 
2013-04-26 10:28:43 AM  

DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.


Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.
 
2013-04-26 10:29:27 AM  
You know who else robbed banks...

upload.wikimedia.org

good thing it wasn't terrorism or he would never have been Premier of Soviet Union /s
 
2013-04-26 10:30:06 AM  

Tatsuma: /Also we already debunked that a couple of posts in the last thread



img708.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-26 10:32:02 AM  

randomjsa: So basically...

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.


Except that there is no "far left" in this country, except for maybe the three people in the E.L.F. What you call "far left" is actually "barely left of center". What you call "far right" is actually reactionary to the level that they can almost be called Monarchists.
 
2013-04-26 10:32:35 AM  

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

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

Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Ted Kaczynski?

And, not a bomber, but also Anders Breivik?

They all used Christianity as justification for their actions.  Having this US vs THEM mentality is part of what prevents us from solving the problem of crazies wanting to go out and kill a bunch of people


I normally don't bother responding to my derpier fb friends' political posts, but when one asserted the other day that "no Christian Conservative has ever set off a bomb", I countered with Eric Rudolph. His response: Eric Rudolph was neither Christian nor Conservative. Why? Because he (the fb poster) said so, that's why. Thus provoked, he went on to claim - among other things - that Christians don't want governmental control (unlike those power-grabbing Muslims who can't wait to take over the US), the KKK isn't right-wing (because they started off as Democrats, ya know), the Crusades weren't an example of Christian violence because the Bible doesn't give direct scriptural support for them, and established definitions of political ideology don't matter because they were invented by "academics and professors" who of course are not to be trusted.

Yes, this is indeed what some Conservatives believe. I think in a roundabout way he was trying to say that "real" Christians and Conservatives shouldn't embrace violence as a means to an end (as opposed to those inherently violent "progressives" - another assertion he made), but maybe I'm giving him a little too much benefit of the doubt. I ended up backing away slowly. For all I know, he's still posting War and Peace-length screeds over there right now.
 
2013-04-26 10:32:56 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you believe those who kill innocents in the name of Islam are really followers of Islam?

Does Islam call for the killing of innocents? I don't know. I've heard a lot of quotes from the Quaran, but I don't know context, so I can't say.


Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit then. I'm sure you wouldn't want to unfairly connect Islam to bad acts out of ignorance, and would love to be able to defend the purity of Islam as you do Christianity.
 
2013-04-26 10:34:24 AM  

Epoch_Zero: s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Hence the self part of self-righteousness

Epoch_Zero: All righteousness

So some righteousness, is actual righteousness, and you were wrong.

No, all righteousness is self-righteousness. There can be good deeds done without moral grounds. However, the religious seem to only do good deeds when it fits into their own moral construction, which itself exists to satisfy their own ego, as they view doing good deeds as a selfish means to an end involving their own eventual reward, hence the satisfaction of ego.


Said the self-righteous Freudian orthodoxy dogmatist who seems to have no concept of pragmatism, moral law, or Jungian concepts.
 
2013-04-26 10:35:17 AM  

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

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


You're right, except that these so-called Christians are just crooks looking to profit.  Muslims on the other hand just love killing innocent people in the name of the pathetic god.  Now don't get me wrong, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are indeed Muslims and the world as a whole would be a much more peaceful place if it were not for the religion of peace.
 
2013-04-26 10:35:41 AM  

DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.


Islamic terrorism really is right-wing terrorism, just in the name of a different religion.

"In the ideological world, your greatest enemies are those closest to yourself."
~~my Modern Western Civilization professor, circa 1994.
 
2013-04-26 10:36:26 AM  

Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.


There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.
 
2013-04-26 10:38:38 AM  
lantawa:Said the self-righteous Freudian orthodoxy dogmatist who seems to have no concept of pragmatism, moral law, or Jungian concepts.

Says the guy named lantawa who can't see that religion is self-serving.

www.sundriesshack.com
My god, second time in the same thread. This picture needs a beer.
 
2013-04-26 10:38:41 AM  

DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.


Right wing terrorism is almost always anti-government or racist oriented
Islamic terrorism is a mix of religious and cultural beliefs.  There is very little overlap between the two groups beyond the antisemitism stuff.

Christian terrorism is practically non-existent and is pretty much just some boogie man a bunch of hateful bigots use to bash it.  The bigots were openly hoping for it to be a tea bagger as the Boston bomber so they could finally get a valid BUT BUT look.  Simply put there a bunch of scum bag, bigots who need a rather larger reality check.  If they're doing it simply because they don't agree w/ the women's rights or gay issues, they need to seriously stop w/ the outright lying and hate speech and keep things in perspective.  Otherwise they're no better than the lunatics trying to paint all Muslims as evil for the actions of a few extremists.
 
2013-04-26 10:41:01 AM  

Epoch_Zero: No, all righteousness is self-righteousness.


Sorry, but I already shot that one down. Self righteousness is NOT righteousness. Therefore NO righteousness is self-righteousness. The "Self-" is added to distinguish between actual goodness, and egomania.
 
2013-04-26 10:43:14 AM  
Has anybody pointed out that Islamists ARE right-wingers?
 
2013-04-26 10:44:42 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit then. I'm sure you wouldn't want to unfairly connect Islam to bad acts out of ignorance, and would love to be able to defend the purity of Islam as you do Christianity.


I don't connect Islam to bad acts, out of ignorance. Since I don't know, I can't say they are a proper representation of the religion. I can still repeat the reasons any bad actor offers as their reasoning, though.
 
2013-04-26 10:45:20 AM  
Sgt Otter:Some direct quotes from the Unabomber's Manifesto:

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown

Wingnuts have been labeling the Unabomber as a "leftist" for years. It is now just a non-controversial, well accepted fact as far as they are concerned.
 
2013-04-26 10:46:56 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit then. I'm sure you wouldn't want to unfairly connect Islam to bad acts out of ignorance, and would love to be able to defend the purity of Islam as you do Christianity.

