But, go on, please tell me about these people are “fringe extremists”.
..because he thinks you’re really dumb enough to believe that.
Oh..and if you don’t…you’re a filthy Islamophobe.
That’s because there is no such thing as radical Islam. There is Islam and Islam Lite. Islam Lites are the ones who reject the Koranic command to wage jihad.
Anonymous asked: Do you think Jahar is guilty?
Dzokhar*, and no, I don’t think so. There is no room for opinion here. He IS guilty. Whether he was brainwashed by Islam via his brother has no bearing. His brother was brainwashed by Islam by someone else too. That’s how it works. They’re both guilty and they’re both filthy pigs who will spend their afterlives in hell.
Even if I hated Muslims, that wouldn’t make me a racist. “Muslim” isn’t a race. But let’s say I am a racist. So what? What’s your point? “You’re a racist” isn’t an argument.
Christians didn’t form the KKK. Democrats did.
We don’t invade for oil. We have more oil here in America than in the entire Middle East.
I’m not surprised an atheist defends Islam. Both atheism and Islam are inclined to domination and tyrrany. Also, atheists are usually pretty cowardly, so they try to avoid angering Muslims because they know it’s the one religion that kills people for angering them.
(I will now get more hatemail from thin-skinned atheists than I ever get from liberals.)
There have been over 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9-11. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda memberships combined FAR outnumber 334 people. You’re an absolute moron. I’m dying for you to ask me why I say 23% of all Muslims (yes, it’s a big number, you got it right, congratulations) are terrorists. Please, I’m begging you to ask me.
Anonymous asked: Thank you for responding to my ask that has factual evidence that shows that Muslim's don't even commit the most terrorist attacks in the US, while you continue to spew your Islamophobic views in complete disregard to actual FACTS. How thoughtful of you to post only things in which you believe you can cut down or argue against, though in most cases you fail at doing that successfully. Congrats.
What the FBI classifies as “extremists” rather than “terrorists” are usually Islamic terrorists, dude. Your point was so retarded I didn’t want to waste my time. So when you say that 94% of whatever of terrorist attacks in America are committed by extremists, most of those are Islamic extremists.
[This gal’s previous message to me said that to be afraid of Muslims based on the actions of al Qaeda is like being afraid of the Catholic church based on the actions of pedophile priests.]
Terrorists account for an average 23% of the Muslim population. So, no, it’s not like judging all Catholics based on their 4% pedophiliac members.
Also, as you say, nothing in the Catechism condones pedophilia, but the Quran does condone terrorism. Mohammed himself was a warmonger.
Also, the fact that you use the term “religious right” disparagingly means you’re using the term “religious” disparagingly, which means you’re not a real Catholic no matter how much you may think you are. If you hated merely the rightness of the “religious right,” you would have simply called them “the right.”
You’re self-loathing, obviously. But that makes sense since you’re also a liberal. Liberals hate Catholics. So it makes sense you, a self-loather, would be a Catholic liberal (and then condemning religion by using the term “religious” disparagingly). Why do you hate yourself?
Yeah your 10 examples FAR outshine the 20,000+ examples just from the last 10 years of Muslims doing worse.
There are many realities we conservatives wish were or were not so. We wish, for example, to see everybody freed from the indignity of government dependency. We wish this country could have been so lucky as to have been blessed with a President Barry Goldwater. And we wish President Bill Clinton would stop hitting on our moms.
Conservatives have quite a few qualms on our lists, which might be one explanation as to why Fox News Channel is consistently, every night, the most-watched cable news network.
If we are to be taken seriously, we must acknowledge the unfortunate realities regardless of how unfortunate they may be. The one that comes to my mind, considering recent events, is the reality that Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the younger of the two Boston Marathon bombers, and currently the only living one, is an American citizen.
I don’t want that primate to be an American citizen. I wish it were not true that he, in a showcase of his oh-so-wicked sense of humor, received his citizenship on the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks that his fellow Islamic savages committed.
But he is an American citizen and therefore he does have the right to the benefits guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment: the right to a lawyer in a “speedy” and “public” trial.
We cannot “stand with Rand” in his 13-hour filibuster against the use of drone technology on accused terrorists if they are also American citizens, but then abandon this principle when the Obama administration says basically the same thing regarding trials for accused terrorists who are also American citizens. We would be hypocrites to support one and not the other.
However, we wouldn’t have this dilemma if Dzokhar and his goat-loving brother were never granted citizenship in the first place. What we need is a stricter immigration policy, one with higher standards.
If you’re a foreigner living in Mexico, for example, you can be deported for not being ”physically or mentally healthy,” or if you lack ”necessary funds” for ”sustenance.”
