Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2

On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2

The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability to
use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against Muslims
when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they don't remember
to include the term illegal with immigrants.

On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability to
use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against Muslims
when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they don't remember
to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Dems are well versed in George Orwell's novel "1984".

On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability to
use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against Muslims
when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they don't remember
to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

--
Snag

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability to
use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against Muslims
when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they don't remember
to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

No, I wouldn't call McVeigh a radical Christian. I'd call him a radical,
anti-government nut. He did what he did because he hated the govt,
wanted revenge for Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. No evidence he was religious,
attended any radical churches, or that religion played any role at all.
He wasn't screaming "God is great". Nor is there any evidence that he
was part of an organized group.

Radical muslims are obviously very different, at least for those willing
to open their eyes.

On 11/16/2015 8:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

You mean, like The Crusades?

On 11/16/15 10:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

This is bogus anyway since McVeigh stated over and over that his act
was political in nature and not religious.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:01:02 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.

On 11/16/15 12:15 PM, trader_4 wrote:


You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.

One of the things I say every once in a while to stir things up is to
point out that the current rhetoric from the Jihadis is pretty much
exactly the same as from the Crusaders. The desire to dominate the
heathens and the desire to kill those who aren't sufficiently religious
is right out of the Knights of Templar play book. The main difference is
that the Catholics outgrew it whilst the radical Muslims remain in the
past. Aggressively so.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-6, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 10:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2

The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

This is bogus anyway since McVeigh stated over and over that his act
was political in nature and not religious.

The feds sure did kill McVeigh real quick. If he were a Muslim terrorist, he'd still be around sitting in a cell in that underground super max. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Terrorist Monster

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:06:47 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

The feds sure did kill McVeigh real quick. If he were a Muslim terrorist, he'd still be around sitting in a cell in that underground super max. o_O

He withdrew his automatic appeal to the courts and requested a
televised execution. He only got one choice. Kathy Hawk signed his
Death Warrant.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:30:08 AM UTC-6, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 12:15 PM, trader_4 wrote:


You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.

One of the things I say every once in a while to stir things up is to
point out that the current rhetoric from the Jihadis is pretty much
exactly the same as from the Crusaders. The desire to dominate the
heathens and the desire to kill those who aren't sufficiently religious
is right out of the Knights of Templar play book. The main difference is
that the Catholics outgrew it whilst the radical Muslims remain in the
past. Aggressively so.

The Muslims seem to carry a grudge longer than anyone else in human history. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Grudge Monster

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:14:53 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Bobby Villain, you should really grow up and learn how to make a cogent argument.?

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:14:53 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Bobby Villain, you should really grow up and learn how to make a cogent argument.?

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

You exaggerate and distort...I've changed once to a different name and once to the name *you* call me. That makes you the lying bitch! 👊

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:16:07 -0800 (PST), bob_villain
wrote:

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:14:53 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Bobby Villain, you should really grow up and learn how to make a cogent argument.?

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

You exaggerate and distort...I've changed once to a different name and once to the name *you* call me. That makes you the lying bitch! ?

At least three times, minimum, bitch. One is BenDarrenBach or some
such nym. Stop lying, again. Get some help for your ALPD or shoot
yourself for being stupid.

On 11/16/2015 11:01 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

You mean, like The Crusades?


You remember all those non-Mormons who converted
cause the missionaries threatened to strangle
them with brightly colored Moroni neck ties?
(I don't either.)

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:16:07 -0800 (PST), bob_villain

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

You exaggerate and distort...I've changed once to a different name and once to the name *you* call me. That makes you the lying bitch! ?

At least three times, minimum, bitch. One is BenDarrenBach or some
such nym. Stop lying, again. Get some help for your ALPD or shoot
yourself for being stupid.

That was the other name, bitch...you have said nothing...go back to licking your ass!

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:47:36 -0800 (PST), bob_villain
wrote:

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:16:07 -0800 (PST), bob_villain

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

You exaggerate and distort...I've changed once to a different name and once to the name *you* call me. That makes you the lying bitch! ?

At least three times, minimum, bitch. One is BenDarrenBach or some
such nym. Stop lying, again. Get some help for your ALPD or shoot
yourself for being stupid.

