Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomb explosion in New York.

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

  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Let's see if you can employ that standard against a US Congressman.











    Long Island's own terror mouthpiece, appearing over the course of two decades with his Northern Irish counterpart. Or is this a case of one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter?

    No sir: I'd not tolerate a bigot and a loudmouth like Peter King dictating what constitutes and what does not constitute a religion. Every time they swallow the Eucharist guys like King and Adams are making a political statement in support of terrorism as an acceptable political tactic.



    To whom else does such a standard apply?

    You really have a hard on for the Irish, eh? I don't really care what happens to IRA terrorists or their supporters. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Bodies is plural. There is only one I advocate a temporary redefinition. The one the we are at war with, islam.

    It's a very fine line. That line is crossed when the methods to advance that agenda become violent.
    Let's see if you can employ that standard against a US Congressman.

    Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) sprang to the defense of Irish politician Gerry Adams Thursday, as Adams was held in police custody in Northern Ireland in connection with a 1972 murder.

    Since 1983, Adams has been the leader of Sinn Fein, a party that for many years served as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.). He is being questioned, but has not been charged, in relation to the killing of widowed mother-of-10 Jean McConville in 1972.

    Adams has strenuously denied any involvement in the murder — and King says he takes the Sinn Fein leader at his word.

    “I have every reason based on his past record to believe Gerry Adams,” King told The Hill. “I have known him since the early ‘80s and he has never told me something that turned out to be untrue.”

    "Rep. King: 'I have every reason to believe Gerry Adams'," by Niall Stanage, The Hill-dot-com, 1 May 2014
    In 1985, the Irish government boycotted the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York City, the biggest celebration in the Irish American calendar. The cause of its umbrage was Peter T. King, that year's grand marshal and someone the Irish government said was an "avowed" supporter of a terrorist organization, the Irish Republican Army.

    King, then a local politician on Long Island, was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant IRA and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland. He argued that IRA violence was an inevitable response to British repression and that the organization had to be understood in the context of a centuries-long struggle for independence.

    "The British government is a murder machine," King said. He described the IRA, which mastered the car bomb as an instrument of urban terror, as a "legitimate force." And he compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, to George Washington.

    A quarter-century later, King is chairman of the powerful House Homeland Security Committee. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, he became an uncompromising supporter of the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies. And he has suggested that President Obama "use the word 'terrorism' more often" so people understand the seriousness of his purpose.

    "Peter King, IRA supporter and enthusiastic counter-terrorism advocate," by Peter Finn, Washington Post, 5 Mar 2011
    . . . . according to experts in counterterrorism law, if the tough-on-terror policies King trumpets today had taken effect a few decades earlier, King himself might have been subject to prosecution. Over parts of three decades, from his days as an aspiring politician in Long Island through his early years in Congress, King was one of the nation's most outspoken supporters of the Irish Republican Army and a prolific fundraiser for the Irish Northern Aid Committee (NorAid), allegedly the IRA's American fundraising arm. The IRA waged a paramilitary campaign against the British presence in Northern Ireland for decades before peace accords were signed in 1998. Part of that effort included bombings and shootings that resulted in civilian deaths in England and Northern Ireland. During the period of King's involvement, the US government accused both NorAid and the IRA of links to terrorism.

    Federal laws signed by President Bill Clinton and bolstered by the USA PATRIOT Act make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to provide resources, training, or expert advice—so-called "material support"—to any group that's been designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

    Georgetown University law professor David Cole, who unsuccessfully challenged the material-support law before the Supreme Court last winter, said King's fundraising exploits would "without a doubt" constitute a violation of the statute. In other words, Cole believes King would have been guilty of the same crime the congressman accused WikiLeaks of committing. "Just going to a bar and putting your change from your beer into the NorAid can is enough; you don't have to be the leader of the organization," Cole says. "It's any support to the group that's criminalized."

    Although its leaders insisted that NorAid funds were meant to provide assistance, mainly to families of imprisoned IRA members, the steady cash flow from the States—more than $6 million was raised, by some estimates—effectively freed up funds for the IRA's often-violent brand of political advocacy.

    "Peter King's Terrorism Problem," by Tim Murphy, Mother Jones, 19 Jan 2011




    Long Island's own terror mouthpiece, appearing over the course of two decades with his Northern Irish counterpart. Or is this a case of one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter?

    No sir: I'd not tolerate a bigot and a loudmouth like Peter King dictating what constitutes and what does not constitute a religion. Every time they swallow the Eucharist guys like King and Adams are making a political statement in support of terrorism as an acceptable political tactic.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Yes; however, they are also required by law to place the American government before their religion, and this they do NOT do. That means they do not assimilate and become true Americans, and that is unacceptable.
    To whom else does such a standard apply?

    Leave a comment:


  • VinceW
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
    So redefining constitutional rights is ok only as long as it's targeting Muslims? You can't target a religion in the name of "safety".


