Mosque Fire May Have Been Intentional, Officials Say

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/26/3735082/mosque-fire-being-investigated/?ref=yfp

Mosque Fire May Have Been Intentional, Officials Say
BY CASEY QUINLAN DEC 26, 2015 2:48 PM

Officials are investigating whether a fire at a Houston mosque that began on Christmas Day may have been arson, since the blaze had various points of origin, according to CBS affiliate KHOU.
In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Dramane Diallo, who opens the mosque for prayer every day, said he thought it was unlikely that it was an electrical fire: “It’s very hard to believe it was an accident.”
The FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a law enforcement agency in the U.S. Department of Justice, are investigating the cause of the fire, which happened only an hour after hundreds of people were inside the building for Friday prayer.
This fire could be yet another anti-Muslim attack in a slew of crimes committed against Muslims and mosques following the terrorist attacks in Paris. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a statement calling for local, state, and federal law enforcement authorities to investigate the scene for a possible bias motive.
CAIR released a report on more than 70 incidents targeting mosques that shows the frequency of damage, vandalism, and intimidation has been more frequent than any other year since the organization began tracking these incidents in 2009. ThinkProgress compiled its own list of anti-Muslim incidents happening across the country since the Paris attacks, which included attacks, protests, and threats leveled against houses of worship, including a severed pig’s head thrown at the door of the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society, harassment and assault against individual Muslims and their families, and profiling at airports.
Since ThinkProgress reviewed anti-Muslim attacks and threats, there have been more incidents of mosques being attacked and individuals being investigated for threats against Muslims.
On December 10, CAIR’s offices in Washington, D.C. received a powdery substance and a hate message. Although the CAIR office said it is accustomed to receiving hateful messages, the powder substance was new and people had to be evacuated from the building, with the exception of a few semi-quarantined staff members.
On December 11, a fire at a Southern California mosque, the Islamic Society of Coachella Valley in Coachella, was determined to be a hate crime by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and Coachella Police Department.
And on Christmas Eve, a Richmond, California man, William Celli, who was charged with making threats against Muslims and who expressed anti-Muslim rhetoric on social media, was released from police custody. Police searched his home after they received a tip that he may have had an explosive device. Richmond Mayor Tom Butt later released a statement, which commended the police department “for their work in stopping what could have been a tragic attack in our community.”


Officials are investigating whether a fire at a Houston mosque that began on Christmas Day may have been arson, since the blaze had various points of origin, according to CBS affiliate KHOU.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I truly hope that it was. As that would indicate more people are finally realizing the true evil that exists in our midst! And some are now deciding that since the current government has aligned itself with this murdering cult and has gone out of its way to try to weaken Christianity, they will act to fight back..
You will soon see your true masters(Islam- their agenda) by the speed and dedication put forth to protect their special and highly protected status in this nation..
Divide and conquer, is as old as dirt and Islam,
CAIR, LEFTIST MEDIA, DEM PARTY, LIBS USE IT VERY EFFECTIVELY
AGAINST CONSERVATIVES, Christians and the right-wing opposition.
obama and dem party have spent 7 years dividing us and used billions in our tax dollars to do so.. A fact.-Tyr

[fj1200]

With patriots like arsonists who needs terrorists?

[Noir]

Let he who is without sin cast the first petrol bomb.

[jimnyc]

Let he who is without sin cast the first petrol bomb.

One comment about a mosque being hit and Noir speaks up. Thousands and thousand countless christians dead, and countless churches burned - and not a peep about it.

[Noir]

One comment about a mosque being hit and Noir speaks up. Thousands and thousand countless christians dead, and countless churches burned - and not a peep about it.


I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

[Jeff]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

Christians are being killed all over the world, Christian churches do get burned a good bit. As for the comment, well it's kind of hard to feel bad for folks that either want to kill ya or cheer those that actually do the job.

[jimnyc]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

Look to the ME and all the carnage, and how ISIS and other groups are full of glee about their handiwork. Surely if you can condemn something from the UK to the US - you can also condemn something from the UK to the Middle East, no? I just find it odd is all. As if you have a serious hatred for everything christian, and kinda shrug your shoulders and bury your head when it comes to Islam - you know, the one committing those hundreds of thousands and more killings, and nearly 30,000 terror related attacks since 9/11.

It's a big deal to you that a member spoke up as in this thread, but terrorists wishing death on millions and millions and calling for the destruction of half the world - not worthy of discussion for you.

[Gunny]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

Really? How many we got on beheading Christians? I'd say that kind of trumps burning a building that represents the people doing the beheadings. Ye reap what ye sow.

[Drummond]

With patriots like arsonists who needs terrorists?

What's that saying about there being no smoke without fire ?

Wouldn't it be better to deal with a source of a problem, instead of just its spin-off consequences ?

Or are you just trying to find some indirect way of defending (i.e sanitising) our perception of terrorists, through your diversionary attempt at a 'comparison' .. ?

[Drummond]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

You talk as though there was an equivalence between Christian churches and mosques. Perhaps you can point to any equivalent of Abu Hamza, the terrorist-supporter who regularly preached his hate messages at the Finsbury Park mosque, and some equivalent Christian preacher who - and despite all the many Muslim provocations !! - preached at a Christian church, calling for an outbreak of 'Christian terrorism' to be waged in the Middle East ??

Tell me of the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda, or ISIS, Noir.

[fj1200]

What's that saying about there being no smoke without fire ?

Fighting (supposed) terrorists with terrorism. Why are you supporting subhumans?

[aboutime]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

Here's where YOU should start Noir....http://icansayit.com/images/quranoffend.jpg

[Gunny]

Fighting (supposed) terrorists with terrorism. Why are you supporting subhumans?

You fight fire with fire. They're the subhumans. I'm just the Orkin man.

[fj1200]

You fight fire with fire. They're the subhumans. I'm just the Orkin man.

All terrorists are subhuman according to some.

[Drummond]

Fighting (supposed) terrorists with terrorism. Why are you supporting subhumans?

What was it I posted before ...


... are you just trying to find some indirect way of defending (i.e sanitising) our perception of terrorists ..
Yes, that was it.

Still trying to argue, in your typically perverse way, that terrorists deserve the 'human' tag ? You show every bit as much persistence in that effort as any LEFTIE I've ever had dealings with.

Terrorists began the terrorism. Their subhumanity is the cause of it all. They're the ones who live for their butchery, who instigate it, who exult in it afterwards. They're the ones who train their kids to kill, butcher, maim, just as they themselves very proudly do.

Those who fight them, fight against their subhumanity. They do not cause it. They don't exult in it. They merely DEFEND against it.

Such a pity that these distinctions have no great significance for you, FJ. Maybe if you didn't put such effort into advancing LEFTIE attempts at equivocation here, that wouldn't as likely be the case ??

Trust a Leftie to find excuses to sanitise terrorists ..

[fj1200]

Trust a Leftie to find excuses to sanitise terrorists ..

That's why you're a hack. You sanitize those you agree with. Terrorism is terrorism.

[Drummond]

All terrorists are subhuman according to some.

Who, according to you, ARE the terrorists ?

Let's see if you can argue this without (a) reproducing Leftie thinking, and (b) in a way that doesn't Leftily equivocate ....

[fj1200]

Who, according to you, ARE the terrorists ?

Those who terrorize.

[Drummond]

That's why you're a hack. You sanitize those you agree with. Terrorism is terrorism.

Not at all. I have never hesitated in calling a terrorist, a terrorist. I've also never hesitated in recognising them as subhuman.

But, as for YOU .... you equivocate. You find Leftie 'reasoning' to advance defences for them. Basically, whatever it'll take for your Leftie agenda to succeed.

[fj1200]

Not at all. I have never hesitated in calling a terrorist, a terrorist. I've also never hesitated in recognising them as subhuman.

You just did and you're squirming your way around saying it.

[Drummond]

Those who terrorize.

Those who 'merely' instigate it ? Yes ?

And, NOT those who act, and are only motivated to act, in defence against terrorism .. yes ?

[Drummond]

You just did and you're squirming your way around saying it.

Who, according to you, Mr Leftie, have I hesitated to call a terrorist ??

Come on -- let's hear it ...

[fj1200]

Those who 'merely' instigate it ? Yes ?

And, NOT those who act, and are only motivated to act, in defence against terrorism .. yes ?

Terrorism as defense against terrorism; That's not an acceptable answer. You railed against Mandela as terrorist when he was acting in defense against terrorism.


Who, according to you, Mr Leftie, have I hesitated to call a terrorist ??

Come on -- let's hear it ...

Arsonists. And say leftie again and it's on you.

[Drummond]

Terrorism as defense against terrorism; That's not an acceptable answer. You railed against Mandela as terrorist when he was acting in defense against terrorism.

Now we're getting to it. You ARE mounting a defence for the instigators of terrorism ! It befits your LEFTIE thinking.

Would you prefer they not be threatened in any way ?

As for Mandela ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366317/remembering-mandela-without-rose-colored-glasses-andrew-c-mccarthy


Go safely Umkhonto. Umkhonto we Sizwe. We the members of the Umkhonto have pledged ourselves to kill them — kill the whites.” These are lyrics from the anthem of Umkhonto we Sizwe, or “Spear of the Nation.” The organization is better known as the MK, the military wing of the Marxist African National Congress (ANC). The MK was established by its commander, Nelson Mandela, to prosecute a terrorist war against South Africa’s racist apartheid regime.


Arsonists. And say leftie again and it's on you.

You've finally got to it ... YOU'VE PICKED YOUR SIDE TO DEFEND. How DARE anyone ever threaten your 'chosen ones' ... eh ?

You fight any suggestion of Muslim terrorists being 'subhuman', even though their barbarities prove it, time and again. NOW, you want to demonise anyone prepared to take actions which fight them !

Yes, FJ. YOU ARE A LEFTIE. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE THE VERY SAME, WITH THE SAME AGENDA SERVED.

It only remains to be seen, as it will be eventually, just how far you'll take your defence of your terrorist 'humans'.

[fj1200]

Now we're getting to it. You ARE mounting a defence for the instigators of terrorism ! It befits your LEFTIE thinking.

Would you prefer they not be threatened in any way ?

As for Mandela ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366317/remembering-mandela-without-rose-colored-glasses-andrew-c-mccarthy


Just as I figured. You're too Friggin' stupid to know when you've been exposed as an ignorant moron. I denounce terrorism everywhere, you pick and choose yours you mindless idiot.