I don't connect Islam to bad acts, out of ignorance. Since I don't know, I can't say they are a proper representation of the religion. I can still repeat the reasons any bad actor offers as their reasoning, though.


So when the bad actor claims Christianity as their justification, You are as willing to repeat and accept that claim as when they are Islamic, right?
 
2013-04-26 10:48:55 AM  

Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.


Yeah, and the people who went to your high school didn't like the people at your rival high school. Doesn't mean the schools aren't basically the same. The divisions are stupid, and there really is very little difference between the groups other than some nomenclature.
 
2013-04-26 10:48:58 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-26 10:49:47 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: No, all righteousness is self-righteousness.

Sorry, but I already shot that one down.


Except you didn't.

Those that do something righteous, that is, doing something that they view through their religion-tainted view that tells them something is indeed righteous to do, is then not done for the act but for the doer.

Righteousness is, using your term, egomania. Simply put, the religious do good things not for the good deeds themselves, but for the praise given to them by others after doing them, be that the praise of others of their faith, society, or their delusion of god. The radical fundamentalist, be he christian or muslim or hindu or sihk or pastafarian, does their violence not for others but for themselves. I'm not sure how you are missing this.
 
2013-04-26 10:51:33 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So when the bad actor claims Christianity as their justification, You are as willing to repeat and accept that claim as when they are Islamic, right?


Right, I can say "this guy claims his motivation is Christianity". But because I am a preacher's son, who has learned to be more liberal than he ever was by actually paying attention to what the Bible tells me I should do, I can say that person has it wrong.
 
2013-04-26 10:51:41 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit then. I'm sure you wouldn't want to unfairly connect Islam to bad acts out of ignorance, and would love to be able to defend the purity of Islam as you do Christianity.

I don't connect Islam to bad acts, out of ignorance. Since I don't know, I can't say they are a proper representation of the religion. I can still repeat the reasons any bad actor offers as their reasoning, though.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-26 10:53:12 AM  

Giltric: Tatsuma: what's the point of this exercise?


That right wing terrorists exist and if we apply criteria loosely, that 8 year old kid killed by one of the Muslim bombers will rise from the dead and shake it off.


A Festivus miracle!
 
2013-04-26 10:53:29 AM  

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

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


You see that fence over there? I built it with my own two hands! Dug up the holes with my shovel, chopped down the trees for the posts by myself, laid every last rail! But do they call me "Dzhokhar the Fence-Builder?" No!

You see that pier on the bay? I built it myself, too. Swam out into the water to lay the foundations, laid down every single board! But do they call me "Dzhokhar the Pier-Builder?" No!


But you set off ONE bomb...
 
2013-04-26 10:53:50 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Righteousness is, using your term, egomania


No, my term was the dictionary definition of the word. Reality shut you down, you just haven't accepted it, yet.
 
2013-04-26 10:54:44 AM  

lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....


Only 10% of the population is right-wing?

I see your point mind you (although one could also say since muslims are coming from abroad that the sample population cannot just count american muslims), but if you are that specific about defining right wing, why be that generic in counting all muslims?

I look at things this way: 100% of mass killing incidents are the responsibility of crazy people deluded into fundamentalism of some kind.
 
2013-04-26 10:54:56 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Tatsuma: 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.

I know, I was just ribbing, hoping to start some shiat amongst the unwashed masses (read liters)


You mean if I give $5 to some website that is so riven with scripts and ad-links to crappy servers that it barely loads anymore that I will instantly become cool like you?

Pass
 
2013-04-26 10:55:39 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Righteousness is, using your term, egomania

No, my term was the dictionary definition of the word. Reality shut you down, you just haven't accepted it, yet.


Excuse me if I don't take suggestions of reality from "a preacher's son, who has learned to be more liberal than he ever was by actually paying attention to what the Bible tells me I should do"
 
2013-04-26 10:56:58 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Excuse me if I don't take suggestions of reality from

...a dictionary.

Edited to be more factual, and specific.

I forgive you.
 
2013-04-26 10:57:53 AM  

GoodScout: The article says only two of the cases listed were right-wingers. Just by reading it, I can see it's a lot more. If they're going to lie, they need to get better at it.


I took the hit.  It's not that they're saying they weren't right-wing as much as they were saying they weren't terrorist attacks, or that their motivations weren't tied to their extremism.  But, of course, they make sure to note every "terrorist attack" made by people who happened to be Islamic in the Islamic terrorism category, no matter the real motivation. I mean, hell, if they're gonna discount Jim Adkisson as not being right-wing, or two people who killed in the name of Nazism as not being right-wing, then you probably have to discount the Fort Hood shooter as not being left wing.
 
2013-04-26 10:57:58 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Excuse me if I don't take suggestions of reality from ...a dictionary.

Edited to be more factual, and specific.

I forgive you.


Your perception continues to be incorrect.
 
2013-04-26 10:58:20 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: So when the bad actor claims Christianity as their justification, You are as willing to repeat and accept that claim as when they are Islamic, right?

Right, I can say "this guy claims his motivation is Christianity". But because I am a preacher's son, who has learned to be more liberal than he ever was by actually paying attention to what the Bible tells me I should do, I can say that person has it wrong.


So why are you unwilling to take the effort to educate yourself  on Islam so that you can make similar determinations? Why remain willfully ignorant? Surely as a true Christian you are as concerned about the good name of Muslims as you are about Christians.
 
2013-04-26 10:58:43 AM  
More Americans kill Americans every month than radical Muslims have in a decade.

But that's good ole 2nd amendment supported killin', so it don't matter.

All that matters is giving up rights so we can get them Muslims.
 
2013-04-26 11:00:18 AM  

karnal: Left-Wing Extremist Plot to Bomb RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota at the 2008 Republican National Convention hoping for mass casualties



We all hoped for mass casualties at the 2008 GOP convention. Personally, I was praying to the FSM for a meteor impact.
 
