I do find this rather interesting...

[Mark]

Nice talk! You have some anger management issues Jeff. In recent years the Muslims definitely have an edge. Over history they still probably are ahead even with Christians having a 700 year headstart. Why do you have such an erection for Christians?

And the point is, that who cares about the historical body count from either side? We are supposed to be talking about enlightened societes are we. The peoples of the world are supposedly better educated aren't they?

Suppose that Christianity had killed more people throught history than other religious leaders? (I say leaders for a reasn btw). Should we just roll over and let them catch up and then call it even, all shake hands and live in peace?

WTF has the historical kill ratio got to do with anything in the present,. Idiotic, child-like responce if you ask me.

Funny how people of the other side of this fence constantly bang on about their own education. Stating their number of degree's and outstanding educational backgrounds. As if that proves them to be right on everything. Small minded bloody fools.

Stand by for the aneurism after-all.......................

 

[Jeff Young]

For goodness' sake. The actions of a f**king a**hole like that, is in no-way similar or comparable to mass-mob demoliton and destruction.

See this example of a demonic twat here in the UK:

Dale Cregan arrested after policewomen Fiona Bone, 32, and Nicola Hughes, 23, shot dead in Greater Manchester | Mail Online

If he calls himself a memeber of the Catholic church or of anything else, is this also suitable to compare against the Muslim threat? Surley not. What if this A -hole is athiest? Are all athiest's capable of murder.

Stop being so damn stupid

Of course all Muslims are not terrorists. But we are correct when we stand up against the very clear Muslim threat!

Sure it is the same. It's religio-political motivated violence. So now the number of people involved somehow matters? If anything is stupid, it is using that as a metric.

Let me suggest what the REAL difference between the two is. One was committed by a person of your religion. So that is the "unexplainable" acts of a madmen/fucking asshole. When it's done by other religions, it's just their "way."

Keef -- too much "mate." You come here, trash me for offering a differing viewpoint in a political forum, and then turn high tail and run (that's what using the "ignore" button is) when I respond. Nice job.

 

[Mark]

You presume too much Jeff. As far as I am aware, I have not confirmed my either my religion or lack thereof.

Re- read what you have already quoted me on. I clearly say, " of course all Muslims are not terrorists"

What is wrong with you? Blinkers on mate?

Too many assumptions I fear is not so impressive for one who claims to be so well edumacated.

 

[Bob Fechter]

And yet these peaceful Muslims are being used in this war every day. They have a huge birthrate compared to the Western world and are repopulating, for example, Europe. Without firing a shot, they have taken over large areas of the Western world. It is happening in America too with not only Muslims but illegal aliens who are told that the U.S. Southwest is their land and that time is on their side by repopulating themselves into the majority. this is not paranoia, it is fact.

 

[Mark]

And yet these peaceful Muslims are being used in this war every day. They have a huge birthrate compared to the Western world and are repopulating, for example, Europe. Without firing a shot, they have taken over large areas of the Western world. It is happening in America too with not only Muslims but illegal aliens who are told that the U.S. Southwest is their land and that time is on their side by repopulating themselves into the majority. this is not paranoia, it is fact.

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/paddock/22365-jokes-anyone-135.html#post382900

 

[Jim Craik]

Of course all Muslims are not terrorists. But we are correct when we stand up against the very clear Muslim threat!

Posted by Mark

Deaths by Muslims in the US since 1972, this include everything from Black Muslims that really have little to do with terrorisom, honor killings because the kids are too western, all the way to 9-11.

Total US deaths deaths: 3,094

US military deaths in Iraq: 4,486

Iraqi civilian deaths 2002-2011: 131,910+

Mark, tell us again about the "very clear Muslim threat"!

 

[Mark]

If you are going to quote me, do it properly and fully Jim, not like the media you seem to admire so much.

Did you miss it when I said, "And the point is, that who cares about the historical body count from either side? We are supposed to be talking about enlightened societes are we. The peoples of the world are supposedly better educated aren't they?

Suppose that Christianity had killed more people throught history than other religious leaders? (I say leaders for a reasn btw). Should we just roll over and let them catch up and then call it even, all shake hands and live in peace?

WTF has the historical kill ratio got to do with anything in the present,. Idiotic, child-like responce if you ask me."

 

[Mark]

Historians' Eh! All they can talk about is what others did in the past. They leave it us mere mortals to get on with the present to create a future, that they can then recall from their lofty heights of learning and claim to know what was good and what was bad, moving on to have the audacity to suggest they could or would have done things differently.

