42 Dead In US Jihad Attacks; Liberals Still Shout "Fear Mongering"

[frigidweirdo]

42 Dead In US Jihad Attacks; Liberals Still Shout "Fear Mongering"


It's not that the liberals actually think it's fearmongering.

It's just that they believe they can damage or destroy conservatives by lying about them.

Doesn't matter what they lie about, anything will do.

Where are the lies?

The fear mongering can be seen in any right wing media outlet. They pump out nonsense that makes Bush's "use" of "intelligence" before the Iraq war look intelligent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The banks would love WWIII? Now that I have never heard. IMHO, these banks with investments and loans all over the world would not be too happy to see them going up in a mushroom cloud.

Interesting. I thought liberals had no concept of a "mushroom cloud" - the same ones supporting the open doors to ISIS coming here.

And funny how conservatives have no concept of CONSEQUENCES. Like, you go invade them and destroy their who country to get oil that they might just come back for you......

 

[frigidweirdo]

Typical Liberal response huh? You mean, I actually tried to prove my point.

If I'm off topic, then so were you. Oh, well, isn't that nice?

Typical liberal response looking at facts, charts, statistics. Wow, yeah, sure..... why not just go with the typical right wing response of "this is how I feel, so it's right".

Yeah, maybe had those in Paris been carrying guns the terrorists wouldn't have chosen guns, but bombs instead and maybe 130 people would still have died.

But the US has guns, on average you're seeing about 24 people a day die. All so that when terrorist attacks happen you don't get 30 people die once a year.

So instead of getting that terrorist attack that kills two dozen people, you have 24 people die a day, it's worth it huh?

Sorry. I got this thread mixed up with another one I am working on. However, yes, it is very typical of liberals to start throwing charts and statistics around which can always be contrived to show whatever one desires to be shown. All a matter of subjective interpretation of numbers. and events.

And you haven't shown one shred of evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with permits, causes any gun violence whatsoever. Actually it prevents and stops far more (if there even is a single murder by a licensed gun carrier)

Actually, if you READ what I write, I use the charts to BACK UP my points. I make arguments, and expect people to be able to read, instead of just "look at the nice pictures".

But then the amount of times I've been criticized on this board for writing more than two lines per post, you know that often you're going to have problems.

 

[Contumacious]

Typical Liberal response huh? You mean, I actually tried to prove my point.

If I'm off topic, then so were you. Oh, well, isn't that nice?

Typical liberal response looking at facts, charts, statistics. Wow, yeah, sure..... why not just go with the typical right wing response of "this is how I feel, so it's right".

Yeah, maybe had those in Paris been carrying guns the terrorists wouldn't have chosen guns, but bombs instead and maybe 130 people would still have died.

But the US has guns, on average you're seeing about 24 people a day die. All so that when terrorist attacks happen you don't get 30 people die once a year.

So instead of getting that terrorist attack that kills two dozen people, you have 24 people die a day, it's worth it huh?

Sorry. I got this thread mixed up with another one I am working on. However, yes, it is very typical of liberals to start throwing charts and statistics around which can always be contrived to show whatever one desires to be shown. All a matter of subjective interpretation of numbers. and events.

And you haven't shown one shred of evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with permits, causes any gun violence whatsoever. Actually it prevents and stops far more (if there even is a single murder by a licensed gun carrier)

Actually, if you READ what I write, I use the charts to BACK UP my points. I make arguments, and expect people to be able to read, instead of just "look at the nice pictures".

But then the amount of times I've been criticized on this board for writing more than two lines per post, you know that often you're going to have problems.

Protectionist has been programmed by Bibi, the guy he fellates , to post pro zionut propaganda. He is an agent provocateur.

Do NOT expect him to read or understand what you post.

 

[protectionist]

I need to know how many Palestinians have died since the 1925 Palestine zionut invasion

Not enough.

How many Muslims died during the 1990-2008 Iraqi invasion

Not enough

How many Muslims have died in Lebanon due to Israhell's invasions

Not enough.

How many Syrians have died since the 2011 US, Israhell, Saudi Arabia invasion?

Syria killing it's own people. Muslims killing Muslims.

How many Syrians were forced to be international refugees due to the 2011 US, Israhell, Saudi Arabia invasion?

That's not what it was due to.

How many Muslims have died due to the AfPak invasion?

Not enough.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Typical Liberal response huh? You mean, I actually tried to prove my point.

If I'm off topic, then so were you. Oh, well, isn't that nice?

Typical liberal response looking at facts, charts, statistics. Wow, yeah, sure..... why not just go with the typical right wing response of "this is how I feel, so it's right".

Yeah, maybe had those in Paris been carrying guns the terrorists wouldn't have chosen guns, but bombs instead and maybe 130 people would still have died.

But the US has guns, on average you're seeing about 24 people a day die. All so that when terrorist attacks happen you don't get 30 people die once a year.

So instead of getting that terrorist attack that kills two dozen people, you have 24 people die a day, it's worth it huh?

Sorry. I got this thread mixed up with another one I am working on. However, yes, it is very typical of liberals to start throwing charts and statistics around which can always be contrived to show whatever one desires to be shown. All a matter of subjective interpretation of numbers. and events.