I also find it humorous that you're linking to National Review. A few days ago they were leftie libertarians. :laugh: Boy, you are one stupid idiot.


You've finally got to it ... YOU'VE PICKED YOUR SIDE TO DEFEND. How DARE anyone ever threaten your 'chosen ones' ... eh ?

You fight any suggestion of Muslim terrorists being 'subhuman', even though their barbarities prove it, time and again. NOW, you want to demonise anyone prepared to take actions which fight them !

Yes, FJ. YOU ARE A LEFTIE. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE THE VERY SAME, WITH THE SAME AGENDA SERVED.

It only remains to be seen, as it will be eventually, just how far you'll take your defence of your terrorist 'humans'.

You are certainly one ignorant moron. Only someone so stupid as you would suggest that the rule of law is leftie. If you weren't a lying hypocrite you wouldn't be much of anything. My argument is the same as Margaret Thatcher, if only you could claim the same.

[Drummond]

Just as I figured. You're too Friggin' stupid to know when you've been exposed as an ignorant moron. I denounce terrorism everywhere, you pick and choose yours you mindless idiot.

For providing evidence of Mandela's TERRORIST MOTIVATION AND INTENTIONS ?

And if you were prepared to denounce 'terrorism everywhere' as you claim, you'd not have fought so hard to sanitise its practitioners. You actually, once (or was it more than once ?) had the nerve to judge my saying that terrorists were subhuman, as a 'disgusting' view.

No, FJ .. far from wanting to denounce it all, you want to sanitise those who commit it. You want them to be seen in as kindly and as generous a light as possible, so that the harm that may befall them is minimised.


You are certainly one ignorant moron. Only someone so stupid as you would suggest that the rule of law is leftie.

Only someone as Leftie as you would try to apply human laws to SUBHUMANS !! When someone deals with a terrorist, the proper response is one equivalent to pest control.


If you weren't a lying hypocrite you wouldn't be much of anything.

I'm not one, and in fact, I'm a Conservative. I concede that to your Leftie mind, that might indeed be seen as something not 'much of anything'.


My argument is the same as Margaret Thatcher, if only you could claim the same.

Margaret Thatcher never had to deal with the level of subhumanity we see as commonplace in Muslim terrorists.

But she nonetheless WAS able to recognise that Nelson Mandela was a TERRORIST. You, as the 'One True', or 'Ultimate' Thatcherite, whose argumentation is 'the same' as hers, should have no difficulty in agreeing with her.

YES ?

[fj1200]

For providing evidence of Mandela's TERRORIST MOTIVATION AND INTENTIONS ?

And if you were prepared to denounce 'terrorism everywhere' as you claim, you'd not have fought so hard to sanitise its practitioners. You actually, once (or was it more than once ?) had the nerve to judge my saying that terrorists were subhuman, as a 'disgusting' view.

No, FJ .. far from wanting to denounce it all, you want to sanitise those who commit it. You want them to be seen in as kindly and as generous a light as possible, so that the harm that may befall them is minimised.

Only someone as Leftie as you would try to apply human laws to SUBHUMANS !! When someone deals with a terrorist, the proper response is one equivalent to pest control.

I'm not one, and in fact, I'm a Conservative. I concede that to your Leftie mind, that might indeed be seen as something not 'much of anything'.

Margaret Thatcher never had to deal with the level of subhumanity we see as commonplace in Muslim terrorists.

But she nonetheless WAS able to recognise that Nelson Mandela was a TERRORIST. You, as the 'One True', or 'Ultimate' Thatcherite, whose argumentation is 'the same' as hers, should have no difficulty in agreeing with her.

YES ?

Were you born this dumb or is this something you practice? Mandela used terrorist objectives against terrorists just like your arson terrorist heroes did. If you had a shred of honesty in your body you'd own up to that. But I suspect all I'll get is more ignorant blatherings. You're just to plain stupid to be conservative. I await more examples of your lying hypocrisy amidst your dumbF*ery. :)

You're probably also to stupid to realize that you haven't gotten any of my positions correct either. But that's expected; you're dumb.

[Drummond]

Were you born this dumb or is this something you practice? Mandela used terrorist objectives against terrorists just like your arson terrorist heroes did.

Immovable in your defence of Muslim terrorists, eh ?

How's the attention deficit problem these days ? Because it seems I need to repeat an earlier quote to you. Are you paying attention this time ?

In larger font, hoping that'll help you ......


The organization is better known as the MK, the military wing of the Marxist African National Congress (ANC). The MK was established by its commander, Nelson Mandela, to prosecute a terrorist war against South Africa’s racist apartheid regime

'TO PROSECUTE A TERRORIST WAR'.

The 'arsonists' you are so much against (so much more than Muslim terrorists, apparently) .. were not 'prosecuting a terrorist war'. But, MANDELA WAS.

And what do you think Muslim terrorists do, if not 'prosecute a terrorist war' (when they're not dancing in the street afterwards, at least) .. ?



But I suspect all I'll get is more ignorant blatherings. You're just to plain stupid to be conservative. I await more examples of your lying hypocrisy amidst your dumbF*ery. :)

You're probably also to stupid to realize that you haven't gotten any of my positions correct either. But that's expected; you're dumb.

That you're a 'One True' Thatcherite ? FJ - I well recognise that this is NOT a correct description of you.

Only a Leftie would call evident truth, 'ignorant blatherings' .. and I've just given you a dose of the truth.

But here's the real hypocrisy. You want people here to see you as anti-terrorist, YET, post after post, and on other threads too, you reveal your determination to maintain a perception of the so-called 'humanity' of terrorists. THAT'S DESPITE ITS COMPLETE ABSENCE, in all they do.

Why so determined to maintain a fiction such as their 'humanity', if not as an effort to sanitise their worth ? And yet .. do you have ONE mitigating word for the 'arsonists' you're so keen to castigate ?

And YOU accuse ME of hypocrisy ????

Let go of that Leftie script, FJ, and see what's in front of your nose. And STOP defending Muslim terrorist 'humanity' .. !!!!!!!

[fj1200]

DumbF*ery predicted; DumbF*ery provided:


Immovable in your defence of Muslim terrorists, eh ?

How's the attention deficit problem these days ? Because it seems I need to repeat an earlier quote to you. Are you paying attention this time ?

In larger font, hoping that'll help you ......

'TO PROSECUTE A TERRORIST WAR'.

The 'arsonists' you are so much against (so more so than Muslim terrorists, apparently) .. were not 'prosecuting a terrorist war'. But, MANDELA WAS.

And what do you think Muslim terrorists do, if not 'prosecute a terrorist war' (when they're not dancing in the street afterwards, at least) .. ?

That you're a 'One True' Thatcherite ? FJ - I well recognise that this is NOT a correct description of you.

Only a Leftie would call evident truth, 'ignorant blatherings' .. and I've just given you a dose of the truth.

But here's the real hypocrisy. You want people here to see you as anti-terrorist, YET, post after post, and on other threads too, you reveal your determination to maintain a perception of the so-called 'humanity' of terrorists. THAT'S DESPITE ITS COMPLETE ABSENCE, in all they do.

Why so determined to maintain a fiction such as their 'humanity', if not as an effort to sanitise their worth ? And yet .. do you have ONE mitigating word for the 'arsonists' you're so keen to castigate ?

And YOU accuse ME of hypocrisy ????

Let go of that Leftie script, FJ, and see what's in front of your nose. And STOP defending Muslim terrorist 'humanity' .. !!!!!!!

I think you actually get dumber and more desperate as these little tete-a-tetes go on. I've never defended Muslim terrorists; you've repeatedly defended, while trying to divert, terrorist arsonists. If you weren't such an obvious hypocrite I'd think there would be some hope in turning you into an actual conservative. I am pretty sure you're too far gone to be swayed because you are just so stupid.

Your rank hypocrisy is noted you mindless fool. I stand with Margaret Thatcher, you stand with the fascists.

[Drummond]

DumbF*ery predicted; DumbF*ery provided:



I think you actually get dumber and more desperate as these little tete-a-tetes go on. I've never defended Muslim terrorists; you've repeatedly defended, while trying to divert, terrorist arsonists. If you weren't such an obvious hypocrite I'd think there would be some hope in turning you into an actual conservative. I am pretty sure you're too far gone to be swayed because you are just so stupid.

Your rank hypocrisy is noted you mindless fool. I stand with Margaret Thatcher, you stand with the fascists.

YOU HAVE CLAIMED FOR THEM A CAPACITY FOR HUMANITY THEY CLEARLY, VERY PROVABLY, DO NOT POSSESS.

WHY would you do such a thing, if not as an especially extreme excuse to defend the scum ??

And I see that, STILL, by contrast, not ONE kindly, or mitigating, word, for the arsonists !! Yes, FJ, you've picked the side you much prefer to defend.


I stand with Margaret Thatcher, you stand with the fascists

Fascism has at its roots some LEFTIEISM ... its foundling figure an ex-Communist. I am no form of Leftie.

And do you really stand with Margaret Thatcher ? Bearing in mind that she was PM in a land where the law had OUTLAWED the death penalty, she nonetheless - and this was BEFORE its Muslim incarnation had properly seen the light of day in the modern world ! - saw the justice in seeing terrorists put to death.

https://news.vice.com/article/margaret-thatcher-wanted-to-reinstate-death-penalty-for-northern-irish-terrorists-show-newly-released-files


But IRA bombings in the mid-70s inspired calls for a reintroduction of state executions. By 1979, Thatcher "hoped that a large intake of new Tory MPs who favoured hanging would vote with her to restore it, at least for terrorist murderers and the killing of police officers," wrote former Conservative MP Jonathan Aitken, in his 2013 biography of Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher was not an American, so, she didn't think as one. She was the product of a society that had, a generation earlier, decided that the State should have no power to sentence anyone to death. YET, she saw the likes of IRA terrorists as especially deserving of execution, and she hoped to follow through with it ... as an EXCEPTIONAL act, one in a society committed, otherwise, to NOT executing people.

And here YOU are, wanting (.. as ever, eh ?) to sanitise Muslim terrorists with a stance suggesting they possess a humanity which they clearly do NOT have.

Muslim terrorist trash are deserving of pest control, and nothing better.

