lookslikeit
Woodpecker
Easy_C said:
Much easier to blame the crazies than the one who created them and then channeled them into the system.
Bomb Explosion in NYC at Port Authority
- Thread starter Gmac
- Start date
Much easier to blame the crazies than the one who created them and then channeled them into the system.
Easy_C said:
Word around the non-fluoridated-water cooler is that the crazy dictators were getting a little too smart and conspiring in clever ways to put some economic pain on Uncle Sam.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/12/neighbor-of-nyc-jihad-bomber-says-he-was-a-religious-person
But remember - this has nothing to do with Islam. Being a devout Muslim made him pervert the peaceful religion of Islam.
Also anyone claiming that "bombing the Middle East" justifies eternal warfare against the infidels is nuts. Who did Sweden bomb? Who bombed them from 700-1850 when they relentlessly attacked everyone and even took US marine soldiers captive until the 19th century? The shitstain of a war religion was only stopped by the advance of the West.
I also did not see thousands of Germans and Japanese suicide-bombing themselves after WWII - because neither the Atomic bombs on Japan (the Japanese wanted to surrender anyway) nor the Dresden firebombing (100.000 mostly women and children died needlessly) were justified. The reason is because Germans and Japanese are not motivated by some anti-everything-that-is-not-Islam medieval warmongering cult.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/12/...-by-the-behavior-of-law-enforcement-officials
Indeed they always the true victims and the family is utterly dumbfounded how he could actually take the countless verses of killing the infidels seriously.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nyc-terror-suspects-family-heartbroken-attack/story?id=51727576
The family should be all sent back to Bangladesh.
Thomas Jackson
Woodpecker
Just another example of the insanity of current immigration law. His original family member was given a "diversity visa" and he came in via chain migration (along with numerous others). How many unskilled cab drivers from the ME/Africa can we seriously think it's a good idea to import.
Skill is one factor, but better not take anyone in who believes in a religion that wishes to dominate the world and hates every infidel.
Simple question: How many Germans, Japanese* and Italians were allowed to immigrate to the Allied Countries during WWII?
Answer: Nil.
*In fact, a large number of the Japanese that were in the ISA were put into concentration camps (by a Democrat president no less).
Joe DiMaggio’s parents were under FBI surveillance during WWII. Yes, that Joe DiMaggio, the New York Yankee.
But now this country and other Western countries give carte blanche to these inbred, savage, death cult practitioners.
Hell of a way to win a war.
Answer: Nil.
*In fact, a large number of the Japanese that were in the ISA were put into concentration camps (by a Democrat president no less).
Joe DiMaggio’s parents were under FBI surveillance during WWII. Yes, that Joe DiMaggio, the New York Yankee.
But now this country and other Western countries give carte blanche to these inbred, savage, death cult practitioners.
Hell of a way to win a war.
Jetset
Ostrich
TravelerKai said:
A young man with a dysfunctional home life who dreams of getting his own bomb to attack Christmas, just like his jihadist idol from YouTube?
The possibilities for this remake are truly endless. He even built the bomb out of Christmas lights.
"Okay, Christians. Now you get yours!"
*BOOM*
"OH ALLAH, I BLEW MY DICK OFF!"
YossariansRight said:
NATO/US has been blowing up their infrastructure to bits in Syria and Iraq, in places like Mosul and Raqqa, earlier this year, this is not some pirate war against the Ottoman Berbers 200 years ago. Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya as well.
We've been funding, arming, training the jihadis there, which we're also helping evacuate every time they lose to the Syrian army, an army manned by Muslim and Christian Syrian patriots.
There's a bit more to this story than the Jews in Medina 1400 years ago.
911 said:
Islam is not compatible with civilization, period. They operate at a 6th century mentality. They are barbarians. They are a menace everywhere they flourish.
History does show what they’re all about. They claim to be a religion; no legitimate religion has it’s roots founded in war and aggression. Fact, not opinion.
If you are averse to accepting the truth about Islam, that’s up to you.
