The Killing Joke

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Further, the President firmly believes the U.S. and many of the West are the problem, that they oppose and inflame these poor dissidents who inturn are forced to acts of rebellion. We should share the blame.
[/quote]

One of many reasons why liberals suck.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If you want to prosecute christians for hate speech while we’re at it, I have no problem with that. Religion just needs to go the fuck away. [/quote]

God damn it man… What did freedom ever do to you that you’ve gone and gave it all away in this thread?

[quote]on edge wrote:
In the US, cops arrive within minutes if bullets start flying. Sure we often have civilian victims but the perpetrators never just drive off in broad daylight after a sustained attack. Short attacks like that disgruntled cop down in southern california a few years ago is a different story.[/quote]

It seems now that the murderers were in the building for a total of five minutes. One of the officers killed was on guard duty inside the premises, the other officer killed was the first to arrive on the scene. Coincidentally, his name was disclosed and he was a muslim.

What is more troubling is that it looks like they had inside information - time and date of the monthly editorial board when most of the journalist were present.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.

I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.

Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]

Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.

We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).

RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]

I’ve been thinking this way recently but more specifically toward Islam (surprise). Since more than three quarters of the world is not Muslim we should all demand that parts of the Koran be changed, outlawed and of course no longer taught.

I really think the only way to stop terrorism though is if we had a real asshole of a POTUS who would politely explain to the Islam world that if there is another organized terrorist attack anywhere in the world X city would disappear from the map. The city could rotate. One month we could announce the nukes are aimed at Tehran, the next month it could be Kabul. A nice little monthly announcement like “People of Islam, this month the citizens of Istanbul are counting on you to put an end to terrorism”. Make all of Islam our unwilling allies in the fight against terror.

Sigh… one can fantasize, right?[/quote]

About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]

They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.

We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?

Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]

Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.

The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.

It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.

One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.

I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.

Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]

Pretty inaccurate prediction of both what Obama said and also how Parisians reacted to this terrorist attack. I have no idea why so many people here think all Europeans have similar thinking patterns to 20 y/o American liberals who read the HuffPost as their sole source of news. European socialist tendencies =/= modern American liberalism.

Paris has a lot of Muslims b/c of its proximity to North Africa and it’s history of colonialism in Muslim countries. Kind of like we have a lot of Latinos b/c of our proximity to Latin America. It’s not b/c the French love low-skilled immigrants who don’t speak French and congregate in ethnic ghettos.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence. [/quote]

Source?[/quote]

Sorry, humor. I will be watching his choice of words though. [/quote]

In Washington, President Obama denounced the “horrific” shooting and said U.S. officials were ready to provide any assistance to help “bring these terrorists to justice.”

[/quote]

Terrorists not Radical Islamist Terrorists. Important point.
[/quote]

So the absence of those adjectives somehow constitutes a failure? [/quote]

No sir. It constitutes a worldview.
[/quote]

Could it not be public diplomacy? In your opinion, what is Obama’s Weltanschauung?[/quote]

I think it’s fair to say that the President’s risk-adverse posture prohibts him from calling evil by it’s true name: Radical Islam. It may go deeper than that also. He’s very thin-skinned and hates confrontation. He prefers to fight from afar (think drones). He’s not the roll-up-your-sleeves type. That is why he despises our shirtless Russian friend. Further, the President firmly believes the U.S. and many of the West are the problem, that they oppose and inflame these poor dissidents who inturn are forced to acts of rebellion. We should share the blame.

How do you see Mr. Obama’s worldview Bismark?[/quote]

Oh I will tell you exactly how he sees our dear Sunni-in-Chief (sans the Shakespearian prose)!

He will say you have to appreciate the nuanced subtleties of his remarkable statescraft. He will laud his concessions in the ME as “victories”. State that his drone campaign is visionary. He will trump him as a coalition builder with steely leadership.

He will point to his perceived mis-steps with Syria, Egypt, Russia et al was actually an illusion where he had gained the upperhand. He will claim that unless you possess a B.S. in Bovine Scatology, you will not grasp the utility of his trading terrorists for deserters.

History is littered with the successes of appeasement and concession.

You do understand this lad?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]

So, your solution to the problem is less freedom?

Looks like you’d fit right into federal or state level congress if you ever choose to do so. [/quote]

No, not less freedom, just less HATE. Take away their tax exempt status. They all preach the same shit. The only difference between christianity and islam in terms of violence is a few centuries. christianity has PLENTY of blood on it’s hands too. Just as there are verses in the koran that talk about killing infidels, there are verses in the bible that talk of killing people and stoning women. IT’S IN THERE. All of you jews, christians and muslims have the SAME BLOODTHIRSTY GOD who kills children to make a point.