Why shouldn’t America, considering the economic and moral upheaval it’s currently undergoing, adopt Mexico’s deportation laws as its own immigration laws? If you are physically or mentally unhealthy—certainly mentally—what good will you be to our country? If you want to move here but have no way of providing for yourself, why should we take you in? You will just add to our financial burdens, and that affects everyone else.
America simply can’t afford to be letting every single person and his uncle into the country just because they want to, even if they go about it the legal way. We should, at least for the time being, only accept “the best and the brightest.” And especially, in light of our allowing the brother of an Islamist once the subject of an FBI investigation to become a United States citizen on the anniversary of one of America’s bloodiest days (those Islamists are suckers for symbolism), there is really no reason we should have such low standards for our immigrants.
I’m tickled by the irony of receiving this message (and others also in which he tells me terrorists are not nearly as prevalent as 25 percent of Muslims) from this person, who chose as his profile picture a photo of someone (him?) dressed in traditional Muslim / Merchant of Death / terrorist garb and brandishing a fake machine gun.
A liberal confronted me the other day about Islamic terrorism, directing me to the now-viral tweet from Yasira Jaan, which was written an hour or two after Dzjokhar Tsarnaev, Boston Bomber No. 2, was captured. The tweet says, “Muslims view ‘Islamic’ terrorists the same way most Christians view the Westboro Baptist Church….”
Every Christian knows about Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), and most of them would probably rather share a meal with militant atheist Richard Dawkins than one of WBC’s members, who are known for picketing at the funerals of military servicemen, picketing the funerals of victims of tragedies (the Sandy Hook massacre, the recent Boston Marathon bombing, etc.), and not just being anti-gay-marriage, but intensely anti-gay-person. There are few groups out there that can unite the Left, the Right, the atheist, and the Christian in equal disdain quite like WBC can.
Yasira Jaan’s tweet is true: most Muslims are not terrorists and most Christians do not like WBC. But that does not mean Muslims should not automatically be suspect whenever a backpack explodes or a plane is hijacked. If we take history into consideration, the logical deduction, however politically incorrect, would be, “A Muslim did it.” If we’re wrong, we’re wrong, but it will not have been for lack of a logical consideration of precedence.
WBC and Islam actually do have something in common: they both hate gays. The difference is that the most WBC will do is call them names, whereas radical Muslims will throw a decapitation party.
All in all, WBC is nothing to worry about. They’re slime, they’re scum, but there are only a few dozen of them, and those are limited to the open boarders of the United States. As for WBC sympathizers, there may be a thousand or so, and that’s being generous.
But let’s say there are a whole 10,000 WBC sympathizers (trust me, there aren’t). Christianity, being the world’s largest religion, has 2.2 billion followers. Those WBC sympathizers account for 0.0005 percent, rounded up, of all Christians. 0.0005 percent, and they don’t even kill people; they’re just irritating.
Now let’s look at Islam. Boasting 1.57 billion followers (23 percent of the Earth’s population), Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. Liberals like to say that 1 percent, or even less than 1 percent, of Muslims is a terrorist. But if we define “terrorist” as someone who is sympathetic to terrorism, even if he would never commit the acts himself—much like we can consider someone who is sympathetic to WBC to be an effective member of WBC—then the percentage of Islamic terrorists in the world is actually somewhere around 22 percent of all Muslims. That means there is more than one terrorist in the world per American citizen.
This is based on a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll which I described in another piece as “a poll of Muslims from the top nine most heavily Islamic countries. The question posed to these Muslims was whether or not they believe suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians can be justified to defend their peaceful religion, Islam.”
I hate WBC as much as the next guy—I can’t emphasize that enough here—but if, say, 75 percent of the entire world’s population were members of WBC, the world would still be a safer place than it is now with only 23 percent of its inhabitants being members of Islam.
Here’s the difference:
Most Christians are not WBCers.
WBC is limited to the US.
WBC doesn’t kill people.
There are only a few hundred WBCers, maybe a few thousand sympathizers. Their numbers represent far less than 1% of all Christians.
Roughly 25% of Muslims support violence against civilians in order to advance Islam.
That 25% is spread out over the entire world.
That 25% Muslims kill people or support killing people.
That 25% of Muslims amount to hundreds of millions of terrorist or terrorist sympathizers.
Based on murder statistics alone, the world would actually be a far, far safer place if 50% of its inhabitants were Westboro people than if 50% of its inhabitants were Muslims.
This one made me el-oh-el.
Paul Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption
No, I’m serious. Go.
As far as I’m concerned,...
Leftybegone is wicked smart.
BOMBSHELL: Mayor Sarah Palin Denied Police Protection to Family, Resulting in Their Murder
[Posting this earlier than...
so i googled gangster goose and let me tell you that i was not disappointed
Mi papá tiene 47 años= my dad is 47 years old
Mi papa tiene 47 anos= my potato has 47 assholes
I love spanish