[Gunny]

All terrorists are subhuman according to some.

If you wage war against noncombatants, you are subhuman to me. You want to fight? Fight like a man. Step up to the line. In context, these Islamic terrorists can't manage to do that. They prey on the weak and unexpecting. And like it or not, they do it in the name of their religion. I personally don't care what they do it in the name of. I viewed Fred Phelps the exact same way. Idiots waging war in the name of something they don't even understand.

[fj1200]

YOU HAVE CLAIMED FOR THEM A CAPACITY FOR HUMANITY THEY CLEARLY, VERY PROVABLY, DO NOT POSSESS.

WHY would you do such a thing, if not as an especially extreme excuse to defend the scum ??

And I see that, STILL, by contrast, not ONE kindly, or mitigating, word, for the arsonists !! Yes, FJ, you've picked the side you much prefer to defend.

Fascism has at its roots some LEFTIEISM ... its foundling figure an ex-Communist. I am no form of Leftie.

And do you really stand with Margaret Thatcher ? Bearing in mind that she was PM in a land where the law had OUTLAWED the death penalty, she nonetheless - and this was BEFORE its Muslim incarnation had properly seen the light of day in the modern world ! - saw the justice in seeing terrorists put to death.

https://news.vice.com/article/margaret-thatcher-wanted-to-reinstate-death-penalty-for-northern-irish-terrorists-show-newly-released-files

Margaret Thatcher was not an American, so, she didn't think as one. She was the product of a society that had, a generation earlier, decided that the State should have no power to sentence anyone to death. YET, she saw the likes of IRA terrorists as especially deserving of execution, and she hoped to follow through with it ... as an EXCEPTIONAL act, one in a society committed, otherwise, to NOT executing people.

And here YOU are, wanting (.. as ever, eh ?) to sanitise Muslim terrorists with a stance suggesting they possess a humanity which they clearly do NOT have.

Muslim terrorist trash are deserving of pest control, and nothing better.

You're amazingly stupid. Seriously, it must be a superpower how stupid you are except that it works against conservatism because of you being so dumb and all. Terrorists are human; FACT. Terrorists suck; FACT. Your position of torture as revenge is disgusting; FACT. See, I've just lined up TRUTH for you but you're to stupid to realize it.

I certainly don't need a moron like you to tell me that fascists are leftie, that more confirms your leftist fascism to me. You desire state controls over individuals; FACT.

I'm beginning to see why you line up behind declared racists. You're so stupid and predictable you mindless fool.

Mags is awesome, I'm glad she and I line up in thought about the rule of law. You wouldn't know anything about that because you're a big government hack and a lying hypocrite to boot.

[fj1200]

If you wage war against noncombatants, you are subhuman to me. You want to fight? Fight like a man. Step up to the line. In context, these Islamic terrorists can't manage to do that. They prey on the weak and unexpecting. And like it or not, they do it in the name of their religion. I personally don't care what they do it in the name of. I viewed Fred Phelps the exact same way. Idiots waging war in the name of something they don't even understand.

Oh yeah, they suck; undeniable. They are human beings is also undeniable.

[Gunny]

Oh yeah, they suck; undeniable. They are human beings is also undeniable.

More semantics? Of course they are homo sapien. We consider them subhuman based on their behavior which is based on our culture, not our genus and species. We have constantly stuck ourselves between them killing each other. I say let 'em. We can mop up later.

But they don't need to be HERE. They don't differentiate between religion and politics and their religion rules them. What place do they have in our society that is based on separation of church and state? None. And if their religion is so right and they're so tough, stand your ground and fight for it.

[Black Diamond]

YOU HAVE CLAIMED FOR THEM A CAPACITY FOR HUMANITY THEY CLEARLY, VERY PROVABLY, DO NOT POSSESS.

WHY would you do such a thing, if not as an especially extreme excuse to defend the scum ??

And I see that, STILL, by contrast, not ONE kindly, or mitigating, word, for the arsonists !! Yes, FJ, you've picked the side you much prefer to defend.



Fascism has at its roots some LEFTIEISM ... its foundling figure an ex-Communist. I am no form of Leftie.

And do you really stand with Margaret Thatcher ? Bearing in mind that she was PM in a land where the law had OUTLAWED the death penalty, she nonetheless - and this was BEFORE its Muslim incarnation had properly seen the light of day in the modern world ! - saw the justice in seeing terrorists put to death.

https://news.vice.com/article/margaret-thatcher-wanted-to-reinstate-death-penalty-for-northern-irish-terrorists-show-newly-released-files



Margaret Thatcher was not an American, so, she didn't think as one. She was the product of a society that had, a generation earlier, decided that the State should have no power to sentence anyone to death. YET, she saw the likes of IRA terrorists as especially deserving of execution, and she hoped to follow through with it ... as an EXCEPTIONAL act, one in a society committed, otherwise, to NOT executing people.

And here YOU are, wanting (.. as ever, eh ?) to sanitise Muslim terrorists with a stance suggesting they possess a humanity which they clearly do NOT have.

Muslim terrorist trash are deserving of pest control, and nothing better.
I agree with that part.

[Drummond]

You're really going overboard with the insults, now, aren't you, FJ ? Must be because you've been so badly wrong-footed. It's the same old story ... when playing a weak hand, you have to bluff through that by this sort of bluster.

How sad.:rolleyes:


Terrorists are human; FACT.

Is there any such thing as a committed Leftie who'd ever claim otherwise ??

We've had this argument before. You've never yet managed to prove to me that a terrorist is human, and if we were to rehash that debate now, you'd fail again. It comes down to this - a human being is human through having, and being subject to, human feelings and empathies. Terrorists have NONE of this. If they did, they'd care about the subhuman acts they commit, and NOT in a celebratory way ! They'd not be indifferent, much less immune, to empathising with all the suffering and misery their acts are responsible for, and in fact, would be incapable of wanting to carry them out !!!

But we see none of that in a Muslim terrorist. They commit their barbarisms, they do so without any evidence of conscience, and they even exult in it afterwards.

So, of COURSE they're subhuman. Your Leftie agenda will prevent you from conceding the truth of all this, but it's obvious to those of us who aren't enslaved to a cloud-cuckooland view of the world's realities.


Terrorists suck; FACT.

So much so, in your eyes, that you place them on a pedestal they've no right to be within a mile of ?


Your position of torture as revenge is disgusting

Why is it so important to you that terrorists never suffer anything of what they'd happily mete out to others ?


See, I've just lined up TRUTH for you but you're to stupid to realize it.

You've just GOT to be kidding me !!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::eek:


I certainly don't need a moron like you to tell me that fascists are leftie, that more confirms your leftist fascism to me. You desire state controls over individuals; FACT.

Certainly no more than Margaret Thatcher ever did ...


I'm beginning to see why you line up behind declared racists. You're so stupid and predictable you mindless fool.

That you equate any of this to racism is (a) an act of desperation on your part, (b) a bog-standard LEFTIE trick, and (c) means that YOU, in introducing this to the debate, are the one to whom this accusation can be best applied !!


Mags is awesome,

... perhaps never more so than when she used State powers to curb militant Union trash ....


I'm glad she and I line up in thought about the rule of law.

Yes, she wanted to change the law to include the death penalty particularly for terrorists ! Why ... how very 'revengeful' of her .. eh, FJ ??

[Drummond]

More semantics? Of course they are homo sapien. We consider them subhuman based on their behavior which is based on our culture, not our genus and species. We have constantly stuck ourselves between them killing each other. I say let 'em. We can mop up later.

But they don't need to be HERE. They don't differentiate between religion and politics and their religion rules them. What place do they have in our society that is based on separation of church and state? None. And if their religion is so right and they're so tough, stand your ground and fight for it.

They are homo sapien because they possess the same genetic structure, are bipedal, and have the capacity of language and a certain capacity for intelligence. But none of this addresses their capacity for humanity, and therefore manages to prove them human.

We have a culture based on laws, but these in turn are based on our decency .. what we consider proper human conduct. No culture could exist, remain stable, serve the needs of human beings in any satisfactory manner, if it was based on 'sensibilities' lacking decency. Human cultures remain such because the HUMANITY in them is expressed and properly served.

Consider 'IS'. They've created their 'Islamic State', but since what characterises it is its lack of humanity, it can only ever come into existence and manage any level of stability through exercising ANTI-human measures. Consequently, their 'culture' isn't a recognisably 'human' one at all .. it's just enforced barbarism, self-destructive.

[Black Diamond]

I don't think terrorists are subhuman. I don't think Nazis were either. I think human beings are capable of great evil. It's just the way it is. Calling Hitler and Osama subhuman or monsters is comforting but incorrect.

However...

We have enemies. If it makes it easier to kill those enemies by calling them subhuman, skinnies, ragheads, slopes, gooks, sand niggers, etc...

I am all for it.

[Drummond]

I don't think terrorists are subhuman. I don't think Nazis were either. I think human beings are capable of great evil. It's just the way it is. Calling Hitler and Osama subhuman or monsters is comforting but incorrect.

However...

We have enemies. If it makes it easier to kill those enemies by calling them subhuman, skinnies, ragheads, slopes, gooks, sand niggers, etc...

I am all for it.

They are what they are.

Nazis blindly followed a psychotic leader, and many if not most did so out of fear.

I don't believe the same is true of Muslim terrorists, though. Unlike Hitler, they've a religion driving them, and they exult in what they do. To anyone claiming Muslim terrorists are human, I'd ask (as I have of FJ in the past, and he's never been able to answer) for you to show me the smallest evidence of humanity in a Muslim terrorists' actions. If they're human, it must surely be there, and you should be able to point to it.

But of course, you can't. Nobody can. This is because Muslim terrorists, provably, are NOT human.

In the aftermath of 9/11, for example, can you point to any Muslim terrorist outfit that considered the realities of 9/11, and was appalled by it ? Or even 'a little bit sorry' ? OR, were they too busy glorying in all the deaths and the suffering ?

Any humanity in any of that .. at all ?

[Black Diamond]

They are what they are.

Nazis blindly followed a psychotic leader, and many if not most did so out of fear.

I don't believe the same is true of Muslim terrorists, though. Unlike Hitler, they've a religion driving them, and they exult in what they do. To anyone claiming Muslim terrorists are human, I'd ask (as I have of FJ in the past, and he's never been able to answer) for you to show me the smallest evidence of humanity in a Muslim terrorists' actions. If they're human, it must surely be there, and you should be able to point to it.