YossariansRight said:
My point, which went a bit over your head, was why the hell have we been funding and arming the worst elements of modern islam? Why are we actively spending trillions in taxpayers money destroying muslim countries and fueling mass emigration? That is the truth most people are averse to, the part of the story you won't read about on (((jihadwatch.com or "Gates of Vienna"))).
911 said:
Your point? Which one? You try to project with something different every time you’re presented with facts. Centuries of history don’t negate that fact that Islam is a barbaric, totalitarian, death cult.
Does their “holy” book not instruct them to kill/subjugate non-Muslims? Or did that fact go over your head?
The basis of that cult is founded in evil. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever point you think you’re trying to make.
YossariansRight said:
What do you got as far as 20th century history, Yoss? That's a bit more relevant here than the moorish pirates in 1800, or the Jews of Medina in 700 AD.
What happened between 1850 and 1975, and does the fact that shit started right around the time Zbignew and Co. put together their jihadi army in Afghanistan (a policy which carried over to this day), how does this factor into that history? Or the fact that the global Muslim threat took off right when the global Soviet threat disappeared?
That was greedy selfish elites within our own culture unleashing the evil genie from the bottle.
Like in Brood Wars of Starcraft, where the Terrans from Earth trying to grow the Zerg as their own personal weapon only to be destroyed by the Zerg in the end. It's the plot of Frankenstein. Hubris bringing down people who think they know it all.
Islam was contained after centuries of struggle, only to be brought back stronger than ever before.
911 said:
Achmed, you do realize this is a thread about another Mohammedan trying to spread peace in NYC, right?
Now you seem fixated on history. Yeah, facts are stubborn things that get in the way. Sucks, huh?
20th Century. Let’s see...growth/spread of Wahhabism, alliances with the Nazis, terrorism...not much.
No shit that governments have funded the Mohammadens for decades. It’s news that both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were once allied with the USA?
The fact remains, they do not belong in civilized countries. Their cult is and has been at odds with the rest of the world since it's inception.
You can spend your time trying to defend your death cult, that’s your choice. You could have tried to make your point(s) separately since whatever you’re trying to say has nothing to do with what I posted. So, I (and others that are texting me offline) have to conclude that it boils down to that you don’t like my posts about the truth of Islam. Too bad, guess the truth really does hurt.
< I think you are both right. 911 sees Islam too rosy, but fact is that the globalists are funding radical jihad, they are even doing false flags on top of the real Jihadi attacks.
Also the globalists actively destroyed the Western culture, made the West feel guilty about itself and opened the borders, also the globalists and their media are cucking for Islam non-stop. If Western culture would be strong, there would be 12 refugees accepted to Europe or the US just like Japan accepts a dozen Muslims each year.
One can even say that the globalists are the more responsible party, however that does not excuse Islam for behaving like an anti-civilization lunatic for 1400 years. They behave like a rabid fucked up dog that is now just set loose by the globalists on the Western civilization.
This attack certainly was not a false flag - this was pure Islam, but how that rabid dog and his family ever was allowed to get into the West and how the media and politicians finds excuses for them - that is the deed of the globalists.
So yes - the globalists are funding ISIS, but ISIS is not their creation - ISIS is pure Islam and not far off from the Saudis.
The cult does not belong in the West. Though the destroying the rule of the globalists at this stage is an even greater undertaking.
I personally think that something will happen that stops short their plans - they have been on a roll since centuries now. Islam is not even an enemy to them - they just use it as I said - a rabid dog they can put down any moment. Worst case - they send in billions of combat drones and even kill 2 bio.
But as I said - I don't think it will come to that. Something will happen to disrupt their rule. But I have bad news for Islam in the West if that happens. Many countries might quickly revert to what Hungary is now. Hopefully it won't be too bloody, closing borders and giving each individual 50.000$ to fuck off is still cheaper than dealing with the enrichment for decades.
Also the globalists actively destroyed the Western culture, made the West feel guilty about itself and opened the borders, also the globalists and their media are cucking for Islam non-stop. If Western culture would be strong, there would be 12 refugees accepted to Europe or the US just like Japan accepts a dozen Muslims each year.
