Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[leftwinger]

150 Dead So Far In Ramadan Attacks

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
2017.06.04 Pakistan Talibul Moula 1 0 An 18-year-old girl is shot to death by her father for 'having an affair.'
2017.06.04 Pakistan Spini 2 0 Two Hazara religious minorities are gunned down for their faith.
2017.06.04 Afghanistan Kandahar 6 1 Two religious men join the police and then gun down six colleagues in cold blood. *****(this after 8 years of Oblamo and GWB prior helping to train, arm, recruit. What a joke!)
2017.06.03 Afghanistan Kabul 20 87 Three suicide bombers detonate at a a funeral, killing twenty mourners.
2017.06.03 Pakistan Nawabshah 2 0 Two people are murdered over alleged adultery by the woman's brother-in-law.
2017.06.03 India Lower Munda 2 4 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen members ambush and killed two local security personnel.
2017.06.03 Iraq Zanjili 43 0 Forty-three civilians are massacred by the Islamic State as they attempt to flee the caliphate.
2017.06.03 England London 7 48 Three Muslims shouting "this is for Allah," plow into pedistrians on London Bridge, then proceed to a market, stabbing people until seven others are dead.
2017.06.03 Iraq Halabsah 1 3 Four suicide bombers manage to kill only one other person. (a win for the good?)
2017.06.03 Philippines Marawi 1 0 A 70-year-old is picked off by an Islamic sniper.
2017.06.02 Tunisia Sidi Bouzid 1 0 A young shepherd is kidnapped and beheaded by Islamic extremists.
2017.06.02 Cameroon Kolofata 11 30 Eleven are left dead when Islamists strap two girls with bombs and send them into a refugee camp.
2017.06.01 Iraq Zanjili 7 23 Seven civilians are murdered for trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.06.01 Germany Oldenburg 1 0 A father of two is stabbed to death by two Muslims for smoking during Ramadan and refusing to fast.
2017.06.01 Afghanistan Behsud 1 4 A security guard outside an airport is killed by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2017.06.01 Yemen al-Hazm 6 15 Terrorists set off a bomb at a marketplace that takes six lives.
2017.06.01 Niger Abala 6 0 Armed Jihadists roll up on a checkpoint and machine-gun a half-dozen border guards.

Every day......somewhere......somehow......Number of dead is first. Number wounded is next.

Last months winner********
2017.05.31 Afghanistan Kabul 90 400 The Haqqani network detonates a massive suicide truck bomb during rush that kills over ninety, including many women and children.
List of Islamic Terror Attacks

my personal favorite*******
2017.05.19 USA Tampa, FL 2 0 A recent convert shoots two people to death for disrespecting Islam.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here is the study:

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf

And again --- I asked you this in the other thread and you ran away ---- exactly WHERE in that link is this finding?

tick... tick.... tick.....

You Pogo, I have a life and all you got is to hang out on a fucking message board because you are a miserable poor excuse for a human. I have fun in my life, I don't care if you do or don't. You are only here for my entertainment. You are lucky I answer you.

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

Fucking "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

Keep crying, I love it when you do, I get a good laugh out of you. Go smoke some pot and chill knucklehead.

 

[Pogo]

Here is the study:

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf

And again --- I asked you this in the other thread and you ran away ---- exactly WHERE in that link is this finding?

tick... tick.... tick.....

You Pogo, I have a life and all you got is to hang out on a fucking message board because you are a miserable poor excuse for a human. I have fun in my life, I don't care if you do or don't. You are only here for my entertainment. You are lucky I answer you.

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

Fucking "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three.

Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.

Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary "what would you NOT do?". Nowhere does it ask "would you alert the police, yes or no?". Does not exist. At all.

Always vet your source. Fucking "Milo News" REALLY? Wanna buy a bridge?

 

[Papageorgio]

And again --- I asked you this in the other thread and you ran away ---- exactly WHERE in that link is this finding?

tick... tick.... tick.....

You Pogo, I have a life and all you got is to hang out on a fucking message board because you are a miserable poor excuse for a human. I have fun in my life, I don't care if you do or don't. You are only here for my entertainment. You are lucky I answer you.

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

Fucking "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.
Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. Fucking "Milo News" REALLY?

Already read it in another thread but if you need your thread count to go up, go for it. You are a real laugher for me.

 

[Coyote]

'AFFRONT TO RELIGION'
London Bridge attackers slammed by Muslim Council of Britain as ‘cowards’ for launching attack during Ramadan
Group's secretary general Harun Khan said the three attackers, who were shot dead by armed police eight minutes after killing spree, respected ‘neither life nor faith’


Muslims ‘appalled, angered and disgusted’ by the London Bridge terror attacks

Read more: Muslims 'appalled, angered and disgusted' by the London Bridge terror attacks

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK Condemns Terrorist Attack in London
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK Condemns Terrorist Attack in London

'Mummy, I want to be a Muslim': How alleged attacker was reported to police for trying to radicalise children
'Mummy, I want to be a Muslim': How alleged attacker was reported to police for trying to radicalise children

 

[Coyote]

And again --- I asked you this in the other thread and you ran away ---- exactly WHERE in that link is this finding?

tick... tick.... tick.....