But of course, you can't. Nobody can. This is because Muslim terrorists, provably, are NOT human.

In the aftermath of 9/11, for example, can you point to any Muslim terrorist outfit that considered the realities of 9/11, and was appalled by it ? Or even 'a little bit sorry' ? OR, were they too busy glorying in all the deaths and the suffering ?

Any humanity in any of that .. at all ?

Your contention is that when people stop acting humanely, they cease to be human???

[Perianne]

Your contention is that when people stop acting humanely, they cease to be human???

Maybe when people stop acting humanely, they no longer deserve to be treated as humans? I don't know, just asking.

[jimnyc]

I think it's just fine to call terrorists subhuman, or 'not human' or whatever other term. Of course they were born like everyone else, and are "human" by the flesh and blood they were born with. But I think when someone goes over the line into terrorism and willing to kill women, children and anyone they can, without a care in the world, they are less than human to me. Same as pedophiles. Some folks don't deserve air, or water, a jail cell or even to be considered human, like us, because they aren't.

[jimnyc]

Maybe when people stop acting humanely, they no longer deserve to be treated as humans? I don't know, just asking.

That sounds about right to me too!

[Elessar]

Let he who is without sin cast the first petrol bomb.

What sense did that make?

[Black Diamond]

Maybe when people stop acting humanely, they no longer deserve to be treated as humans? I don't know, just asking.

I am in favor of the death penalty for humans who commit heinous crimes. Eye for an eye type thing

[Elessar]

Tell me of the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda, or ISIS, Noir.

He cannot...he is a weak-kneed wussy.

[Elessar]

You fight fire with fire. They're the subhumans. I'm just the Orkin man.

You just shove it back in their faces.

That is something the present worthless leader will not do.

[Elessar]

All terrorists are subhuman according to some.

Rabid creatures with a singular mindset.

I guess that pleases you Lefties.

[Gunny]

They are homo sapien because they possess the same genetic structure, are bipedal, and have the capacity of language and a certain capacity for intelligence. But none of this addresses their capacity for humanity, and therefore manages to prove them human.

We have a culture based on laws, but these in turn are based on our decency .. what we consider proper human conduct. No culture could exist, remain stable, serve the needs of human beings in any satisfactory manner, if it was based on 'sensibilities' lacking decency. Human cultures remain such because the HUMANITY in them is expressed and properly served.

Consider 'IS'. They've created their 'Islamic State', but since what characterises it is its lack of humanity, it can only ever come into existence and manage any level of stability through exercising ANTI-human measures. Consequently, their 'culture' isn't a recognisably 'human' one at all .. it's just enforced barbarism, self-destructive.

Our idea of humanity is a Western, Judeo-Christian perception. It is NOT inherent in man. The sooner some people figure that out the sooner we can kick their asses.

[Black Diamond]

I think it's just fine to call terrorists subhuman, or 'not human' or whatever other term. Of course they were born like everyone else, and are "human" by the flesh and blood they were born with. But I think when someone goes over the line into terrorism and willing to kill women, children and anyone they can, without a care in the world, they are less than human to me. Same as pedophiles. Some folks don't deserve air, or water, a jail cell or even to be considered human, like us, because they aren't.
I am not in favor of treating those folks humanely. I mean how humane is the electric chair?
Put pedos in with general prison population. Justice will more than likely be served.

[Elessar]

Oh yeah, they suck; undeniable. They are human beings is also undeniable.

Human, Yes....but Inhuman in behavior. Big Difference.
Yet you make leftist excuses for them.

[Black Diamond]

Human, Yes....but Inhuman in behavior. Big Difference.
Yet you make leftist excuses for them.

How "good" are humans? My belief is not very.

[Elessar]

How "good" are humans? My belief is not very.

Generally good, but there are exceptions!

[Gunny]

I am not in favor of treating those folks humanely. I mean how humane is the electric chair?
Put pedos in with general prison population. Justice will more than likely be served.

Making it to the electric chair costs time, effort and money. Rounds are cheap. My idea of humane is one shot instead of two.

[Black Diamond]

Making it to the electric chair costs time, effort and money. Rounds are cheap. My idea of humane is one shot instead of two.

Yes. I believe a shot is more humane than the chair? Folks in this thread seem to want equal punishment for crime committed. Equal suffering

[Perianne]

The guillotine seems humane. I mean there is little to no suffering.

[jimnyc]

Yes. I believe a shot is more humane than the chair? Folks in this thread seem to want equal punishment for crime committed. Equal suffering

Yeps. Some deserve a bullet in just the right spot, then let them suffer but not die. Then hit them somewhere else. Maybe some bamboo underneath the nails. Then some healing. Then a few broken bones, and let them heal all kinds of fucked up. Give them shots of heroin until they are addicted, then cut them off and let them suffer. I can come up with all kinds of great ideas for the subhuman bastards!!

[Perianne]

Yeps. Some deserve a bullet in just the right spot, then let them suffer but not die. Then hit them somewhere else. Maybe some bamboo underneath the nails. Then some healing. Then a few broken bones, and let them heal all kinds of fucked up. Give them shots of heroin until they are addicted, then cut them off and let them suffer. I can come up with all kinds of great ideas for the subhuman bastards!!

Remind me to never make you angry!!! lol

[jimnyc]

Remind me to never make you angry!!! lol

I'm just an idea man, not the one with the finger on the trigger. :)

Lookup some old medieval torture devices. The stuff today is nothing compared to the torture of old!!

-----

Known as the punishment of ‘sitting in the tub,’ the convicted person would be placed in a wooden tub with only their head sticking out. After that, the executioner would paint their faces with milk and honey; and soon, flies would begin to feed on them. The victim was also fed regularly and would end up swimming in their excrement. After a few days, maggots and worms would devour their body as they decayed alive.

---

Also known as the Sicilian Bull, it was designed in ancient Greece. A solid piece of brass was cast with a door on the side that could be opened and latched. The victim would be placed inside the bull and a fire set underneath it until the metal became literally yellow as it was heated. The victim would then be slowly roasted to death all while screaming in agonizing pain. The bull was purposely designed to amplify these screams and make them sound like the bellowing of a bull.

---

Closely related to impalement, this gruesome punishment entailed having the victim sit on the pyramid-shaped cradle, after which they would be forced down on it by ropes with the intent of stretching the victim’s orifice over a long period of time, slowly impaling them. To add to the overall humiliation, the victim was usually naked and the device was rarely washed. So if the torture did not kill you, the infection contracted from it would.

----

Looking like an oversized pair of scissors, it could effortlessly cut the victim’s tongue. Their mouth would be forced opened with a device called a mouth opener, and then the iron tongue tearer would uncomfortably twitch the tongue with its rough grippers. Once a firm hold was maintained, the screw would be firmly tightened and the victim’s tongue would roughly be torn out.

----

Being in an enclosure with rats is torture enough; but apparently, this is not enough for medieval times. One of the most sadistic of all torture techniques involved having a cage with one open side strapped against the victim’s body. It would then be filled with large rodents and a heating element which would be placed on the other side of the cage. The rodents’ natural instinct led them to flee the intense heat. In order to escape they would burrow through the victim’s body with fatal results.

---

(and for the ladies)

Though women were also subject to many of the torture techniques on this page, this is one that was specifically designed for them. Used to cause major blood loss, the claws, which were often red hot, would be placed on the exposed breasts as the spikes penetrated beneath the skin. It would then be pulled or jerked causing large chunks of flesh to come off with it.

---

One of the torture devices during the Spanish Inquisition, this is probably one of the most gruesome of them all. The victim is put astride, naked, on a donkey-like apparatus, which is actually a vertical wooden board with a sharp V-wedge on top of it. After that, the torturer would add varying weights to the victim’s feet until finally the wedge sliced through the victim’s body.

---

And #2 on the list: Saw Torture:

In this method, the victim is hung upside down, so that the blood will rush to their heads and keep them conscious during the long torture. The torturer would then saw through the victims’ bodies until they were completely sawed in half. Most were cut up only in their abdomen to prolong their agony.

---

#1 - hanged drawn and quartered!

During medieval times, the penalty for high treason in England was to be hanged, drawn and quartered in public and though it was abolished in 1814, it has been responsible for the death of thousands of people. In this torture technique, the victim is dragged in a wooden frame called a hurdle to the place of execution. They would then be hanged by the neck for a short period of time until they are near-death (hanged), followed by disembowelment and castration where the entrails and genitalia are burned in front of the victim (drawn). The victim would then be divided into four separate parts and beheaded (quartered).

http://list25.com/25-most-brutal-torture-techniques-ever-devised/5/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

With patriots like arsonists who needs terrorists?

With cowardly appeasers (like you )helping them who needs such peaceful enemies? :rolleyes:-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

Maybe you would see it -IF-CHRISTIANS WERE CUTTING OFF HEADS MURDERING AND RAPING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
AND SWORN BY THEIR HOLY BOOK TO MURDER ALL THAT DO NOT CONVERT!

I find your abject blindness in regards to this to be a truly amazing weakness in a man, any man..-Tyr

[Drummond]

Your contention is that when people stop acting humanely, they cease to be human???

It's a little more than that.

Imagine yourself considering the prospect of creating a terrorist atrocity. Something that you anticipate has a high chance of killing a lot of people, or maiming them, or both.

Now ... what permits you to proceed, or, what STOPS you from proceeding ? Answer -surely ! - is your very humanity ! A human being worthy of recognition as one would surely never go so far as to enact the atrocity s/he might have in mind, because his/her feelings of human empathy would prevent it ... this would be, if you like, a form of 'safety valve' which would turn that individual away from ever going so far as to commit such an act.

Muslim terrorists, (a) have NO such capacity within them, NO 'safety valve' effect which their HUMANITY would see to it was applied to stop them. But, more .. (b) Muslim terrorists, IF human, would not gleefully dance in the streets, or feel celebratory, after learning of their success in inflicting mass death and suffering !!!!

Humanity should put a stop to all of that. Humanity should render it impossible. But, in the Muslim terrorist, we see not the smallest sign of any such humanity. It's notable by its total, very obvious, ABSENCE.

In the face of this truth, I invite you to prove to me that Muslim terrorists ARE human.