One can even say that the globalists are the more responsible party, however that does not excuse Islam for behaving like an anti-civilization lunatic for 1400 years. They behave like a rabid fucked up dog that is now just set loose by the globalists on the Western civilization.
This attack certainly was not a false flag - this was pure Islam, but how that rabid dog and his family ever was allowed to get into the West and how the media and politicians finds excuses for them - that is the deed of the globalists.
So yes - the globalists are funding ISIS, but ISIS is not their creation - ISIS is pure Islam and not far off from the Saudis.
The cult does not belong in the West. Though the destroying the rule of the globalists at this stage is an even greater undertaking.
I personally think that something will happen that stops short their plans - they have been on a roll since centuries now. Islam is not even an enemy to them - they just use it as I said - a rabid dog they can put down any moment. Worst case - they send in billions of combat drones and even kill 2 bio.
But as I said - I don't think it will come to that. Something will happen to disrupt their rule. But I have bad news for Islam in the West if that happens. Many countries might quickly revert to what Hungary is now. Hopefully it won't be too bloody, closing borders and giving each individual 50.000$ to fuck off is still cheaper than dealing with the enrichment for decades.
"The hate us 'cause they ain't us".
It boils down to this simple fact every time, and like idiots, we in the Christian nations of the West give the benefit of the doubt to every asshole who isn't us and all those people who aren't us do exactly what nature drives them to do. They take advantage of our levels of kindness that have long since ventured into the realms of stupidity.
My best guess is that you can run a nation to the benefit of one race and several religions or one religion and several races. But what you can't do is run a nation to the benefit of multiple religions AND races.
Racial homogeneity is a genetic driver we are born with and can learn to suppress. Religious homogeneity is a purely cultural driver that we are taught (though there is evidence that some religions flourish when coupled with certain genetics). My preference is for the latter since folk are born where they're born and at least religion is something you can choose for yourself. In any case I would sooner turn my back to a devout black Christian over a devout white muslim.
Christendom needs to find its balls and simply motivate all other religions to leave its lands and exclude themselves from influencing Christian nations, though I'm not holding my breath on that. When the founding fathers enshrined religious freedom they really failed to perceive a possible future where their nation would be stupid or corrupt enough to allow the presence and influence of rival religions to Christianity. If you asked them "don't you worry that jews might corner American finance and media, or that muslims might arrive in droves and terrorise your descendants" they would collapse in fits of laughter.
"Who would be so stupid as to admit those people here in the first place", they would ask?
"Who would tolerate their abuses without driving them back into the sea?"
A house divided cannot stand and we have welcomed that division for far too long. Inevitably there will be war. Whether that can be confined to a religious war or whether it spills towards race is still to be determined. But when the dust settles we can only hope that Christians have been hardened to the point where they enshrine their religion (or at least all variants of it) as the only acceptable practice in their lands and all subsequent lands they invade upon suffering from extra-national aggression.
Israel for the jews. Christendom for the Christians.
It boils down to this simple fact every time, and like idiots, we in the Christian nations of the West give the benefit of the doubt to every asshole who isn't us and all those people who aren't us do exactly what nature drives them to do. They take advantage of our levels of kindness that have long since ventured into the realms of stupidity.
My best guess is that you can run a nation to the benefit of one race and several religions or one religion and several races. But what you can't do is run a nation to the benefit of multiple religions AND races.
Racial homogeneity is a genetic driver we are born with and can learn to suppress. Religious homogeneity is a purely cultural driver that we are taught (though there is evidence that some religions flourish when coupled with certain genetics). My preference is for the latter since folk are born where they're born and at least religion is something you can choose for yourself. In any case I would sooner turn my back to a devout black Christian over a devout white muslim.
Christendom needs to find its balls and simply motivate all other religions to leave its lands and exclude themselves from influencing Christian nations, though I'm not holding my breath on that. When the founding fathers enshrined religious freedom they really failed to perceive a possible future where their nation would be stupid or corrupt enough to allow the presence and influence of rival religions to Christianity. If you asked them "don't you worry that jews might corner American finance and media, or that muslims might arrive in droves and terrorise your descendants" they would collapse in fits of laughter.