2013-04-26 11:03:00 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So why are you unwilling to take the effort to educate yourself  on Islam so that you can make similar determinations?


Because holding people accountable for their actions is enough for me. "By their fruit, you will know them" and all that shiat.
 
2013-04-26 11:03:13 AM  

Grungehamster: GoodScout: The article says only two of the cases listed were right-wingers. Just by reading it, I can see it's a lot more. If they're going to lie, they need to get better at it.

The problem is the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you can show where someone believed anything critical of conservatives than they can't be right wing. Andrew Stack may have attacked the IRS because he hated the government, felt he was Taxed Enough Already, complained about union thugs, and was outraged by the overreach of the bailouts... but he ended his suicide note saying that the current capitalist system as being corrupt and greedy, making him anything but a conservative.


...and like I said, they also say James Von Brunn, while being a white supremacist and holocaust denier, was not a right-winger, while saying the sole motivation of the Fort Hood shooter was Islamic extremism, while it probably was more in line with the Virginia Tech shooter, or even Jared Loughner.
 
2013-04-26 11:04:23 AM  

mediablitz: More Americans kill Americans every month than radical Muslims have in a decade.

But that's good ole 2nd amendment supported killin', so it don't matter.

All that matters is giving up rights so we can get them Muslims.


Profiling Muslims = easy

Overcoming NRA = hard

American Legislative Body - We'll tackle the easy problems so you don't have to™
 
2013-04-26 11:04:30 AM  

give me doughnuts: karnal: Left-Wing Extremist Plot to Bomb RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota at the 2008 Republican National Convention hoping for mass casualties


We all hoped for mass casualties at the 2008 GOP convention. Personally, I was praying to the FSM for a meteor impact.


Then again in 2012:
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-26 11:05:45 AM  

bugontherug: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Islamic terrorism really is right-wing terrorism, just in the name of a different religion.


Exactly. And don't forget the non-religious "fundamentalists" Plenty of non-religious rightwing extremists out there too. Army of God, Aryan Nation, Sovereign Citizens, Muslim Jihadists. Same dangerous extremist right-wing bullshiat, different costumes
 
2013-04-26 11:06:14 AM  

birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.


Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.
 
2013-04-26 11:06:17 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: So why are you unwilling to take the effort to educate yourself  on Islam so that you can make similar determinations?

Because holding people accountable for their actions is enough for me. "By their fruit, you will know them" and all that shiat.


So you're constantly out denouncing Christians who cause harm upon others based on their own religious beliefs?  (See: nearly every bill they've proposed regarding reproductive health or sexual orientation since 2010).
 
2013-04-26 11:07:08 AM  

Smackledorfer: I look at things this way: 100% of mass killing incidents are the responsibility of crazy people deluded into fundamentalism of some kind.


I can't.  Because of the horrible state of mental health services in the U.S., and several high profile players actively blocking any meaningful reform in that area (yeah, Wayne, I'm looking at you)...to label someone as "just crazy" or "just another fundamentalist" tacitly implies that there's nothing we could have done...when in many cases, there is plenty we can do; we just don't do it because it might cost us actual money.
 
2013-04-26 11:07:09 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: So why are you unwilling to take the effort to educate yourself  on Islam so that you can make similar determinations?

Because holding people accountable for their actions is enough for me. "By their fruit, you will know them" and all that shiat.


Except when they are Christians? Perhaps you don't understand the teachings of Jesus any better than those you claim aren't really Christians. Neither your double standard nor your arrogance have any basis in his philosophy,.
 
2013-04-26 11:12:15 AM  

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

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

You're right, except that these so-called Christians are just crooks looking to profit.  Muslims on the other hand just love killing innocent people in the name of the pathetic god.  Now don't get me wrong, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are indeed Muslims and the world as a whole would be a much more peaceful place if it were not for the religion of peace.


So, it's not a religion of peace... I correct myself.

www.usdl.info

She looks hot under those curtains, in a sex way...
 
2013-04-26 11:12:22 AM  

coeyagi: So you're constantly out denouncing Christians who cause harm upon others based on their own religious beliefs?


I don't spend much time denouncing. I do actually try to reason with my father. I got him to back off on his stance regarding gay marriage, which has carried over to what he tells others.

I was explaining to a friend, yesterday, that the bible actually speaks on the unborn and even the recently born, and is more liberal on that than the DNC.

I do a little defending of what I think is right, while always providing the caveat that it is just my interpretation/opinion.
 
2013-04-26 11:14:12 AM  
And your way of proving that Mother Jones is not credible is by linking us to Breitbart, the website of a man who was known for making up bullshiat left and right.

There was a Farker in the original thread who broke down exactly how Mother Jones was wrong.  I find them more believable than this.
 
2013-04-26 11:14:12 AM  
and not wanting to be negative all the time when it come to Muslims, if they can deal with the bieber, than they would be doing the world a service.

conservativenewjersey.com
 
2013-04-26 11:14:35 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: lantawa: There are approximately 32 million "right-wingers" in the U.S.  there are approximately 2.6 Muslims in the U.S.  Calculate the ratios of terrorist acts to total suspect populations, and see what conclusions you can draw.  Begin now. Your work will be graded....

Do we get to define terrorism, or do we have to rely on our government that doesn't consider people like Jim David Adkisson terrorists because they used a gun? How far back can we look?

Plus we get to ignore all the mason jars of acid thrown in womens faces and all the honor rapings and killings....because thats not terrorism.....its just an expression of culture that we should be tolerant of.

Yeah, huge numbers of that going on in the US. And yeah, it's not terrorism.

Would you like to join my drum circle?

No, you're kind of a dick.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-26 11:16:22 AM  

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.

Am I misunderstanding you, here?

Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance


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

Also requested: examples of my arrogance.
 
2013-04-26 11:18:38 AM  
The Left Wing is completely unrepresented in the statistics.  The Red Terror is just Amy Pond's nickname these days.
 