But of course, you can't. Nobody can. The truth, no matter how disgusting .. IS the truth. I face it. So should we all. Once that happens, I believe that the proper resolve will exist to work to properly eradicate that evil.

[Drummond]

I am in favor of the death penalty for humans who commit heinous crimes. Eye for an eye type thing

Ah, well, in this, you think very differently to most British people. We got rid of the death penalty several decades ago. Why ? On grounds of HUMANITY. Here, it wasn't considered proper, or 'humanely decent', of the State to use a power of life or death over any individual breaking our law.

The UK takes this to such an extreme that if, for example, you'd want someone we have in custody extradited over to the US, we'd automatically decline if, in granting this, there was the smallest chance of that individual being sentenced to death. If the US ever DOES take someone from us by way of extradition, then that person was subject to a judgement of death afterwards, we'd regard it as a serious international incident.

For me, this is perfectly simple. A so-called or supposed 'human being', proving through his/her actions to NOT be one, is exempted from any human consideration whatever. In such circumstances, where the continued life of that individual cannot be seen to have any human worth or relevance (as, provably, in the case of a Muslim terrorist), then the whole issue becomes one of pest eradication. You preserve the life of a terrorist IF that terrorist can be of use to you, e.g for information acquisition. You destroy it, as in exterminate it, if no such advantage exists ... because there can be no human point to allowing it to continue to live.

[Drummond]

Our idea of humanity is a Western, Judeo-Christian perception. It is NOT inherent in man. The sooner some people figure that out the sooner we can kick their asses.

If, as you say. 'it is not inherent in man', then you give terrorists an excuse to say 'We are human. Despite all of those we will happily maim or butcher, WE DEMAND that you treat us with humanity, because by your standards, WE ARE HUMAN'. [This then takes us firmly into FJ's Leftie cloud-cuckooland mindset, which in turn gives him a basis for inventing all sorts of apologist stances.]

Trouble is, of course, that none of this makes the smallest sense.

If they are still 'human' after committing all of their savageries, then no yardstick exists, or could exist, to ever show that they were not human. Commit the most barbaric, subhuman acts imaginable, and you're STILL human ??? That's surely nonsense.

No. The truth is that a human being is one, BY BEING HUMAN, and not by NOT being human. Muslim terrorists, once that very simple logic is taken on board, are then readily perceivable as being fit only for extermination.

And, why not ? What other - HUMAN - worth could they possibly have ??

You don't cease to be human if you lay down rat poison and deal with a vermin extermination chore in that way. Equally, you don't cease to be human by eradicating human-sized vermin, either.

[Drummond]

Human, Yes....but Inhuman in behavior. Big Difference.
Yet you make leftist excuses for them.

A human being possesses human qualities. Muslim terrorists prove themselves to possess none at all. They have no humanity in them to act as a brake, stopping or counterbalancing their subhumanity.

If they did have, it'd emerge, even if only infrequently ... and Muslim terrorist groups would not endure, much less grow. But such terrorist groups remain as committed to their savageries as they always are. This is a reality which NEVER changes ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A human being possesses human qualities. Muslim terrorists prove themselves to possess none at all. They have no humanity in them to act as a brake, stopping or counterbalancing their subhumanity.

If they did have, it'd emerge, even if only infrequently ... and Muslim terrorist groups would not endure, much less grow. But such terrorist groups remain as committed to their savageries as they always are. This is a reality which NEVER changes ...

They all walk with Lucifer in the dark regions,tis why they have zero compassion for any opposing group or individual.
To be human again, they'd have to truly convert to Christianity and stop praying to Satan with their stinking asses stuck up in the air. Right up there-perfect for that good swift and extremely hard kick so desperately deserved/needed!-Tyr

[Drummond]

Yes. I believe a shot is more humane than the chair? Folks in this thread seem to want equal punishment for crime committed. Equal suffering

Then again, why not blow them up ? It's no more than they'd do to their victims. And 'if terrorists are human', then it'd take nothing away from our humanity if we were to round up a bunch of terrorists, put them in an enclosed space, then detonate a bomb in very close proximity to them. Quick, easy, and since we're assured that terrorists doing the very same can be considered 'human', then this method of meting out of death can be considered 'humane' ... yes ?

I take it that you can see nothing wrong with this picture ?

To underscore the humane equivalence, we could perhaps arrange things so that, maybe, a terrorist or 2 would emerge with just a leg blown off, or a hand, or maybe with permanent disfigurement. Terrorists doing this remain 'human beings' (.. or so we're assured 'is true') ... therefore, so would WE, if we did exactly the same ....... :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

If, as you say. 'it is not inherent in man', then you give terrorists an excuse to say 'We are human. Despite all of those we will happily maim or butcher, WE DEMAND that you treat us with humanity, because by your standards, WE ARE HUMAN'. [This then takes us firmly into FJ's Leftie cloud-cuckooland mindset, which in turn gives him a basis for inventing all sorts of apologist stances.]

Trouble is, of course, that none of this makes the smallest sense.

If they are still 'human' after committing all of their savageries, then no yardstick exists, or could exist, to ever show that they were not human. Commit the most barbaric, subhuman acts imaginable, and you're STILL human ??? That's surely nonsense.

No. The truth is that a human being is one, BY BEING HUMAN, and not by NOT being human. Muslim terrorists, once that very simple logic is taken on board, are then readily perceivable as being fit only for extermination.

And, why not ? What other - HUMAN - worth could they possibly have ??

You don't cease to be human if you lay down rat poison and deal with a vermin extermination chore in that way. Equally, you don't cease to be human by eradicating human-sized vermin, either.

Humans need to eat, breathe, and they seek shelter and warmth. Don't confuse one thing with the other. Society teaches all this other crap. It has nothing to do with survival.

And if you think I agree with their society you haven't been reading my posts. My point is it's hard to defeat your enemy if you don't understand how he thinks. They're kicking our asses because we play by our rules of "humanity" and they have their own. There is no "human nature" nor "humanity" except as society dictates. I play by the same rules you do. Except I'm willing to kill every one of them to get them off the planet, minus your rules. I play to win. Be it checkers or war.

[Drummond]

Humans need to eat, breathe, and they seek shelter and warmth.

So do animals. Are animals human beings ?

Arguably, though, they ARE more human than terrorists. Since when did a sheltering wolf go around flying jets into skyscrapers ?


Don't confuse one thing with the other. Society teaches all this other crap. It has nothing to do with survival.

Wouldn't a Muslim terrorist argue that its terrorism served the interests of its religion ? Therefore, as 'humans', do their Islam-serving terrorist acts constitute acts of God-given, God-sanctioned, 'humanity' ... ?

Do you see ? Go down any road which suggests that Muslim terrorists continue to be human REGARDLESS of what they do, and you might as well argue that SUBhuman acts are the very opposite of what they are. In other words, travelling that road is an act of perversity .... how can't it be ?


And if you think I agree with their society you haven't been reading my posts. My point is it's hard to defeat your enemy if you don't understand how he thinks.

.... which is exactly why there's importance to recognising its very SUBHUMANITY. Projecting any notion of 'humanity' that we would retain, upon creatures possessing none at all, does us NO favours AT ALL.


They're kicking our asses because we play by our rules of "humanity" and they have their own.

No. They DON'T have any rules of 'humanity'. What they do have is Islam.


There is no "human nature" nor "humanity" except as society dictates.

Mankind created society .. it wasn't the other way around. Civilised society has civilised laws, created from our standards of human decency .. again, it wasn't the other way around. Society exists as a machine to serve human needs and aspirations, and it does so because we started out with them. We created a machine to serve our needs as the human beings we already were.


I play by the same rules you do. Except I'm willing to kill every one of them to get them off the planet, minus your rules. I play to win. Be it checkers or war.

The rules you refer to are human rules. But Muslim terrorists are not human beings .. they are vermin. No 'rules' need therefore apply to them. This is why their extermination is right and proper.

By the way ... our social standards, over here, are not your own. The UK outlawed the death penalty a long time ago. If you'd accept (a) that terrorists aren't fighting for a Nation State, (b) aren't an army as such, but (c) they 'are' supposedly 'human beings', then I'm afraid that by British law not ONE can be killed. Remember Abu Hamza ? Extradited to the US from the UK on terrorist charges, but this was ONLY rendered possible because your Government guaranteed to us that he'd never be sentenced to death.

[Gunny]

So do animals. Are animals human beings ?

Arguably, though, they ARE more human than terrorists. Since when did a sheltering wolf go around flying jets into skyscrapers ?



Wouldn't a Muslim terrorist argue that its terrorism served the interests of its religion ? Therefore, as 'humans', do their Islam-serving terrorist acts constitute acts of God-given, God-sanctioned, 'humanity' ... ?

Do you see ? Go down any road which suggests that Muslim terrorists continue to be human REGARDLESS of what they do, and you might as well argue that SUBhuman acts are the very opposite of what they are. In other words, travelling that road is an act of perversity .... how can't it be ?



.... which is exactly why there's importance to recognising its very SUBHUMANITY. Projecting any notion of 'humanity' that we would retain, upon creatures possessing none at all, does us NO favours AT ALL.

No. They DON'T have any rules of 'humanity'. What they do have is Islam.



Mankind created society .. it wasn't the other way around. Civilised society has civilised laws, created from our standards of human decency .. again, it wasn't the other way around. Society exists as a machine to serve human needs and aspirations, and it does so because we started out with them. We created a machine to serve our needs as the human beings we already were.



The rules you refer to are human rules. But Muslim terrorists are not human beings .. they are vermin. No 'rules' need therefore apply to them. This is why their extermination is right and proper.

By the way ... our social standards, over here, are not your own. The UK outlawed the death penalty a long time ago. If you'd accept (a) that terrorists aren't fighting for a Nation State, (b) aren't an army as such, but (c) they 'are' supposedly 'human beings', then I'm afraid that by British law not ONE can be killed. Remember Abu Hamza ? Extradited to the US from the UK on terrorist charges, but this was ONLY rendered possible because your Government guaranteed to us that he'd never be sentenced to death.

Reverse it. (and don't do the expand a post thing on me). Human beings are animals.

The difference between me and you and several others here is I can detach myself from whatever excuse the enemy uses. You blame Islam. I don't. I blame the idiots that use religion as an excuse. Black lies don't matter uses skin color. American Indians use race. Illegal aliens use "no jobs" as an excuse. Democrats deflect everything they are guilty of onto conservatives.