"Who would be so stupid as to admit those people here in the first place", they would ask?
"Who would tolerate their abuses without driving them back into the sea?"
A house divided cannot stand and we have welcomed that division for far too long. Inevitably there will be war. Whether that can be confined to a religious war or whether it spills towards race is still to be determined. But when the dust settles we can only hope that Christians have been hardened to the point where they enshrine their religion (or at least all variants of it) as the only acceptable practice in their lands and all subsequent lands they invade upon suffering from extra-national aggression.
Israel for the jews. Christendom for the Christians.
Samseau said:
Interesting.
Personally, I couldn’t care less who or what people worship, like I wrote on the previous page...the Holy Trinity, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard...whatever.
Actually, if the Mohammedans weren’t all “decapitate and bomb”, I’d be ZFG about them too. Have fun fucking goats and dressing your women up in beekeeper uniforms.
But they’re another “permanently aggrieved” group that looks for reasons to get bomby. Always have, it’s hardwired in their code. That’s the problem.
But yes, if The Founding Fathers could have seen 200 years out, "Freedom of Christianity”, amongst many other things, would have been written into The Constitution.
It's about minimalising the number of outgroups you have fighting for a separate and ever-growing piece of the national pie. Freedom of religion is a particular problem because it raises the question of how it can be provided if the practices of that religion contravene the laws of the land.
What idiot would choose to obey the laws of man over the laws of his God at anything other than gunpoint (and maybe not even then)? Who would choose to uphold the law at the cost of his mortal soul? So why is it any surprise that minority religious groups form huddled fraternities in which they can disobey the laws of the majority with impunity and practice their religion as they see fit?
And of course at that point they by definition they are no longer patriots but subversives.
Even racial issues can pale by comparison. Native land rights and self determination of aboriginal populations is pretty much where the buck stops in terms of creating different laws for different races. The few wingnuts and fruitloops who demand that blacks and whites should have separate laws governing them are fringe dwellers who nobody takes seriously, in no small part because we inherently recognise how biased and unworkable such a system would be, yet so many of us somehow think that when we skip from racial solidarity to religious loyalties that "one size fits all" is somehow workable.
It's not.
The inevitable upshot is what we see in the UK, which has the eternal shame to bear of allowing sharia courts to rule on civil matters when muslims seek redress against other muslims. In my opinion there is no societal stain greater than this one in all of Christendom. It is a total and utter surrender of sovereignty, and yet it is a natural by-product of religious freedom.
Multiculturalism doesn't work. Culture is one part nature and one part nurture. We can manage diverse nature or we can manage diverse nurture, but we can't manage both.
What idiot would choose to obey the laws of man over the laws of his God at anything other than gunpoint (and maybe not even then)? Who would choose to uphold the law at the cost of his mortal soul? So why is it any surprise that minority religious groups form huddled fraternities in which they can disobey the laws of the majority with impunity and practice their religion as they see fit?
And of course at that point they by definition they are no longer patriots but subversives.
Even racial issues can pale by comparison. Native land rights and self determination of aboriginal populations is pretty much where the buck stops in terms of creating different laws for different races. The few wingnuts and fruitloops who demand that blacks and whites should have separate laws governing them are fringe dwellers who nobody takes seriously, in no small part because we inherently recognise how biased and unworkable such a system would be, yet so many of us somehow think that when we skip from racial solidarity to religious loyalties that "one size fits all" is somehow workable.
It's not.
The inevitable upshot is what we see in the UK, which has the eternal shame to bear of allowing sharia courts to rule on civil matters when muslims seek redress against other muslims. In my opinion there is no societal stain greater than this one in all of Christendom. It is a total and utter surrender of sovereignty, and yet it is a natural by-product of religious freedom.
Multiculturalism doesn't work. Culture is one part nature and one part nurture. We can manage diverse nature or we can manage diverse nurture, but we can't manage both.