2013-04-26 11:19:20 AM  
Is Brick House just an image posting bot or something?
 
2013-04-26 11:19:54 AM  

Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.


Because a white supremacists has nothing to do w/ religion
 
2013-04-26 11:20:21 AM  
BLOG FIGHT!
 
2013-04-26 11:21:14 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-26 11:22:14 AM  
 Alright, and now it's gunna be debunked by that last bastion of honest "journalism" known as Breitbart?
Even when it's flamingly obious that an act was carried out by right-wing extreemist they try to claim that they "were really just anarchist". I think they also try to claim that the Nazi's were a far left liberal organization. That tells you everything you need to know about their credibility.

Hypnozombie
 
2013-04-26 11:23:02 AM  

ShadowKamui: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

Because a white supremacists has nothing to do w/ religion



How sure are you?

The Appleby Baptist Church in Nacogdoches, Texas

"The curse of Ham," an old-time Biblical (mis)interpretation used to vilify black people and justify slavery and laws against racial intermarriage, is still alive and spreading bigotry in the United States.
 
2013-04-26 11:23:16 AM  

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

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

The middle east is filled with rapists, murderers and thieves.  We don't call every murder and rape an act of terror in those countries either.  Just because a right-winger who listens to Alex Jones kills someone doesn't make them a terrorist.  When they set off a bomb at a public event they are considered a terrorist.  How many of those are on that list?  I'll give you a hint, don't divide by it.


So, how does this fit your narrative?

May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.

January 1, 2012 Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the Clinic in Pensacola, Florida with a; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion,

April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.


We could go on and on.
 
2013-04-26 11:25:37 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-26 11:27:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims


I said I wasn't willing to say that they are actually followers of Islam.

Philip Francis Queeg: See above.


There wasn't anything there(see above).

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?


Those aren't the only two options.
 
2013-04-26 11:30:53 AM  
s2s2s2:
Nietzsche is Dead.

And so is Breitbart.  Hey-o! (Also dead.)
 
2013-04-26 11:30:56 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.


Well, if what I have been reading in this thread is correct, Tiller was performing christian abortions.
 
2013-04-26 11:30:59 AM  
Sounds like some butthurt right-tards are still a little upset MoJo exposed Romney for the piece of absolute right-wing shiat that he is with the 47 percent video.

Sorry but MoJo is a preeminent source of real journalism. Brietbart is a dead loser and Ben Shapiro is a King Farkwit of Derp Mountain.
 
2013-04-26 11:31:14 AM  

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

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

You're right, except that these so-called Christians are just crooks looking to profit.  Muslims on the other hand just love killing innocent people in the name of the pathetic god.  Now don't get me wrong, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are indeed Muslims and the world as a whole would be a much more peaceful place if it were not for the religion of peace.


You are a retarded bigot.
 
2013-04-26 11:32:36 AM  
Your daily Facebook Conservative Infographic Strawman:

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-26 11:33:00 AM  

ShadowKamui: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Right wing terrorism is almost always anti-government or racist oriented
Islamic terrorism is a mix of religious and cultural beliefs.  There is very little overlap between the two groups beyond the antisemitism stuff.

Christian terrorism is practically non-existent and is pretty much just some boogie man a bunch of hateful bigots use to bash it.  The bigots were openly hoping for it to be a tea bagger as the Boston bomber so they could finally get a valid BUT BUT look.  Simply put there a bunch of scum bag, bigots who need a rather larger reality check.  If they're doing it simply because they don't agree w/ the women's rights or gay issues, they need to seriously stop w/ the outright lying and hate speech and keep things in perspective.  Otherwise they're no better than the lunatics trying to paint all Muslims as evil for the actions of a few extremists.


Hey, at least you let everyone know you were a moron in the 1st sentence of the second paragraph.
 
2013-04-26 11:34:11 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: You are a retarded bigot


Or just an atheist who knows that ridiculing the ridiculous is the best defense against it?
 
2013-04-26 11:34:51 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims

I said I wasn't willing to say that they are actually followers of Islam.

Philip Francis Queeg: See above.

There wasn't anything there(see above).

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

Those aren't the only two options.


What other option is there? Are you going to try to use ignorance as a shield again?
 
2013-04-26 11:34:58 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: Righteousness is, using your term, egomania

No, my term was the dictionary definition of the word. Reality shut you down, you just haven't accepted it, yet.


Everyone watch out. We got a tough guy here!
 
2013-04-26 11:36:02 AM  
We should include attacks and firebombings of abortion clinics.
 
2013-04-26 11:36:17 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Tatsuma: 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.

I know, I was just ribbing, hoping to start some shiat amongst the unwashed masses (read liters)


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".

So on behalf of the rest of the "unwashed masses" who, for whatever reason, don't pay five bucks a month to see more posts on Fark, go f*ck yourself.
 
2013-04-26 11:36:59 AM  

ShadowKamui: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Right wing terrorism is almost always anti-government or racist oriented
Islamic terrorism is a mix of religious and cultural beliefs.  There is very little overlap between the two groups beyond the antisemitism stuff.

Christian terrorism is practically non-existent and is pretty much just some boogie man a bunch of hateful bigots use to bash it.  The bigots were openly hoping for it to be a tea bagger as the Boston bomber so they could finally get a valid BUT BUT look.  Simply put there a bunch of scum bag, bigots who need a rather larger reality check.  If they're doing it simply because they don't agree w/ the women's rights or gay issues, they need to seriously stop w/ the outright lying and hate speech and keep things in perspective.  Otherwise they're no better than the lunatics trying to paint all Muslims as evil for the actions of a few extremists.


When I hear right-wing terrorist, my mind doesn't go to the Tea Party. Mostly, they are just the inverse of the hippies from the 1960s. Many of them are from the same generation as the hippies, and this is now their chance to protest and act out. And, like the hippies, they think their influence is a lot greater than it really was/is.