Someone save us all from self-proclamed intelectuals!

 

[Jim Craik]

If you are going to quote me, do it properly and fully Jim, not like the media you seem to admire so much.QUOTE]

Mark, that was a direct quote (cut and pasted) from your post 19.

If you really think that the media is the problem, spend some time in a country where the media is controlled by the govenment, then well talk.

 

[Mark]

You clearly must have 'chosen' to post only one part of the points I made on the subject, therby effectively editing my view to only half of the point I made, presumably to suit your reply/agenda. Please refer to my post number 28 above, re-read it and feel free to ask questions if you still don't understand. I will eneavour to make myself even clearer for you.

As for living n an area where government controls the media, do you have such experience yourself? If so, what did you learn first-hand from the experiance?

Either way, explain what is so different between a government controlled media and a media that has little or no controls placed upon it? To my mind, both are equally as dangerous, even if for different reasons.

 

[Jim Craik]

For goodness' sake. The actions of a f**king a**hole like that, is in no-way similar or comparable to mass-mob demoliton and destruction.

See this example of a demonic twat here in the UK:

Dale Cregan arrested after policewomen Fiona Bone, 32, and Nicola Hughes, 23, shot dead in Greater Manchester | Mail Online

If he calls himself a memeber of the Catholic church or of anything else, is this also suitable to compare against the Muslim threat? Surley not. What if this A -hole is athiest? Are all athiest's capable of murder.

Stop being so damn stupid


Of course all Muslims are not terrorists. But we are correct when we stand up against the very clear Muslim threat!

Mark,

Here is your entire post, show me where as you say:

You clearly must have 'chosen' to post only one part of the points I made on the subject, therby effectively editing my view to only half of the point I made, presumably to suit your reply/agenda.

Mark, I posted the last line, tell us where I changed/edited the point you were trying to make?

***********************

So you are for repealing the 1st Amendment?

You think the world would be a better place if people like you decide what we hear and what we do not hear?

 

[Mark]

Don't be fasetious Jim. You ought to know my point was made across more than one sentence and more than one single post. Stop it. You know better, even id=f you choose to act as though you don't. Stop it or it's off to bed with you and no super!

 

[Jim Craik]

You clearly must have 'chosen' to post only one part of the points I made on the subject, therby effectively editing my view to only half of the point I made, presumably to suit your reply/agenda. Please refer to my post number 28 above, re-read it and feel free to ask questions if you still don't understand. I will eneavour to make myself even clearer for you.

As for living n an area where government controls the media, do you have such experience yourself? If so, what did you learn first-hand from the experiance?

Either way, explain what is so different between a government controlled media and a media that has little or no controls placed upon it? To my mind, both are equally as dangerous, even if for different reasons.

Mark,

If you really believe the last line in your post, then you have proven to all the importance of education!

You are implying that the very cornerstone of what makes America work, the very thing that ensures freedom, the 1st Amendment, "freedom of speach" is as dangerous as say North Korean censership!

My man, you truly are clueless, please do some reading on the subject!

 

[Bob Fechter]

craik is an invaluable example of the liberal mind in action. Distort, lie, quote out of context, edit, use bogus quotes, charts, pictures, etc. from fringe websites, and deny any other sources for their opposition to use.

This is exactly how the left, from the Democratic Party on down to craik operate. Remember Dan Rather.

 

[Mark]

Hmm, I utterly respect the freedom of speech Jim. Completely.Howevr, rather than 'blindly' defending it, I prefer to ask and consider, if, and Imean IF, people are allowed to say absolutley anything they wish and to hell with consequences, then a sofisticated society MUST have ways in which such a freedom is at least held to account should a person or entity deliberately say something that they KNOW will cause something as serious as death, murder, mob riots etc.

Much like being free to drive your car wherever you may wish, is not the same as being allowed to plow it through a line of pedestrians at will, protected form prosecution through the freedom to own and drive a motor vehicle.

I ponder this. You guys refer to varous ammendments to your consitution yes? I imagine by definition of the word ammendment, that the previous draft was found to be lacking in some way, no?

Perhaps therefore, just prehaps, the ammendment that protects freedom of speech ought to be reconsidered? Perhaps not to remove a person's freedom to say what they like, but by-jingo, should they say something that causes some other nut job to smash into yet more civilian buildings, and they KNEW such a hideous act could easily be the consequence of that statement, they should be thrown in the f**king shark tank!

Debate.

Oh and as an aside, regarding your deliberate editin of my views, please try to remember that an inteligent debate, arguement or disagreement, really ought to flow. Not remain static.