That was the other name, bitch...you have said nothing...go back to licking your ass!

Your third nym was bob villa. Welcome back to my turd tumbler file,
bitch. No need to deal with a clueless idiot.

Uncle Monster wrote:
On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:30:08 AM UTC-6, Kurt V.
Ullman
wrote:
On 11/16/15 12:15 PM, trader_4 wrote:


You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The
Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since
them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.

One of the things I say every once in a while to stir
things up
is to point out that the current rhetoric from the
Jihadis is pretty
much exactly the same as from the Crusaders. The desire
to dominate
the heathens and the desire to kill those who aren't
sufficiently
religious is right out of the Knights of Templar play
book. The main
difference is that the Catholics outgrew it whilst the
radical
Muslims remain in the past. Aggressively so.

The Muslims seem to carry a grudge longer than anyone else
in human
history. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Grudge Monster

except a women

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:16:07 -0800 (PST), bob_villain
wrote:

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:14:53 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Bobby Villain, you should really grow up and learn how to make a cogent argument.?

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

You exaggerate and distort...I've changed once to a different name and once to the name *you* call me. That makes you the lying bitch! ?

At least three times, minimum, bitch. One is BenDarrenBach or some
such nym. Stop lying, again. Get some help for your ALPD or shoot
yourself for being stupid.

Oh come on Oren, you can't wish death and destruction to befall him/her/it. That's what those of his/her/its ilk want. They want you to wish them harm, they revel in it. Don't give them what they want. It's better to pity them because it frustrates them and drives them even more nuts than they already are. It's fun to make them howl and go bonkers. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Callous Monster

On 11/16/2015 12:15 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:01:02 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.


There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, and I'm willing to
bet you know nothing about what most of them believe. About 20,000 are
estimated to have joined ISIS. If the majority of Muslims followed
every word of the Kuran, we'd be dead. OTOH, if Christians or Jews
followed every word of the Bible, at least half of us would be dead.
The semantics about what to call terrorists is PC nonsense, and
identifying an entire religion as an enemy does more harm than good.

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:25:37 AM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:15 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:01:02 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.


There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, and I'm willing to
bet you know nothing about what most of them believe.

What does that have to do with the fact that this is a problem with
muslim terrorist, that the Crusades were 800 years ago, Christians
have evolved and today this is a muslim problem?



About 20,000 are
estimated to have joined ISIS.


It's 30,000 to 40,000 in Iraq and Syria alone. Add in the other
ISIS in Egypt, Libya, the rest of Africa, etc. The there is Al Qaeda too.
Even your 20,000 number is shocking. How many does it take to bring
down a airliner, pull off 911, Paris, etc?
And then this problem is like a pyramid. At the very top you have 50,000+
that are taking up arms and actually carrying out the violence. Moving
down the pyramid, you have at least hundreds of thousands that are similarly
radicalized, that are sending money, arms, harboring them, giving them shelter.
Beneath that, you have millions that believe this radical muslim religion
that are OK with what the active ones are doing. When asked, they freely
acknowledge that they think ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc are just swell.
They are being radicalized in extremist mosques around the world right now.
Mosques that get away with it, partly because people like you are afraid
to confront the real problem and call it what it is. And then
you have the rest of the billions, that really aren't doing a damn thing
to speak out, to stop this. Have you heard any uproar from them after
Paris?


If the majority of Muslims followed
every word of the Kuran, we'd be dead. OTOH, if Christians or Jews
followed every word of the Bible, at least half of us would be dead.

The obvious problem is that Christian and Jews aren't interpreting
the bible to go out and kill non-believers. Muslims though are. And
also, I've never seen anything in the bible that says to convert or kill
non-believers. But that is in the Koran.

The semantics about what to call terrorists is PC nonsense, and
identifying an entire religion as an enemy does more harm than good.

I agree it's PC nonsense. So call them what they are, muslim terrorist,
muslim radicals. Funny thing though, Dear Leader and all the Democrat
candidates refuse to do that. Instead, they play your little game and
pretend that if you do that, somehow you're talking about all muslims.
Typical is Hillary, asked if after Paris we are at war with *radical
muslims*, she tried to respond with "I don't think we are at war with
muslims. Even the moderator couldn't take that. He interrupted her
and pointed out that the question was about *radical muslims*. Of
course she proceeded to again dodge and dance around that question.
Should make a nice campaign commercial, especially when we're attacked
again here, which is likely soon. Bernie, he was even worse. He
claimed muslim terrorists are being caused by global warming.