And you haven't shown one shred of evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with permits, causes any gun violence whatsoever. Actually it prevents and stops far more (if there even is a single murder by a licensed gun carrier)

Actually, if you READ what I write, I use the charts to BACK UP my points. I make arguments, and expect people to be able to read, instead of just "look at the nice pictures".

But then the amount of times I've been criticized on this board for writing more than two lines per post, you know that often you're going to have problems.

Protectionist has been programmed by Bibi, the guy he fellates , to post pro zionut propaganda. He is an agent provocateur.

Do NOT expect him to read or understand what you post.

Well, I don't expect a lot from many people I talk to on here, people seem to like the soundbites more than the reality.

 

[protectionist]

North Korea's been saying the same thing for a long time/

Then again, does the Daily Mail talk to ISIS? Really? And where are they getting these nukes from then anyway?

No, it was "apparently" (means they don't know) written by a hostage, hmmm, how much do hostages know about the nuclear capabilities of ISIS? Probably NOTHING.

Jeez, read the Daily Fail and get..... crap.

That's impossible. ISIS hasn't been around "for a long time"

And next you go to the invalidation card. Not surprising. Invalidation is hardwired into liberals. Ho hum. Yawn ***
Where getting the nukes from ? The bold, large print isn't big enough for you ?

Apparently means they DO know (evident . obvious) Buy a dictionary.

And you only criticized the Mail Online. No slam job for the international Business Times ? No smear job for CNN ?

 

[protectionist]

Actually, if you READ what I write, I use the charts to BACK UP my points. I make arguments, and expect people to be able to read, instead of just "look at the nice pictures".

But then the amount of times I've been criticized on this board for writing more than two lines per post, you know that often you're going to have problems.

AS I said, you haven't shown one shred of evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with permits, causes any gun violence whatsoever. Actually.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist has been programmed by Bibi, the guy he fellates , to post pro zionut propaganda. He is an agent provocateur.

Do NOT expect him to read or understand what you post.

Too loon to warrant response.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I need to know how many Palestinians have died since the 1925 Palestine zionut invasion

Not enough.

How many Muslims died during the 1990-2008 Iraqi invasion

Not enough

How many Muslims have died in Lebanon due to Israhell's invasions

Not enough.

How many Syrians have died since the 2011 US, Israhell, Saudi Arabia invasion?

Syria killing it's own people. Muslims killing Muslims.

How many Syrians were forced to be international refugees due to the 2011 US, Israhell, Saudi Arabia invasion?

That's not what it was due to.

How many Muslims have died due to the AfPak invasion?

Not enough.

And there you have it, people are just after blood lust.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist somehow thinks his statements without context are meaningful.

They are not.

 

[protectionist]

There is no historical background in Islam for "honour killing". No verse in the Quran and no saying of Prophet Mohammad that sanctions such crimes. Furthermore honour kills are forbidden by Sharia Law.

No matter what the reason is, "honour killing" is a despicable crime, condemned by Islamic leaders. Muslim scholars from around the world have issued a series of fatwas denouncing the practice as antithetical to Islam, and directly forbidden.

Honor killings date back long before Mohammad. They have been known since ancient Roman times, when the senior male within a household, retained the right to kill an unmarried but sexually active daughter or an adulterous wife. Honour-based crimes were known in medieval Europe where early Jewish law mandated death by stoning for an adulterous wife and her partner. In the US, when a husband killed a wife, or child, because of some dishonorable act, a claim of defending the family honor was unacceptable by society. We just called it murder. However, in many Asia and Africa country, defending family honour has long been recognized by society if not the courts as justification. This goes back thousands of years and has nothing to do with Islam.

Historical Context - Origins of Honour Killing / Honour Killing - Worldwide / Honour Killing - In Countries with Islamic Law - Preliminary Examination of so-called Honour Killings in Canada
Does Islam Approve Of Honour Killings Of Women?
HUSAIN: Muslim scholars issue fatwa condemning honor killings.

Who cares about 'historical background. This isn't about history. It's about Islam NOW.
This is called going to a lot of trouble to try to disclaim what we all know to be true. You could have gotten more accomplished on a treadmill.

Jordan: In recent years, Jordan has amended its Code to modify its laws which used to offer a complete defense for honor killings.[269]

Syria: Article 548 states that "He who catches his wife or one of his ascendants, descendants or sister committing adultery (flagrante delicto) or illegitimate sexual acts with another and he killed or injured one or both of them benefits from a reduced penalty, that should not be less than 2 years in prison in case of a killing." Article 192 states that a judge may opt for reduced punishments (such as short-term imprisonment) if the killing was done with an honorable intent.