No, my mind goes to the people who bomb abortion clinics. It goes to the people burning churches. It goes to snipers taking out abortion clinics. Yes, there is also the element of racism, but it is nearly always backed up by a religious belief that the Creator intended a certain pecking order, and the racist is on a mission from a Higher Power to restore the rightful pattern of things.
 
2013-04-26 11:38:16 AM  

s2s2s2: machodonkeywrestler: May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.

Well, if what I have been reading in this thread is correct, Tiller was performing christian abortions.


This thread has shown your reading comprehension could use a lot of work.
 
2013-04-26 11:39:38 AM  

Frank N Stein: Tatsuma: I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread: what's the point of this exercise?

Even if you add in honor killings to the 50 or so I counted above AND add right-wing violence to the sum total, you still get around 100 murders. In 12 years.

I think it's safe to say that people who are focusing either on Islamic or Right-Wing terrorism should shut the fark up about it. The government is doing a stellar job preventing anything bad from happening most of the time.

Let's care more about drunk-driving, about giving poor children in inner cities a choice so they don't turn to gangs, and the hundreds of other causes that kill more people every year than these things.

It's under control, nothing to see, move along citizens.

It was penned purely to give liberals talking points that they can circle jerk over. I know my somewhat off putting language will be met with sour defenses, but you know it be true.


Or perhaps it was created to respond to constant Fox News calls to profile/exclude/deport/kill Muslims, by exposing the essential hypocrisy in caring about terrorism only when it's perpetrated by bro...

Y'know what? That would require some self awareness and shame from conservativesssssss. Nevermind.
 
2013-04-26 11:40:28 AM  

s2s2s2: machodonkeywrestler: You are a retarded bigot

Or just an atheist who knows that ridiculing the ridiculous is the best defense against it?


For some reason, you see yourself as a clear thinking beacon of shining justice who is infallible at judging peoples motivations and convictions. This thread has time and time again shown you this is wrong, but yet continue to insist.
 
2013-04-26 11:40:37 AM  

ShadowKamui: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

Because a white supremacists has nothing to do w/ religion


Don't they almost always have claim sort of religious connection, even in their names? Like the Aryan Nations and Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Assembly of Christian Soldiers, The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord. I'm sure even the old school Klan claimed Christianity as the basis for their hate.

Even if they're not claiming religion as part of their warped belief system, to call them "right wing" is just taking political sides.
 
2013-04-26 11:41:55 AM  

Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.


They are religious fanatics. They lean right politically. The term you use depends on the context of the conversation. This context was discussing the political leanings of terrorists. There are also some who say that Islam isn't a religion which is how they justify discriminating against them. They wouldn't consider them religious fanatics, would they?
 
2013-04-26 11:44:27 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: What other option is there?


Perhaps those are the only to options. I don't declare who is true or not. I can only state my opinion, like I said earlier.
Your question wasn't directed at me, I apologize for my vanity.

machodonkeywrestler: We got a tough guy here!


machodonkeywrestler: reading comprehension


machodonkeywrestler: For some reason, you see yourself as


machodonkeywrestler: reading comprehension

 
2013-04-26 11:44:37 AM  

Epoch_Zero: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit then. I'm sure you wouldn't want to unfairly connect Islam to bad acts out of ignorance, and would love to be able to defend the purity of Islam as you do Christianity.

I don't connect Islam to bad acts, out of ignorance. Since I don't know, I can't say they are a proper representation of the religion. I can still repeat the reasons any bad actor offers as their reasoning, though.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]


I would like to point out that that is the truck of a Conservative Christian Republican. You can tell by the license plate "14CV88" :
14 - the Fourteen Words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children. "
CV - "confederate veteran"
88 - H is the eighth letter of the alphabet. HH stand for "Heil Hitler"

Everything I need to know about American "conservatives" is spelled out on the back of that pickup truck.

/14GOP88
 
2013-04-26 11:45:53 AM  

Cletus C.: ShadowKamui: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

Because a white supremacists has nothing to do w/ religion

Don't they almost always have claim sort of religious connection, even in their names? Like the Aryan Nations and Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Assembly of Christian Soldiers, The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord. I'm sure even the old school Klan claimed Christianity as the basis for their hate.

Even if they're not claiming religion as part of their warped belief system, to call them "right wing" is just taking political sides.


That was the whole point of the article! I'm not saying I agree whether it's valid or not, but that was exactly what they were trying to do is compare political motivations. They could have just as easily compared terrorists based on gender or height and drawn some sort of conclusion. Then you'd come in screaming about how they were taking sides on gender or height. Well no shiat Sherlock, that's exactly what they said they were doing.
 
2013-04-26 11:49:53 AM  

Cletus C.: ShadowKamui: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

Because a white supremacists has nothing to do w/ religion

Don't they almost always have claim sort of religious connection, even in their names? Like the Aryan Nations and Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Assembly of Christian Soldiers, The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord. I'm sure even the old school Klan claimed Christianity as the basis for their hate.

Even if they're not claiming religion as part of their warped belief system, to call them "right wing" is just taking political sides.


Oh wait, you guys are serious. Let me laugh even harder.
 
2013-04-26 11:50:02 AM  

birchman: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

They are religious fanatics. They lean right politically. The term you use depends on the context of the conversation. This context was discussing the political leanings of terrorists. There are also some who say that Islam isn't a religion which is how they justify discriminating against them. They wouldn't consider them religious fanatics, would they?


I tried to find figures on how Muslims voted in the 2012 presidential election but mostly it brought up conservative derpy sites claiming 80 percent or more voted for Obama. Not ready to trust that. That's not to say Muslim equals fanatic, of course, but it's hard to imagine an extremist Muslim supporting Republicans.
 
2013-04-26 11:53:18 AM  
 
2013-04-26 11:56:56 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: ShadowKamui: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

Because a white supremacists has nothing to do w/ religion

Don't they almost always have claim sort of religious connection, even in their names? Like the Aryan Nations and Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Assembly of Christian Soldiers, The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord. I'm sure even the old school Klan claimed Christianity as the basis for their hate.

