What Exactly Is "Hysterical Fear" After Muslim Terrorist Attacks in Paris and Mali?

[ChrisL]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

there is nothing grammatically wrong with double negatives. You said "I do NOT think that is Unreasonable" that's a double negative and grammatically perfectly OK.

All I meant is that people sometimes get confused by double negatives.

Well,not to nit pick, but a double negative is something that actually turns the meaning of the sentence into a positive, so it is grammatically incorrect, such as "I didn't do nothing."

Don't argue with me. Proper grammar is part of what I do for a living.

then you will probably be out of a job pretty soon. "didn't do nothing" is bad grammar.

" I did not participate in non payment of my debts" is a double negative that is grammatically correct.

My sentence was not a double negative because it didn't change the meaning of the sentence into a positive, which is the definition of a double negative. IOW, NOT NOWHERE. The meaning is changed into being somewhere.

 

[Redfish]

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

there is nothing grammatically wrong with double negatives. You said "I do NOT think that is Unreasonable" that's a double negative and grammatically perfectly OK.

All I meant is that people sometimes get confused by double negatives.

Well,not to nit pick, but a double negative is something that actually turns the meaning of the sentence into a positive, so it is grammatically incorrect, such as "I didn't do nothing."

Don't argue with me. Proper grammar is part of what I do for a living.

then you will probably be out of a job pretty soon. "didn't do nothing" is bad grammar.

" I did not participate in non payment of my debts" is a double negative that is grammatically correct.

My sentence was not a double negative because it didn't change the meaning of the sentence into a positive, which is the definition of a double negative. IOW, NOT NOWHERE. The meaning is changed into being somewhere.

If you do not think its unreasonable, then you think its reasonable. your statement is a classic double negative.

Class dismissed.

 

[ChrisL]

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

there is nothing grammatically wrong with double negatives. You said "I do NOT think that is Unreasonable" that's a double negative and grammatically perfectly OK.

All I meant is that people sometimes get confused by double negatives.

Well,not to nit pick, but a double negative is something that actually turns the meaning of the sentence into a positive, so it is grammatically incorrect, such as "I didn't do nothing."

Don't argue with me. Proper grammar is part of what I do for a living.

then you will probably be out of a job pretty soon. "didn't do nothing" is bad grammar.

" I did not participate in non payment of my debts" is a double negative that is grammatically correct.

My sentence was not a double negative because it didn't change the meaning of the sentence into a positive, which is the definition of a double negative. IOW, NOT NOWHERE. The meaning is changed into being somewhere.

If you do not think its unreasonable, then you think its reasonable. your statement is a classic double negative.

Class dismissed.

You are wrong. I do not think it is unreasonable doesn't change the meaning of the negative into a positive. It is simply the opposite of the statement "I do not think that is reasonable." Don't know why you are having such a difficult time. It's pretty easy to me.

 

[ChrisL]

Maybe it is a type of double negative actually, but it is still easy enough to figure out if you know basic English and is still grammatically correct in every way! No educated adults should have such a difficult time understanding that statement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The hysteria is as follows, just using this board as an example:

1. At least half dozen people telling me they want to exterminate all Muslims.
2. Many people saying they want our Court to declare that Islam be disqualified as a religion.
3. People saying they want Muslims tagged and tracked.
4. People saying that every Muslim is a terrorist waiting to happen, because they are all ruled by the Koran.
5. People proposing using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and those people getting plenty of support.

Let add another...

6. Posters now calling for all Muslims to be banned from working in airports.

 

[Redfish]

Maybe it is a type of double negative actually, but it is still easy enough to figure out if you know basic English and is still grammatically correct in every way! No educated adults should have such a difficult time understanding that statement.

I said that it is good grammar. it is a double negative. Double negatives are not bad grammar. Why are you arguing about something so obvious?

 

[Redfish]

The hysteria is as follows, just using this board as an example:

1. At least half dozen people telling me they want to exterminate all Muslims.
2. Many people saying they want our Court to declare that Islam be disqualified as a religion.
3. People saying they want Muslims tagged and tracked.
4. People saying that every Muslim is a terrorist waiting to happen, because they are all ruled by the Koran.
5. People proposing using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and those people getting plenty of support.

Let add another...

