Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terrorist attack in USA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why thank you Sir
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
      The notion of Jews controlling governments in an international conspiracy was dispatched to the ovens along with the Jews.

      Said governments will put everyone into prison for trying to actually see if Churchill had a point :D
      Since there can't be a serious debate on the issue,I can only say that your view is also the prevalent view at this time. :D
      Those who know don't speak
      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

      Comment


      • I wonder how apologists spin this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/wo...tml?ref=topics - let me guess, the mob of hundreds were just a minority of 'radicals' or arent even Muslims at all! Or maybe this mob of hundreds of fanatics werent actually motivated by Islam even though that was their own open justification for murder but were just 'disenfranchised' about some other trivial issue unknown to all (including the perpetrators) except for the 'progressives'.

        Just watch the video and let the fact sink in that all this horror and mutilation against a defenceless and terrorized girl took place over an imaginary 'crime' against a book (which itself turned out to be untrue - the so called 'crime' that is).

        And this is in supposedly liberated Kabul, not the Islamic State. Ordinary Afghan civilians, not radical jihadis.

        Ps, sorry i have not replied to anyone who directly responded to me. Havent had a proper moment to sit down here, but this i just watched and had to share my revulsion.

        Comment


        • 1980s,

          Regional justice by the yazidis
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...a_Khalil_Aswad

          do you remember this incident from 2007?
          the videos of that incident had gone viral well beyond the gore community
          i was pointing out a culture

          I think what you maybe trying to say here extensively is that islam(the religion) is a product of (or infused by) tribalism(a culture) - chicken and egg.

          Although, most world religions have managed to counter regional tribalism but I do agree that islam is an exception(rather it promotes).
          Last edited by anil; 27 Dec 15,, 17:54.

          Comment


          • Of all the people I don’t envy, of all the unfortunates who labor away at the type of dirty jobs that would make Mike Rowe throw his hands up in frustration, the ones I pity the most are Muslim apologists. Sisyphus has nothing on these poor bastards. Muslim apologists are like children who rejoice at ebb tide, building sand castles and declaring victory over the ocean itself, only to watch in disbelief as the tide returns and buries the day’s work. Believing the flood tide to be a fluke, the children happily begin anew at the next ebb.

            I suppose the best I can say is that Muslim apologists are like Sisyphus without the curse of retention or cognizance. After every incident of Muslim terror, the apologists reassure us that there is no pathology, no pattern, no problem. That café could have just as easily been shot up by the Amish; the folks at that Christmas party would probably have been butchered by Buddhists anyway. By an arbitrary role of the dice, by pure random chance, this time it was Muslims committing the crime.

            I’ve written about the apologists before, but in the past few weeks, there’s been an interesting new addition to their canon. We’re already familiar with the apologists’ first two mindlessly repeated articles of faith:

            (1) There is nothing uniquely Islamic about Muslim terror. The Muslim community is no more predisposed to committing acts of terror than any other religious, ethnic, or racial group.

            (2) In the U.S., the real terror threat comes from Christian white guys, but everyone is too racist to see it because something something Fox News something something Koch brothers something something Bush.

            Been there, heard that. Over and over again.

            “If white Christians constitute a greater threat than Muslims, then surely those who recruit them to terror via blanket condemnations must be stopped at all costs.”
            Here’s the new talking point, repeated again and again by newsmakers over the past two weeks: Donald Trump is the top recruiter for ISIS. We heard it from Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Ted Koppel, and Tom Brokaw, among many others. The gist is, Trump’s “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” comment is “making” Muslims join ISIS. Trump’s suggestion of a blanket ban is enough to make Muslims say, “To hell with my life, my family, my job…I’m going to join ISIS, because Donald Trump made a sweeping, indiscriminate generalization devoid of nuance.”

            So much for the “Muslims are as afraid of ISIS as we are” talking point. Apparently, all it takes to get Muslims to sign up for a life of terrorism is one speech by a wealthy reality-show star who holds no office. I mean, joining ISIS is no small commitment; it’s not like changing your vote come Election Day, or registering for a different party. The political and media elites really want us to believe that all it takes to get Muslims to devote their lives to ISIS is a speech by Donald Trump.

