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 89
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-26 08:21:45 AM  
21 votes:
And with such a credible source such as Breitbart telling us this, you know it has to be true.
2013-04-26 08:46:11 AM  
8 votes:
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 08:24:08 AM  
8 votes:
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 08:31:40 AM  
7 votes:
It's truly a Golden Age for us here at Amalgamated Goalpost Transport.
2013-04-26 08:50:25 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:17:03 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:01:36 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:55:10 AM  
3 votes:
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 02:45:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:40:59 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:10:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:45:53 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:40:28 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:39:38 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:21:14 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:14:12 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:07:09 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:06:17 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:58:20 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:48:58 AM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-04-26 10:02:20 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:33:33 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:25:58 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:15:30 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:57:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:53:30 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:52:38 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:51:05 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:50:45 AM  
2 votes:
Brietbart fact checking, that about ruined my keyboard.
2013-04-26 08:43:55 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:38:36 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:04:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:49:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:20:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:16:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:10:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:57:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:38:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:12:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:08:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:02:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:41:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:36:02 AM  
1 votes:
We should include attacks and firebombings of abortion clinics.
2013-04-26 11:33:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:59 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:23:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:23:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:04:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:46:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:36:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:32:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:32:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:32:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:06 AM  
1 votes:

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



img708.imageshack.us
2013-04-26 10:28:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:59 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:07:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:05:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:04:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:03:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:58:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:51:13 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:51:01 AM  
1 votes:

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


/\
// \\// \\ || || This
2013-04-26 09:50:08 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:48:23 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:41:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:41:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:39:17 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:25:57 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:22:12 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:15:50 AM  
1 votes:
<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 09:15:07 AM  
1 votes:
done in one
2013-04-26 09:14:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:12:41 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:10:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:10:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:10:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:07:35 AM  
1 votes:
"That bunch?"
2013-04-26 09:03:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:03:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:01:32 AM  
1 votes:
How many Americans have died because of the right wing terrorists in congress
2013-04-26 09:00:10 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:58:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:42:29 AM  
1 votes:
The DeadLiar site says what?  Never mind.
2013-04-26 08:34:58 AM  
1 votes:
Are they including drone strikes in those numbers?
 
Displayed 89 of 89 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