Even if they're not claiming religion as part of their warped belief system, to call them "right wing" is just taking political sides.

Oh wait, you guys are serious. Let me laugh even harder.


I honestly don't know what you find so funny. Care to elaborate?
 
2013-04-26 11:57:25 AM  

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


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

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

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

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


/bear repeating
 
2013-04-26 12:02:05 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-26 12:02:32 PM  

Cletus C.: That's not to say Muslim equals fanatic, of course, but it's hard to imagine an extremist Muslim supporting Republicans.


It's exorbitantly easy. Let's say you're someone like...oh, I don't know, an Ayatollah.  Your vested interest is in keeping and maintaining power over your congregation, and since you're also in political power your citizenry. Your country has a history of being on the crap end of the colonialism stick, and has strong religious and nationalist sentiment. As such, your entire power base is founded on an "us versus them" mentality coupled with religious zealotry; without that, people start asking unfortunate questions like who put you in power, why you're in charge, whether you're really right or not, and whether they'd do better with someone else in power.

What benefits you better, a hawkish, extremist boogieman at whom you can point to rally the base and silence opposition as unpatriotic, treasonous, unrighteous, and appeasing, or someone willing to bargain and negotiate peacefully who will make your internal opposition look more appealing for having a moderate position?
 
2013-04-26 12:03:27 PM  

IlGreven: Smackledorfer: I look at things this way: 100% of mass killing incidents are the responsibility of crazy people deluded into fundamentalism of some kind.

I can't.  Because of the horrible state of mental health services in the U.S., and several high profile players actively blocking any meaningful reform in that area (yeah, Wayne, I'm looking at you)...to label someone as "just crazy" or "just another fundamentalist" tacitly implies that there's nothing we could have done...when in many cases, there is plenty we can do; we just don't do it because it might cost us actual money.


Whether society could have done more/better does not abdicate individuals from responsibility. I hope you aren't saying that.
 
2013-04-26 12:05:42 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: The Left Wing is completely unrepresented in the statistics.  The Red Terror is just Amy Pond's nickname these days.


We're counting civil wars as terrorist acts now?
 
2013-04-26 12:07:54 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: That's not to say Muslim equals fanatic, of course, but it's hard to imagine an extremist Muslim supporting Republicans.

It's exorbitantly easy. Let's say you're someone like...oh, I don't know, an Ayatollah.  Your vested interest is in keeping and maintaining power over your congregation, and since you're also in political power your citizenry. Your country has a history of being on the crap end of the colonialism stick, and has strong religious and nationalist sentiment. As such, your entire power base is founded on an "us versus them" mentality coupled with religious zealotry; without that, people start asking unfortunate questions like who put you in power, why you're in charge, whether you're really right or not, and whether they'd do better with someone else in power.

What benefits you better, a hawkish, extremist boogieman at whom you can point to rally the base and silence opposition as unpatriotic, treasonous, unrighteous, and appeasing, or someone willing to bargain and negotiate peacefully who will make your internal opposition look more appealing for having a moderate position?


Nah, the fanatics don't seem all that fond of the Bush policies (invade countries) or the Obama policies (drone their asses). But either may play well on a recruiting poster.
 
2013-04-26 12:08:42 PM  

Cletus C.: I honestly don't know what you find so funny. Care to elaborate?


Those people  are right wing ideologies. It's not "taking sides" to call them right wing,  when they are right-wing. Seriously, let's go through the checklist.

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.

They are right wing.
 
2013-04-26 12:10:55 PM  

Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: birchman: Cletus C.: DeaH: I don't get the point of dividing things into Islamic versus Right Wing terrorism. They are too similar. Both use fundamentalist beliefs as a righteous reason to commit violence on others. Both are trying to impose morality through violence and death. Both think they are on a mission from their creator. It's all the same thing.

Yes, the jihadists and white supremacists gather for a barbecue each year.

There are certain sects of Christianity who don't like each other because they don't worship God the right way. That doesn't mean they're not both considered right-wing.

Why not just call them religious fanatics then? Left wing and right wing are politically charged terms.

They are religious fanatics. They lean right politically. The term you use depends on the context of the conversation. This context was discussing the political leanings of terrorists. There are also some who say that Islam isn't a religion which is how they justify discriminating against them. They wouldn't consider them religious fanatics, would they?

I tried to find figures on how Muslims voted in the 2012 presidential election but mostly it brought up conservative derpy sites claiming 80 percent or more voted for Obama. Not ready to trust that. That's not to say Muslim equals fanatic, of course, but it's hard to imagine an extremist Muslim supporting Republicans.


And most Latinos are conservatives who tend to vote Democratic. Not because they are liberals, but because they are voting AGAINST the party that wants to kick them out of the country. I imagine Muslims feel very similarly when they vote. So what point are you trying to make?
 
2013-04-26 12:12:37 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-26 12:12:51 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Cletus C.: I honestly don't know what you find so funny. Care to elaborate?

Those people  are right wing ideologies. It's not "taking sides" to call them right wing,  when they are right-wing. Seriously, let's go through the checklist.

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.

They are right wing.


I guess you're saying it's not a political debate, then. I agree.
 
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
 
2013-04-26 10:23:17 PM  

Tatsuma: 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.


I didn't say the Jews didn't have reason, just that it happened.  Thin skinned much?

Seriously dude, I'm Vike, if I got my knickers in a knot about every tyrant that crossed my people, or every one of my tyrants that crossed another people, my ass would be so chapped I'd scream so loud every time I shiat that you'd hear it.
 
2013-04-26 11:19:16 PM  

rohar: 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.


FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.
 
2013-04-26 11:32:54 PM  

give me doughnuts: FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.


Words have meaning, even in Arabic.  Your loose use of terminology smacks of ignorance.

Kaffir wouldn't apply to any of the Abrahamic religions, even then there was no mention of seeking them out to extort monies from them or kill them.