            The notion that average Muslims teeter so precariously on the brink of “going jihad” that one speech by a businessman-politician could cause them to chuck their normal lives and throw in with a bunch of murderous sadists reflects, at its core, a truth—one that the apologists have for years been trying to avoid: “Ordinary” Muslims become radicalized far more readily and with greater frequency than the rest of us. Again and again we hear of Muslim terrorists who “only recently” embraced jihad, often with such speed that friends and family members barely had time to notice. In a previous piece, I likened the ease with which Muslims can become radicalized to the ease with which the elderly can get pneumonia. It doesn’t mean that only the elderly get pneumonia, or that all elderly people get pneumonia; it just means that they are more likely to get it.

            It’s like having a compromised immune system, but rather than compromised immunity, Muslims appear to have compromised stability. They can, and do, go jihad at the drop of a hat. Physician, psychiatrist, soldier, rich man, poor man, husband, wife, father, teen; there’s no single profile for the ones most likely to snap, other than that they’re Muslim.

            Last week, as endlessly repeated chants of “Donald Trump the ISIS recruiter” danced in my head (a welcome respite from the seasonal sugar-plums), a thought occurred to me. An epiphany, if you will. If the three main apologist talking points are correct—if Muslims are no more predisposed to terrorism than other people, if white Christian terrorists pose the greatest threat to the U.S., and if a blanket generalization by Donald Trump is enough to turn Muslims into terrorists—then blanket generalizations about white Christians must be even more dangerous. If Muslims are no more terror-inclined than white Christians, and if Muslims can be “recruited” to terror by hearing or reading blanket condemnations of their group, then by logical extension, so can white Christians. And if white Christians constitute a greater threat than Muslims, then surely those who recruit them to terror via blanket condemnations must be stopped at all costs. That is the logical conclusion if the apologists’ talking points are to be believed.

            I decided to reach out to the authors and editors of some of the most infamous recent blanket condemnations of white people. Amazingly, I found them all at Salon.com (how very convenient). I sent each of them this email:

            Do you think it might be a possibility that the various pieces (by you and others) that make blanket criticisms of whites (“White guys are killing us,” “The plague of angry white men,” “Let’s deport all white males,” “White men must be stopped,” “White men are the face of terror,” “The plague of angry white men,” “Deal with your shit, white people,” “Why is it always a white guy: The roots of modern, violent rage,” to name just a few) might help white hate groups recruit new members? I’m not looking to debate the veracity of the criticisms of white America expressed in those pieces; I’m only asking if you think that, possibly, such blanket condemnations assist white hate groups by serving as recruitment tools.

            A fair question, respectfully posed. Salon editors David Daley, Pete Catapano, Peter Finocchiaro, and Ruth Henrich refused to reply. Because something something “tolerance” something something Bush. All but two of the authors of the pieces in question refused to reply.

            Frank Joyce, the author of “White men must be stopped,” did reply. However, Joyce, an old-school Detroit labor activist, seemed more interested in apologizing for the title that Salon gave his essay: “As you probably know, authors don’t write headlines, editors and headline writers do. Their interests aren’t identical. Authors may want to gently persuade. Editors want to ‘sell newspapers.’” Frankly, it never occurred to me that Salon’s hate-filled race-baiting has grown so extreme that even some of its own authors are appalled by it.

            Regarding my actual question, Joyce would only say, “It’s a good question that deserves a thoughtful reply,” but he replied only in very general terms: “The question of how to help people see very emotional issues differently is anything but easy. Decades of psychological, neuroscience and market research leave us with still a long way to go in understanding how humans change their mind about anything.” Joyce concluded by stating that the risk of making people angry is “not a reason to stop trying to change hearts and minds.”

            Fair enough; I actually agree with that, and I apply it 100% to my vigorous criticisms of Muslim extremism, violence, misogyny, hypersensitivity, and denial.