You Pogo, I have a life and all you got is to hang out on a fucking message board because you are a miserable poor excuse for a human. I have fun in my life, I don't care if you do or don't. You are only here for my entertainment. You are lucky I answer you.

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

Fucking "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three.

Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.

Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. Fucking "Milo News" REALLY? Wanna buy a bridge?

So it was a falsification? I had no idea - it's been REPEATEDLY posted and I didn't think to check it.

 

[Pogo]

ISIS is standard Sunni Islam.

So you are the one saying that Islam should be outlawed.

Nazi's are standard Christianity.
.

That's pure unadulterated bullshit.
The Nazis were not Christians, the Party was their religion above all else.
If anything the Nazis aligned themselves with the Islam

It's the same bullshit as equating ISIS with Islam.

To be a Democrat, Republican, Nazi, Green Party, Libertarian Party, none require you to even believe in a God.

To be a member of ISIS, you are REQUIRED to be a Muslim.

Does that mean all Muslims are terrorist?

Sure, just as much as the existence of Eric Rudolph means all Catholics are terrorists.

Actually just to continue the analogy, to be a member of the Klan you were REQUIRED to be a Christian. Long as it wasn't a Catholic one.

Selective Composition Fallacies are very "in" this year.

 

[basquebromance]

CNN caught staging London Muslim anti-terror protest

how low will they go?

CNN Caught Staging Fake News Scene – Mike Cernovich – Medium

 

[Coyote]

When I see American Muslims stand it may be different. So far all I see is lip service. My father told me long ago all this would happen...he was a fucking prophet

You had only to ask. Here ya go. Sorry it's like 5800 quotes, you'll just have to sift through to find the "American" ones if that's what floats yer boat.

I must say this Ignorami idea of "if I never heard of it -- it doesn't exist" is almost as amusing as this childlike naïveté that insists on pretending that mass media is going to spend time on this sort of thing that makes them no money fro the unwashed looking only to be appeased by stories of mayhem, horror and disaster.

Happy reading. Don't forget your blindfold.

I dont read a fucking thing you quote. You're just another appeaser and I have no use for any of you

Of course you don't. That's how you can stay ignorant and plop turds like "When I see American Muslims stand....". Whelp ---- you can't see it if you don't read it, so don't you dare click it..

Apparently she also doesn't like to recognize the Muslim American military members who have died for our country. Another fake-patriot who really doesn't support the troops.

3rd generation American Muslims do not have a cultural disconnect between their religion and living in America. MOST of the 1st and 2nd gen immigrants ALSO do not have an issue with American freedoms and values.

But REFUGEES from war zones that just want to go SOMEWHERE to survive -- don't necessarily even WANT TO BE American or British or Australian. We're talking about THOSE people. NOT the few who end up in Arlington Cemetery.

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

 

[leftwinger]

yap yap yap. How about some brainstorm ideas to solve this Problem in Western Countries.

Solution: Create an islamic only zone. No one may come out. You can quit islam and stay out forever but you can't come and go. Or you can choose to go to any muslim country. Pick your poison.
If they try to come out, shot on site (you are either with us or against us).
This is a chance for the good ones to quit the cult. Go back to ME or join society. (or go to the zone).

Next issue please.
Always glad to help.

 

[Coyote]

The poll he links to has been broadly discredited.

The poll he links to has been broadly discredited.

Politifact has been widely discredited.

It's not just Politifact

Pew is a well respected non partisan group, see what they have to say instead of a crap CSP poll: Chapter 4: Social and Political Attitudes

There were PEW POLLS cited in the links to "muslim attitudes" --- did you or Politifact Miss those?

Politifact has no credibility on ANY "partisan" issues...

I was referring to a SPECIFIC poll on American Muslim attitudes - the poll by CPS that he linked to in his post. Did you miss that?

Politifact is not the only source that discredited CPS' methodology and it linked to some of those sources. Did you read it or automatically discard it because you feel it "has no credibility"?

Sorry Coyote, after I got into the poll a little more I found a lot of misleading questions.

I found it alarming last night and didn't look into it until recently.

The CPS poll?

 

[Papageorgio]

Politifact has been widely discredited.

It's not just Politifact

Pew is a well respected non partisan group, see what they have to say instead of a crap CSP poll: Chapter 4: Social and Political Attitudes

There were PEW POLLS cited in the links to "muslim attitudes" --- did you or Politifact Miss those?

Politifact has no credibility on ANY "partisan" issues...

I was referring to a SPECIFIC poll on American Muslim attitudes - the poll by CPS that he linked to in his post. Did you miss that?

Politifact is not the only source that discredited CPS' methodology and it linked to some of those sources. Did you read it or automatically discard it because you feel it "has no credibility"?