Carry on and keep calm.

 

[Tom P]

Posted by Mark

Deaths by Muslims in the US since 1972, this include everything from Black Muslims that really have little to do with terrorisom, honor killings because the kids are too western, all the way to 9-11.

Total US deaths deaths: 3,094

US military deaths in Iraq: 4,486

Iraqi civilian deaths 2002-2011: 131,910+

Mark, tell us again about the "very clear Muslim threat"!

Jim, you post some of the most misleading garbage. How many of the Iraqi deaths are due to extremist acts. It's good to see your concern about US deaths.

 

[Jim Craik]

Perhaps therefore, just prehaps, the ammendment that protects freedom of speech ought to be reconsidered? Perhaps not to remove a person's freedom to say what they like, but by-jingo, should they say something that causes some other nut job to smash into yet more civilian buildings, and they KNEW such a hideous act could easily be the consequence of that statement, they should be thrown in the f**king shark tank

Mark thinks it may be a good idea to reconsider the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speach. Does anyone else think this is a good idea. Keep in mind that their already are laws against shouting fire in a theater.

Mark also posted this:

"Either way, explain what is so different between a government controlled media and a media that has little or no controls placed upon it? To my mind, both are equally as dangerous, even if for different reasons."

Does anyone else think that having a free and open media is just as dangerous as when the Govenment can controll all media?

 

[Jim Craik]

Mark,

I just went back and read by last few posts.

I may have been a little strong in my comments. Honestly Mark, I understand your anger at the situation and the seemingly mindless attacks by brain washed fanatics.

But I often have a hard time understanding how seemingly sensible folks could call for such drastic retaliatory measures. I too am angered by this obviously planned attack on the 9-11 anaversery. But put things into perspective.

How would you feel if a stronger Islamic Country, using questionable reasoning invaded the US, killed a hundred thousand Americans, 99.9% innocent. Then tried to tell us how to run our country.

I know how you would feel, you would feel just like They do, you would be more than pissed.

We did just this, we invaded Iraq, in the end well over 100,000 of their people died and it cost the lives over 3,000 of our wonderful, brave, loyal troops. Even the people in the Middle East who liked us before, hate us now. We did all this because?

But really, to use the unfortunate situation to nuke whole cities filled with 99% innocents. Or use this unfortunate situation to repeal the 1st Amendment, really?

If we can find the shit responsibe for these attacks, i would be happy to do them in with absolutly no remorse. We need to find these fuckers, but until then we need to keep things in perspective.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

craik is an invaluable example of the liberal mind in action. Distort, lie, quote out of context, edit, use bogus quotes, charts, pictures, etc. from fringe websites, and deny any other sources for their opposition to use.

This is exactly how the left, from the Democratic Party on down to craik operate. Remember Dan Rather.

This is outrageous, Bob. You know perfectly well that we on the left whine more than we do anything else. I whine, constantly, myself, when I am not doing anything else. And, these days, I don't do much else.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Mark,

I just went back and read by last few posts.

I may have been a little strong in my comments. Honestly Mark, I understand your anger at the situation and the seemingly mindless attacks by brain washed fanatics.

But I often have a hard time understanding how seemingly sensible folks could call for such drastic retaliatory measures. I too am angered by this obviously planned attack on the 9-11 anaversery. But put things into perspective.

How would you feel if a stronger Islamic Country, using questionable reasoning invaded the US, killed a hundred thousand Americans, 99.9% innocent. Then tried to tell us how to run our country.

I know how you would feel, you would feel just like They do, you would be more than pissed.

We did just this, we invaded Iraq, in the end well over 100,000 of their people died and it cost the lives over 3,000 of our wonderful, brave, loyal troops. Even the people in the Middle East who liked us before, hate us now. We did all this because?

But really, to use the unfortunate situation to nuke whole cities filled with 99% innocents. Or use this unfortunate situation to repeal the 1st Amendment, really?

If we can find the shit responsibe for these attacks, i would be happy to do them in with absolutly no remorse. We need to find these fuckers, but until then we need to keep things in perspective.

I have to agree with Jim C. on this part, though. We had no business in Iraq, ever; the whole reason to invade them was because Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had a hard-on for them. The five of them are war criminals. Now, Assfuckistan, I think we had a legitimate gripe with the Taliban etc. And we've certainly gotten even with THEM; giving them Karzai as a President (defined there as chief receiver of bribes) has been quite the slap in the face, hasn't it......you can see them reeling from the blow....