            But still, I was hoping for a specific answer to my “good question.” And I was to receive it from none other than Salon’s No. 1 hatemonger, Chauncey DeVega. DeVega, a young black fellow, is a real piece of work. As a writer, his abilities extend only to penning hateful screeds about whites. He is the definition of the one-trick blogger: “Donald Trump leads an insane white cult,” “White guys are killing us,” “White killers go to Burger King” (in which DeVega repeated, apparently with Salon’s blessing, the outright lie that police took Charleston mass murderer Dylann Roof to Burger King), “White America’s toxic ignorance,” “Donald Trump’s white fascist brigade,” “Sympathy is for white people,” “White America will ignore this video,” “Now white people are trying to ruin ‘Star Wars,’” “The violence white America must answer for,” “Black America owes no forgiveness,” and on and on. DeVega is not capable of penning an essay that doesn’t involve a blanket attack on whites. That’s not entirely his fault; he’s just a very, very bad writer. But no respectable publication or website would ever bring in a regular columnist for weekly (or, in DeVega’s case, sometimes daily) pieces that were perpetual retreads.
            As with Frank Joyce’s apparent embarrassment over Salon’s choice of a title for his essay, this is yet another reason why Salon represents the very worst of the “new media.”

            But back to DeVega. In response to my question “Do you think it might be a possibility that the various pieces (by you and others) that make blanket criticisms of whites might help white hate groups recruit new members?” DeVega answered (and this is his response in its entirety), “No.”

            When I asked him (several times) if he could expand on that one-word reply, he countered, “I was generous in responding to you. Please don’t make me regret that use of my time.” Regular readers of this column may recall the incident earlier this year in which a Latina activist told me she’s too “way above” me to bother to provide me with an “understanding” of her reasoning. Left-wing minority supremacists always carry with them an inflated ego and an unearned and unrealistic sense of self-importance.


            Having failed to impress me with his “generosity,” DeVega concluded by telling me that my repeated requests for clarification were, and I quote, “a bad look on you.” Either he’s semi-illiterate, or he somehow knew about the garish Christmas sweater I was wearing while we corresponded. No matter. His two-letter response spoke volumes. DeVega, master of the blanket condemnation of whites, understands that there is no possibility that his hostile words might make white people join “hate groups.” DeVega proved my point: Muslims are different. They do indeed have “compromised stability.” They can become radicalized due to the kinds of things the rest of us take in stride—hurtful Internet essays, mean words from a political figure, even a simple cartoon. Until this mass personality disorder is dealt with, extra caution is indeed warranted, especially when considering the importation of hundreds of thousands or millions of Muslims into non-Muslim nations.

            This is not to say that white people can’t also become radicalized by reading things on the Internet, as the Dylann Roof case certainly proved. But it’s such an exception that even a hardcore antiwhite ideologue like Chauncey DeVega does not even consider it a possibility worth worrying about.

            Their intentions may have been to attack Trump, but in the process, Clinton, Brokaw, Cuomo, and Koppel helped bring attention to the very serious problem of sudden Muslim radicalization, and we should thank them for that. Love Trump or hate him, it’s not his fault that Muslim terror “recruitment” is so easy. The blame lies with Muslims, and the solution, if there ever is one, will have to come from Muslims.

            In the meantime, the worst thing the rest of the world can do is ignore the problem, or deny it. So (and I never thought I’d write these words) thank you, Hillary Clinton, for doing (if unintentionally) what liberals always say they love doing—“raising awareness” of a vitally important issue.
            http://takimag.com/article/donald_tr...#ixzz3w2mo9XF7
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
              Damn we need the like button back.

              I disagree with lots of things you post but you are spot on with this one.
              Thanks!

              I can only ask you double-check the other posts and see if there's anything else you actually would agree with :P

              Certain people on the left have a ridiculous world-view when it comes to "privilege" and White Men in particular, and do speak in a fashion highly alienating to White Men.
              They just think it does not really matter because they are going to "win" the ideological fight, and the purpose of the fight is to fight White Men to destroy their patriarchal, White Privilege.

              Don't take my word for it, take the word of the California Psychiatrist in a polygamous relationship with a non-CIS-transgender blogger who says he is trigged by Social Justice.
              This would be a good time to admit that I am massively, massively triggered by social justice.