On 11/17/2015 2:25 AM, Norminn wrote:
There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, and I'm willing to
bet you know nothing about what most of them believe. About 20,000 are
estimated to have joined ISIS. If the majority of Muslims followed
every word of the Kuran, we'd be dead. OTOH, if Christians or Jews
followed every word of the Bible, at least half of us would be dead. The
semantics about what to call terrorists is PC nonsense, and identifying
an entire religion as an enemy does more harm than good.

How is this guy for accurate? He's a bit dry to
listen, but his message sounds correct, to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Norminn pretended :
On 11/16/2015 12:15 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:01:02 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:55 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Norminn wrote:
On 11/16/2015 8:41 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 11/16/15 5:47 AM, Zak W wrote:
Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates in debate
decline to use term 'radical Islam'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2


The interesting part about Dem rhetoric has been their inability
to use modifiers. She got all ****y with the GOP for going against
Muslims when the term used is radical Muslims. Sorta like they
don't remember to include the term illegal with immigrants.

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

It does when the religion teaches conversion or death .

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.


There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, [...]

Not yet.

--
....
For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:14:53 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Bobby Villain, you should really grow up and learn how to make a cogent argument.?

C'mon Monster. She has a hard on for you. The urchin changes nyms
frequently. Cogent facts don't fit into the Airhead Liberal Political
Disorder (ALPD) narrative.

Now you've given me more attention, isn't that what you warned "fat nut" about? I've used "bob villa" since '07...according to your atrophied brain, that is nym-shifting! 💤

On 11/17/15 11:44 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Oren writes:


Fact is, if it hadn't been for GWB's idiot advisors (Cheney,
Rummy, Rove, Gonzales, Brown and Wolfowitz), ISIS wouldn't
exist and the middle east would be a much less violent place;
yes, there would still be dictators in Iraq and Libya. But
then there are dictators in many countries (c.f. zimbabwe)
and externally imposed regime change seldom works.

Yeah, it has always been sweetness and light in the ME for thousands of
years.

On 11/17/15 1:39 PM, sms wrote:

It's one thing to have faulty intelligence. But in the case of Iraq and
WMD, there was no faulty intelligence. There was manufactured
intelligence that was used to justify the invasion.


If so, then the manufactured intelligence came from the CIA which was
still under the command of a Clinton holdover. The same one, BTW who
gave the intel that allowed us to bomb the aspirin factory in Africa and
the Chinese Embassy in the Balkans.
Also, the entire intelligence package was put in a secure area in
the Capital building for a couple of days prior to the vote to send
troops. Less than 50 Congresscritters actually availed themselves of the
opportunity.

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:40:18 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oh yeah, close gitmo and move legitimate (charged and convicted) prisoners to
leavenworth and let the rest go home.

I think you may have lost it there, feller. Enemy combatants have no
rights under the Geneva Convention. They did not fight in a uniform;
nor for a nation, or under a national flag. They have no
Constitutional Rights and are where they belong. A military prison
off-shore.

The minute they step foot on our soil, their lawyers will file a Writ
of Habeas Corpus and the clown show begins. A Judge could grant the
Writ and immediately release them. I guess you don't see a problem
with that and KLM should walk free?

They are radical terrorists out to kill you, rape your daughter for
cripes sake. Are you that dim?

On 11/17/15 3:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

So you believe that permanent occupation of the middle east by the USA
is the only solution? What criteria would _you_ use for when to bring
the troops home? How would you ensure that the criteria are met?

We are still in Europe and Korea, so why not ME as needed. Everybody
any more has the attention span of a spastic gnat.

On 11/17/15 6:01 PM, Oren wrote:

I think you may have lost it there, feller. Enemy combatants have no
rights under the Geneva Convention. They did not fight in a uniform;
nor for a nation, or under a national flag. They have no
Constitutional Rights and are where they belong. A military prison
off-shore.