I have a feeling the text you're referencing, maybe you could confirm it for me?
 
2013-04-27 12:35:18 AM  

Smackledorfer: IlGreven: Smackledorfer: I look at things this way: 100% of mass killing incidents are the responsibility of crazy people deluded into fundamentalism of some kind.

I can't.  Because of the horrible state of mental health services in the U.S., and several high profile players actively blocking any meaningful reform in that area (yeah, Wayne, I'm looking at you)...to label someone as "just crazy" or "just another fundamentalist" tacitly implies that there's nothing we could have done...when in many cases, there is plenty we can do; we just don't do it because it might cost us actual money.

Whether society could have done more/better does not abdicate individuals from responsibility. I hope you aren't saying that.


It also does not absolve society the responsibility of trying to stop the individual. Which was the point I'm trying to make. There are glaringly obvious things we can do to make these kinds of things even rarer than they already are, but we don't because when someone calls such individuals "crazy", they're silently adding "therefore, there was nothing we could have done".
 
2013-04-27 01:00:18 AM  

rohar: give me doughnuts: FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.

Words have meaning, even in Arabic.  Your loose use of terminology smacks of ignorance.

Kaffir wouldn't apply to any of the Abrahamic religions, even then there was no mention of seeking them out to extort monies from them or kill them.

I have a feeling the text you're referencing, maybe you could confirm it for me?


Yes, it's called the "Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" by Marmaduke Pickthall.
 
2013-04-27 01:18:45 AM  

give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.

Words have meaning, even in Arabic.  Your loose use of terminology smacks of ignorance.

Kaffir wouldn't apply to any of the Abrahamic religions, even then there was no mention of seeking them out to extort monies from them or kill them.

I have a feeling the text you're referencing, maybe you could confirm it for me?

Yes, it's called the "Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" by Marmaduke Pickthall.


I'm just gonna leave this alone.  The post is self defining.  I cannot make this any better.

In short, I'm saying please proceed.
 
2013-04-27 03:35:18 AM  

randomjsa:

So basically...

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.

And, whether or not one agrees with all of the categorizations on the left/right axis, the Breitbart article makes a valid point.  The MSM, essentially every time there is an act of mass violence, before the first fact is known about the perpetrator, is on the case painting them as right-wing extremists.  Personally, I believe this is done intentionally, because a frighteningly large number of people will simply absorb the story as they hear it first, and leave it at that.  Take the mass shooting surrounding Jared Lee Loughner's attempt to murder Gabby Giffords...  The first pass was that since GG is a Democrat, it must be a right-wing plot.  And, in a flight of self-absorbed logical failure, many in the press blamed Sarah Palin for the incident, since a couple of her ads showed targeted districts, including Giffords' own district, with cross-hairs.

As the investigation continued, one of his friends said he wasn't political, and a classmate said that he was a very radical leftist.   Loughner had been suspended from college because of several disruptive outbursts from him, including tirades against Giffords for not being leftist enough, and against President Bush for not being a leftist at all.

The stupidity of this attempt to pin Giffords' shooting on the right is monumental.  That is especially true when one considers that Loughner was not so much left or right, but something one might call paisley as easily.  He was a paranoid schizophrenic who hated government, liked the left, and loved books with anti-government themes or paranoid world views.   Loughner is a leftist -- but the easy defense for the left is that while his views may have a seasoning of left, the first two ingredients on his package label are "batshiat insane," and "should be institutionalized."

But "you can't judge the left by one leftist whack job" wasn't enough, and the rationalizations as to why Loughner just HAD to be a rightist whack job kept coming, and they were stupid in the extreme.  Why, even on Fark, this bastion of reasonable and logical debate, certain of the leftist mob were arguing that since Loughner had "Mein Kampf" on his list of favorite books, it was clear he leaned right.  Conveniently forgotten was the fact that his book list also included "The Communist Manifesto."  He was probably looking for an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where they take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week -- but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority in the case of...   but I digress.

 
2013-04-27 04:20:52 AM  

s2s2s2:

Philip Francis Queeg: But are they Scotsmen?

You got me. There's a cute saying, so that means that people that claim to be something, without holding themselves to the standards of said something claimed, are what they claim to be for the sake of people who don't like either one.


conservativenewager.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-27 04:29:22 AM  

Epoch_Zero:

No, all righteousness is self-righteousness. There can be good deeds done without moral grounds. However, the religious seem to only do good deeds when it fits into their own moral construction, which itself exists to satisfy their own ego, as they view doing good deeds as a selfish means to an end involving their own eventual reward, hence the satisfaction of ego.

I'd be fascinated to see your data on what religious people think, and why they do good deeds.  Could you point me to it, please?   TIA.
 
2013-04-27 04:34:43 AM  

cubic_spleen:

Except that there is no "far left" in this country, except for maybe the three people in the E.L.F. What you call "far left" is actually "barely left of center". What you call "far right" is actually reactionary to the level that they can almost be called Monarchists.

I've seen this before -- you're a far-leftist, and you assume you are middle-of-the-road.  That skews your whole political outlook.

/ You're welcome...   Or, as you probably prefer, Your welcome.

 
2013-04-27 05:24:58 AM  

IlGreven:

...and like I said, they also say James Von Brunn, while being a white supremacist and holocaust denier, was not a right-winger, while saying the sole motivation of the Fort Hood shooter was Islamic extremism, while it probably was more in line with the Virginia Tech shooter, or even Jared Loughner.

Thanks for pointing out that you are part of the problem.  At Fort Hood, Major Hasan jumped on a desk screaming 'Allahu Akbar' - God is Great - and began firing, killing 12 and injuring 31.  This one goes in the religious whack-job column; "workplace violence" my ruby red rectum.
 
2013-04-27 05:32:04 AM  

coeyagi:

So you're constantly out denouncing Christians who cause harm upon others based on their own religious beliefs? (See: nearly every bill they've proposed regarding reproductive health or sexual orientation since 2010).