              I know exactly why this started. There was an incident in college when I was editing my college newspaper, I tried to include a piece of anti-racist humor, and it got misinterpreted as a piece of pro-racist humor. The college’s various social-justice-related-clubs decided to make an example out of me. I handled it poorly (“BUT GUYS! THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT WHAT YOU’RE DOING!”) and as a result spent a couple of weeks having everyone in the college hold rallies against me followed by equally horrifying counter-rallies for me. I received a couple of death threats, a few people tried to have me expelled, and then everyone got bored and found some other target who was even more fun to harass. Meantime, I was seriously considering suicide.
              Obviously I am not board with the whole "ban Muslims" thing (hell I had two in my wedding party), but in this particular section of the country, the "enlightened" leftists take a casually obnoxious attitude towards under-class whites, their interests, their beliefs, etc.

              Also relevant Blog Post:
              http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30...-the-outgroup/
              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

              Comment


              • Surprisingly some prominent feminists go hard core on it as well, woe betide the White, Middle aged, Christian male should they happen to make use of their excess time left over from dealing with life priorities to comment on such pieces. The logic process is incredible. It's like the left has a whole group of theocratic splinter cells, equal to anything the right might have (judging by the counter rallies) with cult followings.
                Ego Numquam

                Comment


                • A group of heavily armed men has seized Federal property in Oregon. They have put out a call for more armed men to join them; they have links to know terrorists; they have a history of making armed threats toward LEOs & in their midst are several convicted arsonists.

                  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2483723

                  Based on past experience the Federal Government will negotiate, back down & go out of its way to avoid an armed confrontation.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/wo...buse.html?_r=0

                    On Perilous Migrant Trail, Women Often Become Prey to Sexual Abuse
                    there seem to be quite a lot of article critical of islam lately in left media like NYT or CNN. Maybe they start waking up to the fact that islam is the greatest threat to their ideology?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      A group of heavily armed men has seized Federal property in Oregon. They have put out a call for more armed men to join them; they have links to know terrorists; they have a history of making armed threats toward LEOs & in their midst are several convicted arsonists.

                      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2483723

                      Based on past experience the Federal Government will negotiate, back down & go out of its way to avoid an armed confrontation.
                      There is a lot of back story there. The BLM and a group called the Oregon Natural Desert Association entered into an agreement to create a 170, 000 wildlife refuge and they began buying out the ranchers. The Hammond's refused to go so the government jumped on them with both feet for a small fire that years before was a routine matter and that ultimately improved range conditions by burning back invasive juniper trees.

                      The original judge refused to impose the max term and the government appealed and now 2 men are being sent to prison for 5 years and the family is being forced out of business and likely forced to sell its land and grazing rights to the government.

                      They are being railroaded by the BLM and DOJ. It has locals upset at such a gross abuse of power and naked favoritism of an environmentalist group over locals who live and work the land

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        There is a lot of back story there. The BLM and a group called the Oregon Natural Desert Association entered into an agreement to create a 170, 000 wildlife refuge and they began buying out the ranchers. The Hammond's refused to go so the government jumped on them with both feet for a small fire that years before was a routine matter and that ultimately improved range conditions by burning back invasive juniper trees.

                        The original judge refused to impose the max term and the government appealed and now 2 men are being sent to prison for 5 years and the family is being forced out of business and likely forced to sell its land and grazing rights to the government.

                        They are being railroaded by the BLM and DOJ. It has locals upset at such a gross abuse of power and naked favoritism of an environmentalist group over locals who live and work the land
                        Or according to the prosecution, and family members, they set fires to cover up deer poaching. Those fires spread to Federal Property.

                        It doesn't seem to be locals that are upset with the government. Its out of state idiots like Bundy
                        Last edited by Gun Grape; 03 Jan 16,, 19:44.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                          A group of heavily armed men has seized Federal property in Oregon. They have put out a call for more armed men to join them; they have links to know terrorists; they have a history of making armed threats toward LEOs & in their midst are several convicted arsonists.

                          http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2483723

                          Based on past experience the Federal Government will negotiate, back down & go out of its way to avoid an armed confrontation.
                          one can but hope, Waco, Kent State and Ruby Ridge having demonstrated the idiocy of the govt going in guns blazing, or if you prefer a more modern equivalent, the occupy movement?
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X