The fact is,this is a clash of cultures. We don't think like they do. But you have to understand how they think to kick their butts. I've said more than once I'm good at what I do, and I am. And it ain't bragging like some would believe. You continually want to argue about what they believe when I don't give a damn. They're a threat to our society and I'd kill them all.

Don't mistake understanding the enemy with agreeing with them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Reverse it. (and don't do the expand a post thing on me). Human beings are animals.

The difference between me and you and several others here is I can detach myself from whatever excuse the enemy uses. You blame Islam. I don't. I blame the idiots that use religion as an excuse. Black lies don't matter uses skin color. American Indians use race. Illegal aliens use "no jobs" as an excuse. Democrats deflect everything they are guilty of onto conservatives.

The fact is,this is a clash of cultures. We don't think like they do. But you have to understand how they think to kick their butts. I've said more than once I'm good at what I do, and I am. And it ain't bragging like some would believe. You continually want to argue about what they believe when I don't give a damn. They're a threat to our society and I'd kill them all.

Don't mistake understanding the enemy with agreeing with them.


You continually want to argue about what they believe when I don't give a damn. They're a threat to our society and I'd kill them all.

Getting right to the nut cutting- is your comment---- kill them all. I agree. :beer::beer:

Yet often we do have to point out what they believe because the lib/left/dems lie about it constantly -and cry out profusely how they are just a religion of peace!
And tens of millions Americans hearing no counter claim offering the truth on that actually believe the damn big lie!!!--Tyr

[Drummond]

Reverse it. (and don't do the expand a post thing on me). Human beings are animals.

The difference between me and you and several others here is I can detach myself from whatever excuse the enemy uses. You blame Islam. I don't. I blame the idiots that use religion as an excuse. Black lies don't matter uses skin color. American Indians use race. Illegal aliens use "no jobs" as an excuse. Democrats deflect everything they are guilty of onto conservatives.

The fact is,this is a clash of cultures. We don't think like they do. But you have to understand how they think to kick their butts. I've said more than once I'm good at what I do, and I am. And it ain't bragging like some would believe. You continually want to argue about what they believe when I don't give a damn. They're a threat to our society and I'd kill them all.

Don't mistake understanding the enemy with agreeing with them.

Human beings have animal origins. We have raised ourselves above the level of animals, however. We have language. We have civilisation, and the laws which make it work for us. We have notable intelligence. Animals have none of these things.

I'm reminded of Lee Rigby's killers. Standing in the dock, being sentenced, they had no reason for 'pretence' ... branded as killers, tried in a court of law, and convicted. So the time of any pretence was over. So ... why did either one yell 'Allahu Akbar' ? Why bother, when there was nothing to gain from it ??

Why do ISIS bother with talk of a Caliphate, when all they need to do is overrun some territory, and rule it ? Why any recourse to the Koran ?

Why do the likes of Anjem Choudary go on air and talk of a worldwide Caliphate ... admiring the likes of Osama bin Laden in the process ? Do you see no similarities between today's barbarities and the older Islamic drives to conquest from centuries ago ?

Why did our Archbishop of Canterbury, just days ago, talk of Christianity being under extreme threat of being wiped out in its birthplace, unless Christianity, AS Christianity, was being targeted ?

Islamists are waging their idea of a war against nonbelievers. There's plenty of evidence of it.

Yes, they're a threat to your society. And mine, and against the West generally. This is because we don't have their beliefs, we represent something different, something in opposition to them.

Understanding the enemy involves understanding what drives the enemy. Understanding their subhumanity is vital, as is what causes it. Without that, all that's really being done is a 'patch up' job of defending against aggression simply because it becomes apparent.

It wasn't nearly as apparent in the days before 9/11 ... but, it DID exist, and it DID prove to be something needing to be tackled. The nature of the enemy wasn't tackled before, because its nature wasn't perceived. So, 9/11 happened. And, much since.

[Kathianne]

No surprise, seems to be the way 'victims' like to advertise their victimhood lately:

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Federal-officials-arrest-man-in-connection-with-6727623.php


Man charged with setting Houston mosque fire says he was a devout attendeeBy Carol Christian (http://www.chron.com/author/carol-christian/) and Leah Binkovitz (http://www.chron.com/author/leah-binkovitz/)
Updated 3:59 pm, Wednesday, December 30, 2015

A Houston man has been arrested in connection with a suspected arson at a mosque on Christmas Day, but the motive for the crime remains a mystery, with the suspect maintaining he was a regular at the mosque.


A spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed that the suspect, 37-year-old Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was arrested early Wednesday. Moore appeared in court at 7 a.m., spokeswoman Nicole Strong said, and bond was set at $100,000.


According to a charging instrument released by the Harris County District Clerk, Moore told investigators at the scene that he has attended the storefront mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week.


Moore said he had been at the mosque earlier on Dec. 25 to pray, and had left at about 2 p.m. to go home, according to authorities and court papers. Moore said he was the last person to leave the mosque and saw no smoke or other signs of fire when he departed, authorities said. He maintained he had returned to the scene after hearing about the fire from a friend.


MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, which operates the mosque, said he was unfamiliar with Moore. "We are just looking into it ourselves," he said Wednesday morning after learning of the arrest.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

no surprise, seems to be the way 'victims' like to advertise their victimhood lately:

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/federal-officials-arrest-man-in-connection-with-6727623.php




http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?53250-the-latest-attack-on-a-mosque-is-this-

firebomb-at-a-california-islamic-center
the latest attack on a mosque is this firebomb at a california islamic center



no one was inside the mosque at the time, and the islamic center’s surveillance camera was
not on, but the san joaquin sheriff’s office collected shards of glass from the scene to test.


And that is why I made this comment on this other thread about mosque being burned..


^^^^^^ camera not on--my, my how convenient was that????
Mighty damn convenient if you want to do that yourself, limit damage, not be seen yet still get
national attention!! And play up being mistreated martyrs!!!--Tyr

[Perianne]

No surprise, seems to be the way 'victims' like to advertise their victimhood lately:

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Federal-officials-arrest-man-in-connection-with-6727623.php

What a creepy-looking guy.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8218&stc=1

[Gunny]

What a creepy-looking guy.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8218&stc=1

Looks like a target to me.

[Perianne]

Looks like a target to me.

He's got like an "X" on his forehead.

[Gunny]

He's got like an "X" on his forehead.

:)

[aboutime]

Looks like a target to me.



Anyone else feel like I do about that photo? I mean, doesn't he resemble Obama????

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Looks like a target to me.

Red dot right between those stinking eyes!
Except I do not use laser sights, as I don't need 'em....
Likely a typical black criminal convert . The kind the maggots recruit in our prisons because they are usually there for being stupid and extremely violent= perfect candidate to be a damn muzzie bastard. Tyr

[fj1200]

More semantics? Of course they are homo sapien. We consider them subhuman based on their behavior which is based on our culture, not our genus and species. We have constantly stuck ourselves between them killing each other. I say let 'em. We can mop up later.

But they don't need to be HERE. They don't differentiate between religion and politics and their religion rules them. What place do they have in our society that is based on separation of church and state? None. And if their religion is so right and they're so tough, stand your ground and fight for it.

There's nothing semantic about it; human beings are human beings.


I don't think terrorists are subhuman. I don't think Nazis were either. I think human beings are capable of great evil. It's just the way it is. Calling Hitler and Osama subhuman or monsters is comforting but incorrect.

However...

We have enemies. If it makes it easier to kill those enemies by calling them subhuman, skinnies, ragheads, slopes, gooks, sand niggers, etc...

I am all for it.

Human beings are human beings. Nobody suggested that they were all nice.

[fj1200]

Rabid creatures with a singular mindset.

I guess that pleases you Lefties.

Please point out all of my leftie positions. BTW, I'm not in the habit of advocating for big government solutions or denying the natural rights of man. I'm also pretty big on the Constitution.


Human, Yes....but Inhuman in behavior. Big Difference.
Yet you make leftist excuses for them.

Please point out where I make excuses for them. But thank you for agreeing that they are human.


With cowardly appeasers (like you )helping them who needs such peaceful enemies? :rolleyes:-Tyr

What good is society if you're willing to throw out the rule of law? I prefer not to take my cue from fascists like you do. :)

[fj1200]

You're really going overboard with the insults, now, aren't you, FJ ? Must be because you've been so badly wrong-footed. It's the same old story ... when playing a weak hand, you have to bluff through that by this sort of bluster.

How sad.:rolleyes:

Is there any such thing as a committed Leftie who'd ever claim otherwise ??

We've had this argument before. You've never yet managed to prove to me that a terrorist is human, and if we were to rehash that debate now, you'd fail again. It comes down to this - a human being is human through having, and being subject to, human feelings and empathies. Terrorists have NONE of this. If they did, they'd care about the subhuman acts they commit, and NOT in a celebratory way ! They'd not be indifferent, much less immune, to empathising with all the suffering and misery their acts are responsible for, and in fact, would be incapable of wanting to carry them out !!!

But we see none of that in a Muslim terrorist. They commit their barbarisms, they do so without any evidence of conscience, and they even exult in it afterwards.

So, of COURSE they're subhuman. Your Leftie agenda will prevent you from conceding the truth of all this, but it's obvious to those of us who aren't enslaved to a cloud-cuckooland view of the world's realities.

So much so, in your eyes, that you place them on a pedestal they've no right to be within a mile of ?

Why is it so important to you that terrorists never suffer anything of what they'd happily mete out to others ?

You've just GOT to be kidding me !!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::eek:

Certainly no more than Margaret Thatcher ever did ...

That you equate any of this to racism is (a) an act of desperation on your part, (b) a bog-standard LEFTIE trick, and (c) means that YOU, in introducing this to the debate, are the one to whom this accusation can be best applied !!

... perhaps never more so than when she used State powers to curb militant Union trash ....

Yes, she wanted to change the law to include the death penalty particularly for terrorists ! Why ... how very 'revengeful' of her .. eh, FJ ??

Are you disingenuous or just incredibly stupid. I tend to try and see the good in people so I'm going to go with incredibly stupid. If you were at least intellectually consistent then that would be a big improvement but as it stands you make your decision on "subhuman" on completely subjective standards. You defend arson against Muslims (who merely only belonged to a mosque unless you have some evidence of terrorist activity) as "good terror" while at the same time railing against Mandela as "bad terror" while giving a pass to the South African government as "good terror." I'm not forcing you to be inconsistent, my only crime is pointing out that your failure.