Why, sure, because not supporting abortion, or not teaching homosexuality, is the same as gunning down dozens of people.

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-04-27 05:56:45 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg:

Except when they are Christians? Perhaps you don't understand the teachings of Jesus any better than those you claim aren't really Christians. Neither your double standard nor your arrogance have any basis in his philosophy,.

Okay, that's too much.  I've been striving to avoid commenting on your posts in this thread, because they are almost exactly 180o out from reality, and history suggests that anyone that out of it is not going to respond well to having their fantasies crashed.

But you spewing this categorically wrong crap, and then calling others arrogant and ignorant is too much to bear in silence.  So, NO, just NO.

Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and current Muslims are approximately the same intolerant, violent turds that Christians were in the 14TH century.  The big difference is that Islam does NOT have the equivalent of a Pope.  That means that any psychotic who becomes an Imam can gather a group of psychos, or create a group of psychos, and go off on some interpretation of the Koran, arm 'em up, and send 'em out to do whatever Hell on Earth they have planned -- and there's no Pope or Bishop to say "You're planning to do WHAT?" to the imam.  Each Imam is an "ultimate authority" unto themselves, and answers to nobody.

This diffuse authority in Islam is responsible for an attitude of religious laissez faire when it comes to wildly divergent Imams.  It also helps that those who complain about the radical sects tend to have their throats slit.  The way this tends to work, in my experience, is that if you present the hypothetical "reasonable Muslim" with a Koranic verse, and then ask them if they agree, they say "yes."  It often goes like this:

Do you support killing cartoonists if they portray Mohammed?
No, not really.
Well it says here -- See? -- that those who mock Islam must die.
Oh, well, then, I suppose it's okay.

 
2013-04-27 06:06:19 AM  

machodonkeywrestler:

For some reason, you see yourself as a clear thinking beacon of shining justice who is infallible at judging peoples motivations and convictions.

Oh, look!   Another leftist who can read minds.  That's amazing.
 
2013-04-27 06:28:06 AM  

rohar:

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

Try looking up the word "hypocrisy" before you use it.  What I said is perfectly consistent.  The only thing biased outlets do reasonably well is point out the flaws in the the other side's biased outlets.  If you're buying the product of any of them...  well, you shouldn't.

/ Looks like you've already tried the mushrooms.

 
2013-04-27 06:37:48 AM  

rohar:

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

"Infidel" is another way to translate "unbeliever."   Dumbass.

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28



 
2013-04-27 06:54:32 AM  

I'll just drop this here for all the haters...


New York Times vindicates Andrew Breitbart
 
2013-04-27 09:52:01 AM  

GeneralJim: I'll just drop this here for all the haters...
New York Times vindicates Andrew Breitbart


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
And Breitbart was certaily a nut.
 
2013-04-27 10:06:28 AM  

GeneralJim: rohar: Here's the fun thing, there's no mention of infidels anywhere in the Qur'an or generally accepted Islam.
"Infidel" is another way to translate "unbeliever."   Dumbass.


Yup, but this word, specifically, has it's roots in European Christianity, not in Islam.  As you'll find, Infidel was used to describe Muslims.  The use of the term when describing what Muslims believe about Christians is projection at scale.
 
2013-04-27 10:35:49 AM  
Great, now GJ has arrived to stupid up the place.  Though I now realize why he makes his text green; it's a warning, "Beware, mind-boggling retardation and projection here."
 
2013-04-27 12:28:20 PM  

GeneralJim: Why, sure, because not supporting abortion, or not teaching homosexuality, is the same as gunning down dozens of people.


Yet, praying five times a day towards a giant black box while kneeling on a rug  is the same as hijacking an airplane and ramming it into a building.
 
2013-04-27 05:34:42 PM  

give me doughnuts:

GeneralJim: I'll just drop this here for all the haters...
New York Times vindicates Andrew Breitbart


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
And Breitbart was certaily a nut.

And that would make the New York Times a bit squirrelly?
 
2013-04-27 05:45:54 PM  
rohar:

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

"Infidel" is another way to translate "unbeliever."   Dumbass.

Yup, but this word, specifically, has it's roots in European Christianity, not in Islam.  As you'll find, Infidel was used to describe Muslims.  The use of the term when describing what Muslims believe about Christians is projection at scale.

Bullshiat.  Trying to make a tortured point with etymology is inane.  In modern English, "infidel" = "unbeliever."   From Dictionary.com: "c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir."  It even gives the Arabic word used in the Koran as a definition.  Case closed.


Expecting the average English speaker to even be aware of any faint gradation of meaning is a ridiculous stretch.  If it were a William F. Buckley quote we were discussing, it might be feasible to consider that he might be making a subtle point through choice of wording -- but not here, not now.
 
2013-04-27 05:48:10 PM  

Flaumig:

Great, now GJ has arrived to stupid up the place.  Though I now realize why he makes his text green; it's a warning, "Beware, mind-boggling retardation and projection here."
Oh, look, more useless fluff.  Hardly surprising in this case, however.   Right, Fluffy?
 
2013-04-27 05:50:28 PM  

that bosnian sniper:

GeneralJim: Why, sure, because not supporting abortion, or not teaching homosexuality, is the same as gunning down dozens of people.

Yet, praying five times a day towards a giant black box while kneeling on a rug  is the same as hijacking an airplane and ramming it into a building.

This whole "analogy" thing confuses you, doesn't it?
 
2013-04-27 07:18:42 PM  

GeneralJim: Flaumig: Great, now GJ has arrived to stupid up the place.  Though I now realize why he makes his text green; it's a warning, "Beware, mind-boggling retardation and projection here.

"Oh, look, more useless fluff.  Hardly surprising in this case, however.   Right, Fluffy?


Oh look, projection...just like I said.  Practically every post I've ever seen from you on Fark could be replaced with "No U!" and no one would be able to tell the difference.
 
Displayed 325 of 325 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report