Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomb explosion in New York.

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

  • Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    No I did not. Don't put words into my mouth to make a strawman.

    Don't bother. I won't reply to your strawman trolls. Good bye
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    You can't guarantee crap. Again you show senseless arrogance talking about stuff you have absolutely no control over.


    True again. You make up stuff and run with it.
    Either you misunderstood a word (easily done) or you were just disagreeing with the other poster for the sake of disagreeing.

    Strawman trolls - or simple questions based on what you are saying. Even polite questions **** you off it seems. Will leave you to your inane disagreements with other people. Let us know which words you need help with.
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
    G.B Shaw

    "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
    Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
      You can, that's the point. We don't put religious tests in place, but we also shouldn't allow anyone linked to terrorism into the country. We allow anarchists in our country, therefore we also don't do political tests.
      Actually, no, someone who is declared anarchist is not going to be allowed to immigrate on the basis of politics. Those that are home grown are usually put on law enforcement watch lists.
      Since Sharia law is a political / legal system based on religion it is fair game as a test for immigration. It doesn't ask so much if you're Muslim, but rather do you as a Muslim want to impose religious laws and government on the country you want to live in. The later is a political views test. Too bad for the Muslim that their religion mixes politics into it intimately.

      The example stands. We are all human, when innocents flee from murderous fools, the humanistic thing to do is care for them and allow them a place to be safe. Either they can live here or return to Syria when it is not a war zone.
      So, if in WW 2 Japanese and German citizens were fleeing their countries because we were bombing the holy $h!+ out of them we have some duty to take them?
      I call complete BS on that. We have no duty or obligation to take those in Syria fleeing from a civil war. Why should we be obligated in any way to sort out the supposed "innocents" from terrorists, insurgents, and others actively fighting that war?
      Tell you what. You want them here? How about you sponsor a family. Let them live with you. You can pay their Obamacare policy and support them too.
      Me? They ain't got nothin' comin'. Next time maybe they won't tolerate a brutal dictatorship in their own country.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
        Within my lifetime: Weather Underground, Zebra Killers, Croatian separatists, ALF, FALN, Kahane Chai, al Qaeda -- all have conducted terrorist attacks within the confines of NYC. Though my back tells me otherwise, I'm really not that old. I certainly wasn't around for the 1920 Wall Street bombing, which was likely part of an Italian anarchist revenge global campaign for Sacco and Vanzetti.
        Anyone can repeat what was happened when everything has been revealed. It takes skill and judgement however to make the correct call on limited or seemingly unclear information.

        Before the wanted picture was posted it was pretty obvious that it was Islamic terrorist(s) who were already resident in the US.
        The target in NJ was a repeat of the Boston attack. Used improvised bombs in NY that were the same as used in Boston and the bombs used in NJ were also improvised. Smart money was always going to be on that the attacker was of a similar nature.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Actually, no, someone who is declared anarchist is not going to be allowed to immigrate on the basis of politics. Those that are home grown are usually put on law enforcement watch lists.
          Since Sharia law is a political / legal system based on religion it is fair game as a test for immigration. It doesn't ask so much if you're Muslim, but rather do you as a Muslim want to impose religious laws and government on the country you want to live in. The later is a political views test. Too bad for the Muslim that their religion mixes politics into it intimately.



          So, if in WW 2 Japanese and German citizens were fleeing their countries because we were bombing the holy $h!+ out of them we have some duty to take them?
          I call complete BS on that. We have no duty or obligation to take those in Syria fleeing from a civil war. Why should we be obligated in any way to sort out the supposed "innocents" from terrorists, insurgents, and others actively fighting that war?
          Tell you what. You want them here? How about you sponsor a family. Let them live with you. You can pay their Obamacare policy and support them too.
          Me? They ain't got nothin' comin'. Next time maybe they won't tolerate a brutal dictatorship in their own country.
          May I point out an important distinction. The USA isn't at war with Syria; they're meant to be Syria's allies in that conflict. So if we were to put your example into it's correct context, it would be that the West doesn't have any obligation to look after the ISIS followers. I'd agree strongly with that sentiment.

          As for the rest of the people who are caught up in the conflict, I see it more as the "haves" helping out the "have nots".

          If the West believes that it can pull up the drawbridge and shield itself away from the rest of the world, then it's in for a massive wake up call. It's done very well out of globalisation, but it cuts both ways. We now have a much more connected brought about by globalisation, so the "have nots" all want the prosperity and the security that most of us enjoy and I'm afraid that hiding behind a big wall is not solution to the problem.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
            Lol, the Constitution is so sacred when the second amendment is at stake, but freedom of religion? Let's violate it to persecute anyone but Christians! This hypocrisy simply floors me. You hold one amendment sacred and spew all sorts of hate at everyone for it, but you casually demand we destroy the first amendment. Unbelievable that a human mind can be that irrational.
            First of all I'm not Christian.

            I want to see religious status temporarily stripped from islam because islam is currently less a religion than a political entity. Not religion in general, a specific one that that blurs the line between religious and political. It's islam and muslims that are to blame and it's up to them to reform and become simply a religion that should be protected by the 1st.

            You can't win a war unless you accept the enemy for what it is. What I'm suggesting is that islam is not a religion, and shouldn't be protected at this point in time.
            ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

            BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

            BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

            Comment


            • Do I hear calls for "protecting our culture"? That takes me back to the good ole' days of George Wallace, where "protecting our culture" meant white hoods, burning crosses, and bombed out churches. For a long, long time, in places disparate in both time and space, "protecting our culture" has been code for "maintaining our advantage" over some other unfortunate segment of the population. God knows they say it often enough in Saudi Arabia. Bull Conner was no less a terrorist than Cixi or Usama bin Laden or Gerry Adams or Ulrike Meinhof or Bill Ayres.

              And now we're calling for a suspension of the First Amendment. Old Uncle Adolf would be proud.
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                Here you go Sal, I don't expect an apology and of course I know I won't get one.
                You are so very wrong. In order to persecute a religion, that religion must exist. And islam is not currently a religion.

                You deserve no apologies.
                ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                  Again, no thanks. I'll gladly keep my rights instead of giving them up because of the nonexistential threat of terrorism. I don't condone persecution based on religion either, because if we're to start stamping out violent religions Christianity is right up there on that list.
                  Christianity was violent as it spread. And it was political more so than religious at the time. History is trying to repeat with islam.
                  ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                  BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                  BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                  Comment


                  • And now we're calling for a suspension of the First Amendment. Old Uncle Adolf would be proud.
                    No. Just a realistic definition of islam. And at this point in time islam does not deserve the protections of the 1st concerning religion.
                    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                      Are you saying that Islamist terrorism or ideology is a threat to the very existence of American society or the continuation of your nation state?
                      It's a threat to the world as a whole. Just look at where islam rules.
                      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                        Ask the poster who advocated eliminating Islam as a religion and taking away their Constitutional religious rights.
                        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.

                        Again, in reference to the poster who wishes for us to legally outlaw one specific religion.
                        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.
                        ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                        BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                        BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                          Comment


                          • 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?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • 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.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X