If you can demonstrate that you're able to have a conversation with ignorantly bleating leftie like the ignorant moron you are then that would be unexpected. :) Me and Mags beats you and Adolf.

[sundaydriver]

You defend arson against Muslims (who merely only belonged to a mosque unless you have some evidence of terrorist activity) as "good terror" while at the same time railing against Mandela as "bad terror" while giving a pass to the South African government as "good terror." I'm not forcing you to be inconsistent, my only crime is pointing out that your failure.

You know the old adage, " One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter". Some define terrorism by side rather than right or wrong.

[Drummond]

There's nothing semantic about it; human beings are human beings.



Human beings are human beings. Nobody suggested that they were all nice.

On your ludicrously pedantic point, we can agree. Human beings are, indeed, human beings.

Subhumans don't count, however. They are not human beings. There's a bit of a clue in the word, FJ ...

[Drummond]

You know the old adage, " One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter". Some define terrorism by side rather than right or wrong.

Yes, some might. I daresay that some Lefties would be proud to.

For myself, I say that the INTENT to terrorise is a bit of a giveaway ... terrorists terrorise. It's in the job description.

Take 'Jihadi John', for example. His actions of beheading captives gave him, and his 'side', no tactical or military advantage. Beheadings didn't win him any battles. However, it was intended to have the effect of terrorising .. so that (a) their enemy might fear what they're capable of, and (b) they might be pressured into capitulation.

Terrorists think nothing of beheadings. Or, of flying jets into skyscrapers, or exploding bombs on civilian, public transport systems, actions that can only target and harm the innocent. But .. since when did 'freedom fighters' exult in such activities. What cause of 'freedom' does it satisfy to exult in such subhumanities ?

Except, of course, freedom from living.

[fj1200]

On your ludicrously pedantic point, we can agree. Human beings are, indeed, human beings.

Subhumans don't count, however. They are not human beings. There's a bit of a clue in the word, FJ ...

I'm sure that's what Hitler and Goebbels meant as well. I think I'm going to go with disingenuous.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm sure that's what Hitler and Goebbels meant as well. I think I'm going to go with disingenuous.

Good because "disingenuous" should be your middle name methinks. Nobody else on this board even comes close to representing that word as do you!
Its your necktie so wear it...Tyr

[fj1200]

Good because "disingenuous" should be your middle name methinks. Nobody else on this board even comes close to representing that word as do you!
Its your necktie so wear it...Tyr

:blabla: Anything intelligent to add or do you want to continue prattling your ignorance.

[Gunny]

There's nothing semantic about it; human beings are human beings.



Human beings are human beings. Nobody suggested that they were all nice.

Homo sapiens are homo sapiens. What you call a "human being" is a cultural/social construct. Our entire Western notion of "human being" is based on Judeo-Christianity and how it has evolved to this point. Take a trip to Africa, SE Asia or the Middle East and see what life is worth THERE.

[fj1200]

Homo sapiens are homo sapiens. What you call a "human being" is a cultural/social construct. Our entire Western notion of "human being" is based on Judeo-Christianity and how it has evolved to this point. Take a trip to Africa, SE Asia or the Middle East and see what life is worth THERE.

There isn't any "social construct" about being a human being. There are certainly differences in culture but once you start claiming "subhuman" then the floor is no longer the limit on how one treats others.

[Gunny]

There isn't any "social construct" about being a human being. There are certainly differences in culture but once you start claiming "subhuman" then the floor is no longer the limit on how one treats others.

Incorrect. What you call "human being" -- a value placed on homo sapiens life by homo sapiens --is based on society and culture. And you have not heard me use the term "subhuman". I prefer dirtbag. Or low-life, putrid ass scum-sucking low-lifes. For their actions.

What annoys me is people here who think people there think like us. "We're going to bring you democracy". Sure we are. A region that's been steeped in theocracy for 14 centuries is sure to embrace it.:rolleyes: When we get rid of this stupid notion of "human nature" and start treating people for what they are, we might have a chance. As it stands, we're going down the tubes like the Greeks and Romans did and our lameass politicians are taking us on the ride.

I don't go for violence. I actually hate it. But I can be one of the most violent people you ever ran into. You fight fire with fire .. not a handful of straw.

[fj1200]

Incorrect. What you call "human being" -- a value placed on homo sapiens life by homo sapiens --is based on society and culture. And you have not heard me use the term "subhuman". I prefer dirtbag. Or low-life, putrid ass scum-sucking low-lifes. For their actions.

What annoys me is people here who think people there think like us. "We're going to bring you democracy". Sure we are. A region that's been steeped in theocracy for 14 centuries is sure to embrace it.:rolleyes: When we get rid of this stupid notion of "human nature" and start treating people for what they are, we might have a chance. As it stands, we're going down the tubes like the Greeks and Romans did and our lameass politicians are taking us on the ride.

I don't go for violence. I actually hate it. But I can be one of the most violent people you ever ran into. You fight fire with fire .. not a handful of straw.

I have no disagreement with your post except that in how subhuman is used in this context. Subhuman is used to define behavior subjectively and not those of a particular culture.

[Gunny]

I have no disagreement with your post except that in how subhuman is used in this context. Subhuman is used to define behavior subjectively and not those of a particular culture.

Subhuman is used to define behavior by people who don't take the time to understand what they're dealing with. It IS used to define a religion that is contradictory to ours. This same clash of cultures has gone on since the 7th century. They just won't quit. They need their asses kicked and kicked HARD and pushed back into the Stone Age they want to live in.

The only reason I don't agree with Jim on nuking their asses is because I have daughters and granddaughters I don't want to have to try and survive a nuclear winter.

You're to caught up on the reason whereas I'm cause and effect.

[fj1200]

Subhuman is used to define behavior by people who don't take the time to understand what they're dealing with. It IS used to define a religion that is contradictory to ours. This same clash of cultures has gone on since the 7th century. They just won't quit. They need their asses kicked and kicked HARD and pushed back into the Stone Age they want to live in.

The only reason I don't agree with Jim on nuking their asses is because I have daughters and granddaughters I don't want to have to try and survive a nuclear winter.

You're to caught up on the reason whereas I'm cause and effect.

Again, no disagreement. :)

[Drummond]

Are you disingenuous or just incredibly stupid. I tend to try and see the good in people so I'm going to go with incredibly stupid. If you were at least intellectually consistent then that would be a big improvement but as it stands you make your decision on "subhuman" on completely subjective standards.

Completely subjective standards, you say. Well .. human beings know human behaviour when they see it. One could argue that they 'judge subjectively' when they do .. except for the fact that when it's seen, the observations, the recognition of it, these are consistent from one person to the next.

So much for subjectivity, then. A recognisable 'constant' is judged. And seen. And conclusions drawn.

For all of your protesting, the word 'subhuman' isn't one which baffles people. As a concept, it's easily recognised and understood. Recognition comes from seeing an absence of humanity.

Those lacking humanity cannot, meaningfully, still be called 'human'. It's like saying an idiot is a genius. That a blind man has 20/20 vision. That a criminal totally obeys the law. You cannot infer a quality from a total LACK of it.

It is therefore the case that you cannot - SANELY, at any rate - call a Muslim terrorist a human being. They completely lack the humanity that would otherwise make their acts unthinkable, an impossibility to enact.

Therefore, the word 'subhuman' fits. No amount of Leftieism from you will defy the truth of that.


You defend arson against Muslims (who merely only belonged to a mosque unless you have some evidence of terrorist activity) as "good terror" while at the same time railing against Mandela as "bad terror" while giving a pass to the South African government as "good terror." I'm not forcing you to be inconsistent, my only crime is pointing out that your failure.

Your argument also argues against ever fighting terrorists. Terrorists kill. Their opposition will kill them. In killing them, do those defending against terrorism become terrorists themselves ? To avoid being labelled such, must they never meaningfully oppose terrorists at all ??

The real difference is one of defence against attack. Or reacting to something initiated. Real terrorists initiate terrorism, their SUBhumanity creates something needing a defence from it. When you so condemn arson against a mosque, you ignore the fact that it's a REACTION to previous ACTIONS. And, no war was involved in such an attack. However, Mandela WAS fighting his TERRORIST WAR, a war that involved killing and suffering of innocents, just as Muslim terrorists mete out to THEIR victims.

Muslims terrorists wage their war against innocent human beings. No trace of humanity stops them, or even makes them hesitate. No trace of humanity lets them even regret their actions afterwards. That's because THERE'S NO HUMANITY THERE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE.

FJ, you don't have truth on your side. Your stance lacks logic. So .. what sustains your position, making you so immovable from it ? Why do I know you'll never admit you could be wrong ?

I have but one answer. YOU'RE A LEFTIE, WEDDED TO A PROPAGANDA POSITION, AND YOU CANNOT ALLOW LOGIC, COMMONSENSE AND REALITY TO INTERFERE WITH IT.


If you can demonstrate that you're able to have a conversation with ignorantly bleating leftie like the ignorant moron you are then that would be unexpected. :) Me and Mags beats you and Adolf.

Margaret Thatcher didn't have experience of Muslim terrorism, but that didn't stop her from understanding that they - TERRORISTS - deserved death at the hands of the State .. from a State that had banned the death penalty !! Could it be that she knew terrorists were uniquely deserving of extermination, AND that ordinary human laws applicable in, and to, British society just could not be applied to terrorist scum ?

[Drummond]

I have no disagreement with your post except that in how subhuman is used in this context. Subhuman is used to define behavior subjectively and not those of a particular culture.

'Subhuman' is used to correctly identify subhumans !! And not just behaviour, but the lack of humanity that'd otherwise act as a check and balance against ever being able to act as a subhuman would.

You cannot infer any trace of 'humanity' from a Muslim terrorist attack. Yet, regardless, you invent a recognition of something when in FACT it's totally absent.

[fj1200]

Margaret Thatcher didn't have experience of Muslim terrorism, but that didn't stop her from understanding that they - TERRORISTS - deserved death at the hands of the State .. from a State that had banned the death penalty !! Could it be that she knew terrorists were uniquely deserving of extermination, AND that ordinary human laws applicable in, and to, British society just could not be applied to terrorist scum ?