If you want to go all Geneva Convention on us, it also says that those
combatants captured out of uniform are subject to summary execution as
spies.

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:50:40 -0600, sms wrote:

On 11/16/2015 7:30 AM, Norminn wrote:

snip

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

"Causes" are the root of the conflict. It's not hard to understand the
conflict and what led to it.

Saddaam Hussein was a Sunni dictator. Bush and Cheney lied about him
having WMDs to have an excuse to remove him from power. The U.S.
replaced Hussein with Maliki who is a Shiia which has led to internal
conflict between the Shiia and Sunni in Iraq, conflict that Saddam
Hussein used to control.

Wouldn't you have to include Colin Powell in the liar list? I
remember him spending a couple days testifying before Congress about
Saddam's weapons.

Some cut.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

clipped

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.


There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, [...]

Not yet.

Oops. I left out the "billion". ISIS is an ideology, and actually an
enemy of AQ. They aren't in one place or another, they are more growing
into radicals (in the US, Europe, etc.) by adopting depraved ideas in
quest of power. I think it works a lot like good, old-fashioned street
gangs....violence begets violence, and speaking out when living amongst
those is dangerous. Closing our shores to decent, peaceful immigrants
leaves them to survive, or try, where they must comply with radicals in
order to survive, or for their children to learn that radicalism is the
only way. Children learn what they live.

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:03:35 AM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
clipped

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.


There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, [...]

Not yet.

Oops. I left out the "billion". ISIS is an ideology, and actually an
enemy of AQ. They aren't in one place or another, they are more growing
into radicals (in the US, Europe, etc.) by adopting depraved ideas in
quest of power. I think it works a lot like good, old-fashioned street
gangs....violence begets violence, and speaking out when living amongst
those is dangerous. Closing our shores to decent, peaceful immigrants
leaves them to survive, or try, where they must comply with radicals in
order to survive, or for their children to learn that radicalism is the
only way. Children learn what they live.

So the answer is to bring a couple hundred million people from Syria,
Iraq, Egypt, Libya to the USA and just let ISIS continue to spread
overseas, one country to the next? And how do you know that the flood
of refugees from these countries are peaceful, decent immigrants?
We already know at least one of the Paris terrorists came in that way.

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:47:48 PM UTC-5, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:50:40 -0600, sms wrote:

On 11/16/2015 7:30 AM, Norminn wrote:

snip

Then Timothy McVeigh is a "radical Christian"? Espousing one faith or
another does not attach validity to the cause of hating another
religion; it is just like gang colors; identifying a cause.

"Causes" are the root of the conflict. It's not hard to understand the
conflict and what led to it.

Saddaam Hussein was a Sunni dictator. Bush and Cheney lied about him
having WMDs to have an excuse to remove him from power. The U.S.
replaced Hussein with Maliki who is a Shiia which has led to internal
conflict between the Shiia and Sunni in Iraq, conflict that Saddam
Hussein used to control.

Wouldn't you have to include Colin Powell in the liar list? I
remember him spending a couple days testifying before Congress about
Saddam's weapons.

Some cut.

It's not a lie when it's based on whatever intelligence you have
at the time. Intelligence, last time I checked, is far from a
perfect field. Despite enormous focus on ISIS, France didn't know
those terror attacks were coming. The CIA never saw the fall of the
Soviet Union coming. Reagan believed they were weak and could be pushed
over the edge. CIA thought their economy was way stronger than it
actually was. Right now, we're playing footsie with Iran, we don't
know for sure what they are up to either. Just a few years ago, we
found a whole massive enrichment facility hidden in a mountain that
we had no idea existed and they had not disclosed as required.

And if you want to call Powell a liar, then add to the list Hillary,
Dirty Harry, Kerry, Schumer, Biden, etc, ie all the Democrats that said the
same things before they voted for the war.

Norminn laid this down on his screen :
clipped

You mean, like The Crusades?

Nice typical lib attempt at moral equivalency. The Crusades were
800 years ago. Most of us have changed our values since them.
A lot of muslims around the world, have not.


There are something like 1.3 Muslims in the world, [...]

Not yet.