Pakistan: Honor killings are known as karo kari (Sindhi: ڪارو ڪاري‎) (Urdu: کاروکاری‎). The practice is supposed to be prosecuted under ordinary killing, but in practice police and prosecutors often ignore it.[276] Cases that do result in a conviction may end with the killers being freed as Pakistani law allows a victim's family to forgive their killer. As a woman’s killers usually are her family, the law allows them to nominate family members to do the murder which they then forgive.[277]

Egypt: A number of studies on honor crimes by The Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, includes one which reports on Egypt's legal system, noting a gender bias in favor of men in general, and notably article 17 of the Penal Code: judicial discretion to allow reduced punishment in certain circumstance, often used in honor killings case.[284]

Honor killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually, if you READ what I write, I use the charts to BACK UP my points. I make arguments, and expect people to be able to read, instead of just "look at the nice pictures".

But then the amount of times I've been criticized on this board for writing more than two lines per post, you know that often you're going to have problems.

AS I said, you haven't shown one shred of evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with permits, causes any gun violence whatsoever. Actually.

No, I didn't say I did. And you have not shown anything at all.

We're not dealing with absolute provable things here. Now, there are those people who seek the truth, believing that this is the only way to deal effectively with situations, and there are those who will try and hide from the truth, because perhaps the truth isn't convenient for them.

What I did say, actually, was that states with more guns are more likely to have gun deaths and more likely to have a higher murder rate. Obviously we're dealing with millions of things that make this not "if there are 1 million guns there will be 35 murders a year" or anything that follows a set rule.

What you claimed, and never bothered to even to try and show, is that carry and conceal permits lead to less crime. Now, if you had tried to prove this I would merely have said that gun crime, murder etc has been going down nationwide, regardless of whether a state implemented carry and conceal or not.

You made a claim that gun free zones increase gun killings, without ever trying to prove this was the case, as as murders are going down in the US, you'd have a hard time proving this anyway.

So, we're dealing with things that cannot be proven.

So what do we do?

We debate, we bring forward arguments, we talk about them like sensible adults, we consider different points that are being made and then we come to a decision.

Or, let's get back to reality, you've decided your conclusion before we've even started, you're particularly interested in finding out the best possible conclusion to such a debate, and you're trying to merely have fun by trying to "win" something where winning would be getting as close to the truth as possible, but where you see it as merely annoying the other person as much as possible.

 

[protectionist]

Fear comes from a lot of places, the US govt seems to be one of the biggest givers of fear in the world right now.

Yes, indeed. AKA the Obama administration.And the legitimate fear they are causing comes from (see Post # 68)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Honor Killing is a cultural not a religious code.

We have had Honor Killings of adulteorus wives in America since Mrs. Bradford was pushed into Cape Cod Bay the night before the Pilgrims landed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fear comes from a lot of places, the US govt seems to be one of the biggest givers of fear in the world right now.

Yes, indeed. AKA the Obama administration.And the legitimate fear they are causing comes from

You're not a child, you don't need to do this sort of nonsense. We're talking about where the fear comes from, if you have a point to make, make a proper point instead of a snide remark.

 

[protectionist]

Honor Killing is a cultural not a religious code.

We have had Honor Killings of adulteorus wives in America since Mrs. Bradford was pushed into Cape Cod Bay the night before the Pilgrims landed.

Deflection. Muslims are consistently involved in honor killings and of course it is cultural and not religious. Because Islam is not a religion, It's a sick, vile, demented culture.

 

[protectionist]

You're not a child, you don't need to do this sort of nonsense. We're talking about where the fear comes from, if you have a point to make, make a proper point instead of a snide remark.

I made the point, and you didn't complete the quote.

 

[protectionist]

No, I didn't say I did. And you have not shown anything at all.

We're not dealing with absolute provable things here. Now, there are those people who seek the truth, believing that this is the only way to deal effectively with situations, and there are those who will try and hide from the truth, because perhaps the truth isn't convenient for them.

What I did say, actually, was that states with more guns are more likely to have gun deaths and more likely to have a higher murder rate. Obviously we're dealing with millions of things that make this not "if there are 1 million guns there will be 35 murders a year" or anything that follows a set rule.

What you claimed, and never bothered to even to try and show, is that carry and conceal permits lead to less crime. Now, if you had tried to prove this I would merely have said that gun crime, murder etc has been going down nationwide, regardless of whether a state implemented carry and conceal or not.

You made a claim that gun free zones increase gun killings, without ever trying to prove this was the case, as as murders are going down in the US, you'd have a hard time proving this anyway.

So, we're dealing with things that cannot be proven.

So what do we do?

We debate, we bring forward arguments, we talk about them like sensible adults, we consider different points that are being made and then we come to a decision.

Or, let's get back to reality, you've decided your conclusion before we've even started, you're particularly interested in finding out the best possible conclusion to such a debate, and you're trying to merely have fun by trying to "win" something where winning would be getting as close to the truth as possible, but where you see it as merely annoying the other person as much as possible.

I did show it, proved it, and posted a link in Post # 75. Here it is again. (some people need to be told twice).

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

Here's a list of 32 cases where CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS HAVE STOPPED MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS.

Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders have stopped mass public shootings - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're not a child, you don't need to do this sort of nonsense. We're talking about where the fear comes from, if you have a point to make, make a proper point instead of a snide remark.

I made the point, and you didn't complete the quote.

As I said, you're not in this to debate, you're here just to fuck around. I'm through with you if you keep making waste of time posts like this.