    Is targeting Islam really worth the slippery slope argument? Tomorrow the left could use the same criteria to go after religious Christians in the Bible Belt down South. Do you want to set a dangerous precedent?
    That Franklin quote is a joke every country has restricted individual rights in times of war and crisises and have deserved their safety and security.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisF1987
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    No. Just a realistic definition of islam. And at this point in time islam does not deserve the protections of the 1st concerning religion.
    So redefining constitutional rights is ok only as long as it's targeting Muslims? You can't target a religion in the name of "safety".

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
    Is targeting Islam really worth the slippery slope argument? Tomorrow the left could use the same criteria to go after religious Christians in the Bible Belt down South. Do you want to set a dangerous precedent?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by JFKvsNixon View Post
    The issue is that today's law abiding gun owner, after a change of personal circumstances and/or deterioration of mental health, is tomorrows perpetrator of gun violence.

    Shooting someone is so much more impersonal than other methods of murder. To stab or bludgeon someone to death takes a lot of determination and physical effort, you have to really want to do some serious damage.

    Then it's also worth remembering the amount of suicides that carried out in the heat of the moment due to the availability of firearms.
    Nice set of post hoc prompter hoc fallacies you have going there.

    It's much easier to point a gun and shoot them, in a fit of temper or during a life crisis. Let's not forget that cost to the USA of this unrelenting toll of gun violence. Since 1968 more Americans were killed by guns than in all U.S. wars.

    I really cannot understand the notion that all these victims are the price worth paying for such free access to firearms.
    Yea, but over half of them committed suicide... It'd be nice to think they did it because they couldn't put up with the Left trying to micromanage their lives...

    Leave a comment:


  • JFKvsNixon
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    You miss the point : it is not so that if no Americans owned weapons, no one would be killed .


    The only correlation that exists between gun ownership and people killed by guns is that less guns mean more people killed by guns and more guns mean less people killed by guns .

    The truth is that guns save lives .

    If the law abiding citizens have no guns ,they are the defenceless victims of the criminals .Criminals will always have guns . Thus law abiding citizens also must have guns .
    Wow, so you believe that the USA didn't have such relaxed gun ownership laws that the numbers of people killed by firearms would have increased. Maybe I don't believe that the American society is that bad is the reason that I struggle to accept such a statement.

    My apologies for taking the thread of topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by JFKvsNixon View Post
    ]Since 1968 more Americans were killed by guns than in all U.S. wars.
    [/URL]

    You miss the point : it is not so that if no Americans owned weapons, no one would be killed .


    The only correlation that exists between gun ownership and people killed by guns is that less guns mean more people killed by guns and more guns mean less people killed by guns .

    The truth is that guns save lives .

    If the law abiding citizens have no guns ,they are the defenceless victims of the criminals .Criminals will always have guns . Thus law abiding citizens also must have guns .

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Bodies is plural. There is only one I advocate a temporary redefinition. The one the we are at war with, islam.

    It's a very fine line. That line is crossed when the methods to advance that agenda become violent.
    Please outline in the Constitution where the Government gets to define religion as far as protections offered in the Bill of Rights. Tax purposes, sure, what is a religion, nope. No even close. There is NO first amendment if the government gets to say what is and what is not a religion.

    Leave a comment:


  • JFKvsNixon
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Really?

    Do you also think that Democrats grouping law-abiding Gun Owners together with homicidal maniacs might also be a problem?
    The issue is that today's law abiding gun owner, after a change of personal circumstances and/or deterioration of mental health, is tomorrows perpetrator of gun violence.

    Shooting someone is so much more impersonal than other methods of murder. To stab or bludgeon someone to death takes a lot of determination and physical effort, you have to really want to do some serious damage.

    Then it's also worth remembering the amount of suicides that carried out in the heat of the moment due to the availability of firearms.

    It's much easier to point a gun and shoot them, in a fit of temper or during a life crisis. Let's not forget that cost to the USA of this unrelenting toll of gun violence. Since 1968 more Americans were killed by guns than in all U.S. wars.

    I really cannot understand the notion that all these victims are the price worth paying for such free access to firearms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Only in NJ. They actually gave this bastard a way out. 5.2 million. I wouldn't be surprised if someone posts bail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    So religious bodies that advance a political agenda here in the US need to lose their protections... interesting idea.
    Bodies is plural. There is only one I advocate a temporary redefinition. The one the we are at war with, islam.

    It's a very fine line. That line is crossed when the methods to advance that agenda become violent.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Really?

    Do you also think that Democrats grouping law-abiding Gun Owners together with homicidal maniacs might also be a problem?
    Yes, I do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    It's muslims that put the political ahead of the religious. They don't act like a religion, they shouldn't be protected as one.



    Who said anything about outlawing? I advocate stripping it of the protections it hides behind as it advances it's political agenda.

    Maybe you should stick to your little BLM terrorists.
    So religious bodies that advance a political agenda here in the US need to lose their protections... interesting idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    No. Just a realistic definition of islam. And at this point in time islam does not deserve the protections of the 1st concerning religion.
    Can't wait for the torches and pitchforks. When do we break out the yellow stars?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Yes, the government should be secular. Question... Would you extend that policy to cover Atheists?
    Most certainly. As a certain poster here has proven in the past, rabid atheists become what they hate....a religion.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X