Oops. I left out the "billion". ISIS is an ideology, and actually an enemy
of AQ. They aren't in one place or another, they are more growing into
radicals (in the US, Europe, etc.) by adopting depraved ideas in quest of
power. I think it works a lot like good, old-fashioned street
gangs....violence begets violence, and speaking out when living amongst those
is dangerous. Closing our shores to decent, peaceful immigrants leaves them
to survive, or try, where they must comply with radicals in order to survive,
or for their children to learn that radicalism is the only way. Children
learn what they live.

Have you seen the ISIS in Afghanistan program from Frontline yet?

--
....
For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

On 11/18/2015 8:54 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
When I was young, I was taught "See Spot. See Spot run. Run Spot run."
but these kids are being taught Jihad - about how to use assault rifles,
grenades, pistols, and suicide vests. A couple of "willing" teenage
suicide bombers are also interviewed. IMO, a "must see" about a
dangerous religion made even more dangerous by radical interpretations
of their holy text.


Years ago, and I don't remember which program. The
news folks were interview a Muslim girl who might
have been 5 or 6 years old. Her answer to nearly
every question was "Kill Jews!". Shocking, I thought.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 9:07:06 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 11/18/2015 8:54 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
When I was young, I was taught "See Spot. See Spot run. Run Spot run."
but these kids are being taught Jihad - about how to use assault rifles,
grenades, pistols, and suicide vests. A couple of "willing" teenage
suicide bombers are also interviewed. IMO, a "must see" about a
dangerous religion made even more dangerous by radical interpretations
of their holy text.


Years ago, and I don't remember which program. The
news folks were interview a Muslim girl who might
have been 5 or 6 years old. Her answer to nearly
every question was "Kill Jews!". Shocking, I thought.

--


ISIS has videos of young boys performing executions, shooting
captives in the head. Plenty of videos of kids 7 years old or
so, saying they want to grow up to be suicide martyrs.

Like I've said before, this muslim thing is like a pyramid. At the
very top you have 50 to 100K that are actually doing the killing. Below
that you have a lot more, the ones sending them money, arms, supplies,
giving them safe haven. Moving down the pyramid, you have even more,
saying they agree with those above, understand what they are doing,
attending radical mosques, believing the propaganda. All that is
probably easily millions of muslims. Somewhere on down the pyramid
you finally find the normal, peaceful ones. And they aren't doing
anything to put the ones above out of business......

Oren writes:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:40:18 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oh yeah, close gitmo and move legitimate (charged and convicted) prisoners to
leavenworth and let the rest go home.

I think you may have lost it there, feller. Enemy combatants have no
rights under the Geneva Convention. They did not fight in a uniform;
nor for a nation, or under a national flag. They have no
Constitutional Rights and are where they belong. A military prison
off-shore.

That's not _my_ America, who looked at the hanoi hilton with horror,
not envy.


The minute they step foot on our soil, their lawyers will file a Writ
of Habeas Corpus and the clown show begins. A Judge could grant the
Writ and immediately release them. I guess you don't see a problem
with that and KLM should walk free?'

If you lock up everyone that might commit a crime in the future,
you need a great big prison.


They are radical terrorists out to kill you, rape your daughter for
cripes sake. Are you that dim?

No, but you apparantly are. The only people out to kill and rape are
killers and rapists, and there are plenty here already and we're not
locking them up pre-emptively, nor should we.

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:

Like I've said before, this muslim thing is like a pyramid. At the
very top you have 50 to 100K that are actually doing the killing. Below
that you have a lot more, the ones sending them money, arms, supplies,
giving them safe haven. Moving down the pyramid, you have even more,
saying they agree with those above, understand what they are doing,
attending radical mosques, believing the propaganda. All that is
probably easily millions of muslims. Somewhere on down the pyramid
you finally find the normal, peaceful ones. And they aren't doing
anything to put the ones above out of business...

Amazingly to some here, I agree with your assessment. You're *not* saying they're all the same. Good to see it isn't all rhetoric...

RULE The three-dot method is used for ellipsis marks. Use no more than three marks whether the omission occurs in the middle of a sentence or between sentences. ï‚¢ Example: ï‚¢ Original sentence: The regulation states, €˜€˜All agencies must document overtime or risk losing federal funds. Rewritten using ellipses: The regulation states, €˜€˜All agencies must document overtime. . .