It's a shame that you've been exposed as a disingenuous hack; I was secretly pulling for incredibly stupid. That cafeteria Thatcherite stuff doesn't look good either; picking and choosing what you wish to vouch for. It seems you also like to pick and choose your favored terrorists. But keep up with the Adolf stuff; Mags is shaking her head.

[fj1200]

'Subhuman' is used to correctly identify subhumans !! And not just behaviour, but the lack of humanity that'd otherwise act as a check and balance against ever being able to act as a subhuman would.

You cannot infer any trace of 'humanity' from a Muslim terrorist attack. Yet, regardless, you invent a recognition of something when in FACT it's totally absent.

I believe that was the same definition that the Nazis used. Have you come up with a number at what point that mentally handicapped are subhuman? I believe your definition also put those folks in the same category.

FACT is sometimes an unfortunate reality.

[Gunny]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about a Christian church being burned down with comments like "I truly hope it was". But you'll be glad to know that when people on here do start hoping that Christian churches are being burnt down you'll hear my peeps (:

Nah. They just cut to the chase and chop off their heads. But THAT's different, right? :rolleyes:

[Noir]

Nah. They just cut to the chase and chop off their heads. But THAT's different, right? :rolleyes:

Have you seen a thread on this site where Christians have been murdered and posters have made 'I hope so' comments?

[jimnyc]

Nah. They just cut to the chase and chop off their heads. But THAT's different, right? :rolleyes:

Spend some $$ and buy some dentistry tools, because that's what it takes to get noir to get involved and/or condemn islam. Every excuse not to. But finds every excuse to condemn religions that aren't actively killing people and playing with their heads.

[Gunny]

Spend some $$ and buy some dentistry tools, because that's what it takes to get noir to get involved and/or condemn islam. Every excuse not to. But finds every excuse to condemn religions that aren't actively killing people and playing with their heads.

I got plenty of dentistry tools. The butt end of an M-14. Extractions are free. :laugh:

Then, if you want to get into my electrician's tool pouch ... it can be entertainment hour.

[jimnyc]

Have you seen a thread on this site where Christians have been murdered and posters have made 'I hope so' comments?

Always finding a new reason or excuse to claim why you don't condemn islam or get involved in such threads. :rolleyes:

[Noir]

Always finding a new reason or excuse to claim why you don't condemn islam or get involved in such threads. :rolleyes:

Its acutally the same reason everytime, usually with a different word or two in order to fit the context of the post I'm quoting.

[Black Diamond]

Have you seen a thread on this site where Christians have been murdered and posters have made 'I hope so' comments?

So Christians are your enemy??

Go eat a cheeseburger. Or even better, a pork sandwich.

[Noir]

So Christians are your enemy??

No, you're welcome to explain the thought process that got you from my post to yours.

[Black Diamond]

No, you're welcome to explain the thought process that got you from my post to yours.

I already knew you considered Christians your enemies. I'll let you figure out what I meant above. I am done spelling things out for you.

[jimnyc]

Its acutally the same reason everytime, usually with a different word or two in order to fit the context of the post I'm quoting.

Yes, you are consistent in your extremely infrequent condemnation of Islam. You don't have that issue with christianity. You don't need to be 'asked a question' in order to respond. You find something to condemn within christianity in many a thread. My firm belief is that you simply have more hatred within you about christianity than you do islam. Or you have more of an issue with christianity than you do islam. That's what your lengthy posting on religion shows. You have no issue posting on other issues that folks agree on, but suddenly you'll claim that you don't post condemnation about Islam, because what's the point, as everyone else already says the same thing. Weird is all. I'm not claiming you like Islam or are somehow a muslim, so don't get me wrong.

[Gunny]

No, you're welcome to explain the thought process that got you from my post to yours.

I can explain you easily. It's as much what you DON'T say as what you do. You're quick to jump all over Christians and the military and conservatives; yet, you're silent when some jackass towelhead commits a crime. You're quite obvious.

And it sucks to me that you always want to blame the same people that created you. You couldn't exist without us. You'd be dead, probably still running your mouth. Your mouth ain't going to win a fight for your life, bubba.

[Black Diamond]

I can explain you easily. It's as much what you DON'T say as what you do. You're quick to jump all over Christians and the military and conservatives; yet, you're silent when some jackass towelhead commits a crime. You're quite obvious.

And it sucks to me that you always want to blame the same people that created you. You couldn't exist without us. You'd be dead, probably still running your mouth. Your mouth ain't going to win a fight for your life, bubba.

He'd be saluting the swastika instead of the faggot flag.

[Noir]

I already knew you considered Christians your enemies. I'll let you figure out what I meant above. I am done spelling things out for you.

Another classic convo for the DP archives
"So Christians are your enemy?"
"No"
"I already knew you considered Christians your enemies"

Honestly I don't even know why you wait for my replies when you could just carry on by yourself.

[jimnyc]

Another classic convo for the DP archives
"So Christians are your enemy?"
"No"
"I already knew you considered Christians your enemies"

Honestly I don't even know why you wait for my replies when you could just carry on by yourself.

Me personally, I don't think you see christians as your enemy. I just think you have a problem with christianity. A pretty good sized problem. :)

[Black Diamond]

Another classic convo for the DP archives
"So Christians are your enemy?"
"No"
"I already knew you considered Christians your enemies"

Honestly I don't even know why you wait for my replies when you could just carry on by yourself.

In this case, you're correct. I wondered, "Does this post mean he thinks Christians are his enemies ?". So I posted the question. Then the more I thought about how much you bash Christians, I shouldn't have had to ask because I already knew.

[Noir]

Yes, you are consistent in your extremely infrequent condemnation of Islam. You don't have that issue with christianity. You don't need to be 'asked a question' in order to respond. You find something to condemn within christianity in many a thread. My firm belief is that you simply have more hatred within you about christianity than you do islam. Or you have more of an issue with christianity than you do islam. That's what your lengthy posting on religion shows. You have no issue posting on other issues that folks agree on, but suddenly you'll claim that you don't post condemnation about Islam, because what's the point, as everyone else already says the same thing. Weird is all. I'm not claiming you like Islam or are somehow a muslim, so don't get me wrong.

Ya'know it's almost half tempting to say 'Hell yeah Christianity is much worse than Islam' and declare forth than never going to post negatively on any thoughts/words/actions of a Muslim/Islamic source *just* because so many people here seem to get curiously annoyed that they think I don't post enough about Islam,
and I think if it was just about any other topic of conversation I would, but this ones just a little too important to play such foolery with, which is a shame in two respects.

[jimnyc]

Ya'know it's almost half tempting to say 'Hell yeah Christianity is much worse than Islam' and declare forth than never going to post negatively on any thoughts/words/actions of a Muslim/Islamic source *just* because so many people here seem to get curiously annoyed that they think I don't post enough about Islam,
and I think if it was just about any other topic of conversation I would, but this ones just a little too important to play such foolery with, which is a shame in two respects.

I don't find it odd if someone doesn't speak out about islam. We have others as well on this board that never enter the muslim threads. It's when someone talks a lot of religion, and why they have issues with religion, I would assume that would go across the spectrum. For example, if there was an incident where a priest was involved with a child and it was just exposed - you don't see a thread on it here yet. Be honest, do you then post a thread to make sure that this story is seen? Similar scenario, there is some sort of incident by islamist extremists/terrorists which results in the deaths of 10+. You don't see the story posted yet. Be honest, do you post it? I "think" I can answer that, based on your history of replies over the years, and threads you have started over the years on religious subjects.

[Gunny]

Ya'know it's almost half tempting to say 'Hell yeah Christianity is much worse than Islam' and declare forth than never going to post negatively on any thoughts/words/actions of a Muslim/Islamic source *just* because so many people here seem to get curiously annoyed that they think I don't post enough about Islam,
and I think if it was just about any other topic of conversation I would, but this ones just a little too important to play such foolery with, which is a shame in two respects.

You're missing the point, Superstar. It isn't that you post negatively about Christians. It's that you NEVER post negatively about Muslims. So how about YOU quit the follery because as it appears, the only person you are fooling is YOU. When everyone else is looking right through your game and saying the same things, you might want to consider your position.

You apologize for everything that is wrong. Don't like Christians. Don't like the military. Think fags are fine n dandy.

DO you stand for anything normal?

[Drummond]

He'd be saluting the swastika instead of the faggot flag.

... and I, as a Brit, agree ! Sooner or later Hitler would've got around to invading. He'd have found us a tough nut to crack (thanks to Churchill's Conservative leadership) ... but we lacked the resources to prevail indefinitely.

Had we been ruled by Leftieism instead, with Churchill never supplying input ... we'd have just become another France in double-quick time.

Yes, Noir. We have much to thank the Americans for.

[aboutime]

You're missing the point, Superstar. It isn't that you post negatively about Christians. It's that you NEVER post negatively about Muslims. So how about YOU quit the follery because as it appears, the only person you are fooling is YOU. When everyone else is looking right through your game and saying the same things, you might want to consider your position.

You apologize for everything that is wrong. Don't like Christians. Don't like the military. Think fags are fine n dandy.

DO you stand for anything normal?



Gunny. Think about it. What could ever be normal, in any way, about someone who posts a photo of themself dressed as a Priest? It's more of a statement from Noir of how much DISRESPECT, and IGNORANCE he so freely shows to the rest of us. Telling us NOTHING he says, thinks, or writes can be taken seriously...EVER.

[Noir]

I don't find it odd if someone doesn't speak out about islam. We have others as well on this board that never enter the muslim threads. It's when someone talks a lot of religion, and why they have issues with religion, I would assume that would go across the spectrum. For example, if there was an incident where a priest was involved with a child and it was just exposed - you don't see a thread on it here yet. Be honest, do you then post a thread to make sure that this story is seen? Similar scenario, there is some sort of incident by islamist extremists/terrorists which results in the deaths of 10+. You don't see the story posted yet. Be honest, do you post it? I "think" I can answer that, based on your history of replies over the years, and threads you have started over the years on religious subjects.

I'd say its most likely i don't post either.
Looking at my actual thread history you'd have to look back to April 2013 when i made a thread about pedophile priests who were given payouts to encourage them to leave the priesthood without much noise...do you think in the following 3 years i haven't read about other current pedophile priest stories and passed on posting them here?