Any one who takes that shit seriously and believes that THEY will go to “heaven” and the rest of us are going to “hell” because we don’t believe the stupid songs you learned in sunday school is just as crazy as those fucking terrorists. IT’S ALL A LIE TO MANIPULATE YOU! The ONLY difference is that the West has managed to educate itself! When Europe was an UN-educated place, the same exact murders and burning of heretics took place under christianity! ALL of those fucking religions can be twisted to make people kill!

I don’t care WHAT you believe. But when religion is used as hate speech, it should be prosecuted. You can’t scream “bomb” in an airport, can you? This isn’t limiting the first amendment any more than it already is.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
islam is a religion of HATE, not peace.

Let’s define what “hate” is:
-Drawing a distinction between one’s own tribe and those outside of it
-Drawing moral conclusions based on this distinction
-Placing one’s own tribe as “above” or “superior” to other tribes
-Advocating a different standard of treatment based on tribe membership
-Advocating violence against those of other tribes

The koran qualifies as “hate speech” on each count!

Apologists are correct in that the koran teaches “love and kindness”. They just fail to mention that it applies only to those WITHIN the muslim community.[/quote]

And yet during the middle ages they were more lenient to “infidels” than Christians were to “heretics”.[/quote]

I’m no “fan” of christianity either - but besides the occasional abortion clinic, christians aren’t blowing people up. If you want to prosecute christians for hate speech while we’re at it, I have no problem with that. Religion just needs to go the fuck away. Killing in the name of “god” just isn’t cool anymore.[/quote]

So you have no problem with the government disarming its citizens “for the greater good” as well? OR Doing away with those pesky search warrants and giving the state free run on any citizens private property because it makes us all safer? I mean come one man. Might want to rethink the “lets do away with the first amendment” position.[/quote]

It gets SO FUCKING TIRING arguing against straw men. FUCKING SERIOUSLY!!! Mr.86, did I WRITE that I’m all for the government disarming citizens? Why, no, I DID NOT!!! So why are putting words in my fucking mouth? Did I WRITE that I think search warrants should be done away with? How about you have a nice warm cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP, and argue about the things I ACTUALLY WRITE?

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Start Hijack:

I claimed not telling your wife you are cheating is the same thing as lying because its a lie by omission, even if she never asks, and even if you never affirmatively lie. You told me there was no such thing as a lie by omission. So consider yourself hoisted on your own petard.

End Hijack. [/quote]

See above. I can argue just about ANY position. I often do so as an intellectual exercise. Can we please stay on topic?

Q: Has any news outlet shown the cartoon that the worshipers of the “Religion of Peace” find so offensive?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If you want to prosecute christians for hate speech while we’re at it, I have no problem with that. Religion just needs to go the fuck away. [/quote]

God damn it man… What did freedom ever do to you that you’ve gone and gave it all away in this thread?[/quote]

Go ahead to your nearest airport and yell “BOMB!!!” at the top of your lungs and see what happens. How free are you, Beans? You can argue first amendment all day long, but in reality you CAN’T just say “anything” you want, now can you?

Religion, combined with ignorance equals people killing people in the name of god. Your religion is JUST AS GUILTY of this as islam. I will concede that it’s the muslims that are the ones currently blowing us up, and I think they should have their fucking mosques burned down for that, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that the common denominator in ALL of this killing from an HISTORICAL perspective is RELIGION. Why the fuck cant people just live their life and fucking die? Are they SO cowardly that they need an “afterlife”? I mean, who gives a shit when you’re dead anyway? NO ONE KNOWS what will happen, but people will KILL each other for what some fucking asshole said two thousand years ago? Do you see how fucking ridiculous that is?

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence. [/quote]

Source?[/quote]

Sorry, humor. I will be watching his choice of words though. [/quote]

In Washington, President Obama denounced the “horrific” shooting and said U.S. officials were ready to provide any assistance to help “bring these terrorists to justice.”

[/quote]

Terrorists not Radical Islamist Terrorists. Important point.
[/quote]

So the absence of those adjectives somehow constitutes a failure? [/quote]

No sir. It constitutes a worldview.
[/quote]

Could it not be public diplomacy? In your opinion, what is Obama’s Weltanschauung?[/quote]

I think it’s fair to say that the President’s risk-adverse posture prohibts him from calling evil by it’s true name: Radical Islam. It may go deeper than that also. He’s very thin-skinned and hates confrontation. He prefers to fight from afar (think drones). He’s not the roll-up-your-sleeves type. That is why he despises our shirtless Russian friend. Further, the President firmly believes the U.S. and many of the West are the problem, that they oppose and inflame these poor dissidents who inturn are forced to acts of rebellion. We should share the blame.