Sorry Coyote, after I got into the poll a little more I found a lot of misleading questions.

I found it alarming last night and didn't look into it until recently.

The CPS poll?

I think that is the one, it's the one I linked earlier and it has a lot of flaws for a comprehensive poll.

 

[Coyote]

yap yap yap. How about some brainstorm ideas to solve this Problem in Western Countries.

Solution: Create an islamic only zone. No one may come out. You can quit islam and stay out forever but you can't come and go. Or you can choose to go to any muslim country. Pick your poison.
If they try to come out, shot on site (you are either with us or against us).
This is a chance for the good ones to quit the cult. Go back to ME or join society. (or go to the zone).

Next issue please.
Always glad to help.

Oh. Isolation and murder works so good.

 

[Pogo]

You Pogo, I have a life and all you got is to hang out on a fucking message board because you are a miserable poor excuse for a human. I have fun in my life, I don't care if you do or don't. You are only here for my entertainment. You are lucky I answer you.

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

Fucking "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three.

Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.

Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. Fucking "Milo News" REALLY? Wanna buy a bridge?

So it was a falsification? I had no idea - it's been REPEATEDLY posted and I didn't think to check it.

I smelled bullshit as soon as I saw it. I know it's like five hundred pages but I have some background in this particular science so I was keen to give it a critical eye while watching the baseball game. It's actually a very good study, asking all about everybody's origins, where they live, how they view the UK and their local community in terms of tolerance, values etc. The idea of Sharia as community law pulled a whopping one percent.

So ---- good study well done, spawns dishonest headline written to bait the gullible in order to sell papers.
I don't get why they continue not to see right through that motivation.

 

[Coyote]

It's not just Politifact

Pew is a well respected non partisan group, see what they have to say instead of a crap CSP poll: Chapter 4: Social and Political Attitudes

There were PEW POLLS cited in the links to "muslim attitudes" --- did you or Politifact Miss those?

Politifact has no credibility on ANY "partisan" issues...

I was referring to a SPECIFIC poll on American Muslim attitudes - the poll by CPS that he linked to in his post. Did you miss that?

Politifact is not the only source that discredited CPS' methodology and it linked to some of those sources. Did you read it or automatically discard it because you feel it "has no credibility"?

Sorry Coyote, after I got into the poll a little more I found a lot of misleading questions.

I found it alarming last night and didn't look into it until recently.

The CPS poll?

I think that is the one, it's the one I linked earlier and it has a lot of flaws for a comprehensive poll.

That's the one who's methodology was severely questioned. I try to use Pew because they're considered non-partisan, and sound. I may not always like what I read, but I trust it.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, the Bible Does Say to Kill Infidels

Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against 'Unbelievers'? | HuffPost



It's there.

But then again anything can be taken out of context and misused.

Does the Quran have an Old and New Covenant also?

You're about to get shellacked

Are you talking about Cafetaria Christianity?

The main point is - these passages have a context to them, and like the Bible the Quran has verses limiting the use of violence - in fact, far more than Christianity which is kind of open ended with no rules. But everyone wants to cherry pick don't they?

You don't know the Bible, that's patently obvious. The New Covenant brought the sides together, nullifying much of the Old Testament

I suggest you abandon this route you're on, you look foolish trying it

Her purpose in the world is to further the aims of Islamists by any means possible.

She may look foolish to you or I, but she does not ply her craft trying to sway those who know anything. She does so to rope in the utter fools like some of the idiot leftists we see in this thread who have been hoodwinked into thinking the mass importation of enemy combatants has something to do with the first amendment.

Well my papa didn't raise no fool...

 

[leftwinger]

CNN caught staging London Muslim anti-terror protest

how low will they go?

CNN Caught Staging Fake News Scene – Mike Cernovich – Medium

I would not play it.....sorry. It said "you agree to Twitter cookies" I am not sure I like that at this time.

 

[depotoo]

ISIS claims responsibility for London attack

 

[Coyote]

ISIS claims responsibility for London attack

I'm shocked.

 

[Pogo]

You Pogo, I have a life and all you got is to hang out on a fucking message board because you are a miserable poor excuse for a human. I have fun in my life, I don't care if you do or don't. You are only here for my entertainment. You are lucky I answer you.

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

Fucking "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.
Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. Fucking "Milo News" REALLY?

Already read it in another thread but if you need your thread count to go up, go for it. You are a real laugher for me.

None of this is about "laughter". None of this is about "thread count" whatever that is (I thought it was something you look at buying bedsheets).

No Grasshopper this is about basic honesty. You (and others) trotted in an assertion that was nothing more than click bait. In your case you had the actual study in hand, posted it in at least two threads, and never bothered to vet your own source --- because confirmation bias. You liked what the click-bait headline said and swallowed whole, never stopping to ask first "wait --- is this true"?

That's just sloppy work. If this was a newspaper and you were the reporter you'd be at the unemployment office tomorrow morning. Don't be so damned gullible.