6. Posters now calling for all Muslims to be banned from working in airports.

who has called for that? or for any of the other 5? No sane person is calling for a religious war. But the fact is that millions of insane muslims are calling for exactly that. Note: I did not say ALL muslims.

you libs get all tangled up in generalities. but we understand, you are mentally diseased by that defective liberal gene.

 

[daws101]

The hysteria is as follows, just using this board as an example:

1. At least half dozen people telling me they want to exterminate all Muslims.
2. Many people saying they want our Court to declare that Islam be disqualified as a religion.
3. People saying they want Muslims tagged and tracked.
4. People saying that every Muslim is a terrorist waiting to happen, because they are all ruled by the Koran.
5. People proposing using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and those people getting plenty of support.

Let add another...

6. Posters now calling for all Muslims to be banned from working in airports.

who has called for that? or for any of the other 5? No sane person is calling for a religious war. But the fact is that millions of insane muslims are calling for exactly that. Note: I did not say ALL muslims.

you libs get all tangled up in generalities. but we understand, you are mentally diseased by that defective liberal gene.

We? Argumentium de populum.

 

[g5000]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

 

[g5000]

Based on the tards' beliefs about all Muslims based on the actions of ISIS, one has to wonder why the tards aren't shitting their pants about the people they know, since those people they know are a gazillion times more likely to kill them than ISIS is.

How come the tards aren't starting topic after topic after topic after topic about how dangerous the people they know are?

Oh, that's right. They're retarded.

 

[daws101]

Based on the tards' beliefs about all Muslims based on the actions of ISIS, one has to wonder why the tards aren't shitting their pants about the people they know, since those people they know are a gazillion times more likely to kill them than ISIS is.

How come the tards aren't starting topic after topic after topic after topic about how dangerous the people they know are?

Yeah but that's different!

 

[g5000]

In 2013, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 14,196.

14,196!

In one year!

ISIS is junior varsity compared to what we do to ourselves.

In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.

Your friends and family are a MUCH bigger threat to you than Muslims!

Act accordingly. Flee! You are living among maniacs!

Move to a mosque, where you'll be safer.

 

[Redfish]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?
The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

 

[Redfish]

Based on the tards' beliefs about all Muslims based on the actions of ISIS, one has to wonder why the tards aren't shitting their pants about the people they know, since those people they know are a gazillion times more likely to kill them than ISIS is.

How come the tards aren't starting topic after topic after topic after topic about how dangerous the people they know are?

Yeah but that's different!

Is it? how is the black on black murder rate different? why is there no left wing uproar about the thousands of black on black murders every year? Are those inner city blacks the people you were calling tards for not fearing the people they know?

 

[g5000]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

 

[Redfish]

In 2013, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 14,196.

14,196!

In one year!

ISIS is junior varsity compared to what we do to ourselves.

In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.

Your friends and family are a MUCH bigger threat to you than Muslims!

Act accordingly. Flee! You are living among maniacs!

Move to a mosque, where you'll be safer.

should we ignore the radical muslims who have declared war on us? What if one gets a dirty nuke and sets it off in Washington DC?

Ignore the threat at your peril, idiot.

 

[g5000]

Let me make it plain, retards.

NO ONE is saying we should let crazy jihadist terrorists into America.

No one.

Not even Obama. Despite what the voices in your pointy heads are telling you.

What we are saying is that we should let in the people who are running away from the crazies. These are men, women, and children who are actually JUSTIFIED in their fears.

YOU are NOT justified in your fear of the refugees.

Assholes.

 

[Redfish]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

 

[g5000]

In 2013, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 14,196.

14,196!

In one year!

ISIS is junior varsity compared to what we do to ourselves.

In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.

Your friends and family are a MUCH bigger threat to you than Muslims!

Act accordingly. Flee! You are living among maniacs!

Move to a mosque, where you'll be safer.

should we ignore the radical muslims who have declared war on us?

Nope.

Jesus. Don't you have any harder questions?

 

[Redfish]

Let me make it plain, retards.

NO ONE is saying we should let crazy jihadist terrorists into America.

No one.

Not even Obama. Despite what the voices in your pointy heads are telling you.

What we are saying is that we should let in the people who are running away from the crazies. These are men, women, and children who are actually JUSTIFIED in their fears.

YOU are NOT justified in your fear of the refugees.

Assholes.

How do you propose that we tell the good ones from the bad ones?