How do you see Mr. Obama’s worldview Bismark?[/quote]

Oh I will tell you exactly how he sees our dear Sunni-in-Chief (sans the Shakespearian prose)!

He will say you have to appreciate the nuanced subtleties of his remarkable statescraft. He will laud his concessions in the ME as “victories”. State that his drone campaign is visionary. He will trump him as a coalition builder with steely leadership.

He will point to his perceived mis-steps with Syria, Egypt, Russia et al was actually an illusion where he had gained the upperhand. He will claim that unless you possess a B.S. in Bovine Scatology, you will not grasp the utility of his trading terrorists for deserters.

History is littered with the successes of appeasement and concession.

You do understand this lad?
[/quote]

I was going to say that he probably won’t answer the question. Bismark NEVER answers a direct question. EVER. He’ll latch onto some minor part of a sentence you wrote in passing and then tell you, “you’re not qualified to have this discussion” or some other bullshit like that.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.

I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.

Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]

Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.

We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).

RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]

I’ve been thinking this way recently but more specifically toward Islam (surprise). Since more than three quarters of the world is not Muslim we should all demand that parts of the Koran be changed, outlawed and of course no longer taught.

I really think the only way to stop terrorism though is if we had a real asshole of a POTUS who would politely explain to the Islam world that if there is another organized terrorist attack anywhere in the world X city would disappear from the map. The city could rotate. One month we could announce the nukes are aimed at Tehran, the next month it could be Kabul. A nice little monthly announcement like “People of Islam, this month the citizens of Istanbul are counting on you to put an end to terrorism”. Make all of Islam our unwilling allies in the fight against terror.

Sigh… one can fantasize, right?[/quote]

About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]

They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.

We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?

Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]

Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.

[/quote]What I find disturbing is that we let these fuckers operate freely. Just because they hide in a country that is our “ally”. Fuck Pakistan - those fucker hid Bin Laden. Bomb the shit out of them. Fuck Iran, those fuckers are funding most of the terrorists around the world. Bomb the shit out of them. If these fuckers had a CONSEQUENCE for supporting terrorism and giving terrorists safe haven, then perhaps they would run out of money and places to train. If we made it so painful for the countries that allow this, we would eventually stamp that shit out. [quote]

The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.

It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.

One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?[/quote]

Let’s use a similar analogy: if a member of the “G crew” from Greenmount and 33rd in Baltimore crossed a line and blew up a shop on the west side, any SANE person would probably not be walking out on the street near Greenmount and 33rd the next day because they would KNOW that the West side niggas would be turning that shit into a war zone. Notice, that DOESN’T HAPPEN very often, does it? Because there is a CONSEQUENCE. These terrorists don’t have CONSEQUENCES.

But we KNOW who funds them. We KNOW where they train. We KNOW who is in bed with them! But we do NOTHING. We smile and sell them airplanes, weapons and buy their oil. It’s fucking BULLSHIT.

^ Pretty much. Brothas on the 'hood ain’t very PC and don’t care if they hurt your feelings.

I can envision a hilarious SNL episode…

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?[/quote]

lol, relax man I think you misunderstood why I posted the link. You said there’s no suck thing as a lie of omission and you were adamant about it. Now you say this is a lie of omission. I just found it funny that’s all. And yes that thread turned out fine and I think you’re a good guy in general. Not taking a swipe at you, lol.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?[/quote]

lol, relax man I think you misunderstood why I posted the link. You said there’s no suck thing as a lie of omission and you were adamant about it. Now you say this is a lie of omission. I just found it funny that’s all. And yes that thread turned out fine and I think you’re a good guy in general. Not taking a swipe at you, lol.
[/quote]

It’s all good. Like I said, in GAL (and sometimes here) I sometimes argue a position for the sake of argument. I like to argue, what can I say? I DO happen to hate Obama, so when HE does it, it’s a fucking LIE, damnit! LOL

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?[/quote]

lol, relax man I think you misunderstood why I posted the link. You said there’s no suck thing as a lie of omission and you were adamant about it. Now you say this is a lie of omission. I just found it funny that’s all. And yes that thread turned out fine and I think you’re a good guy in general. Not taking a swipe at you, lol.
[/quote]

It’s all good. Like I said, in GAL (and sometimes here) I sometimes argue a position for the sake of argument. I like to argue, what can I say? I DO happen to hate Obama, so when HE does it, it’s a fucking LIE, damnit! LOL[/quote]

Last I heard they caught 2 of them. One gave himself up. One is dead.

https://gma.yahoo.com/12-dead-terrorist-attack-paris-satirical-newspaper-162351662--abc-news-topstories.html

I haven’t found any verification of the above post other than this article, but on the 6:00 NBC Nightly News, they signed off saying they caught them all, and one of the suspects was dead. And that was 4 hrs ago.

update: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Pussies or prudent?