Fresh pieceful activities in London

by silvermani Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:14 pm

Nothing to see here, folks, move along!

by Guest Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:27 pm

Damn those vans and knives!

by silvermani Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:59 pm

kinnera-temp wrote:Damn those vans and knives!

Over the next week or so, their use should be banned except for transporting and cutting hal'aal meat.

by garam_kuta Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:42 pm

i use to blame those who invented the gunpowder and the gun, and now, i don't know, perhaps those who invented the the first weapons and yeah, all the way, to the wheels.. Rolling Eyes

by confuzzled dude Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:19 am

Will the President expand the list of countries in his travel ban to include London, France, Germany, Belgium etc.,? If he is concerned about the safety of US citizens he should.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:31 am

confuzzled dude wrote:Will the President expand the list of countries in his travel ban to include London, France, Germany, Belgium etc.,? If he is concerned about the safety of US citizens he should.

No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama).

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:55 am

kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Will the President expand the list of countries in his travel ban to include London, France, Germany, Belgium etc.,? If he is concerned about the safety of US citizens he should.
No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama

Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:46 am

kinnera-temp wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Will the President expand the list of countries in his travel ban to include London, France, Germany, Belgium etc.,? If he is concerned about the safety of US citizens he should.
No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:26 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Will the President expand the list of countries in his travel ban to include London, France, Germany, Belgium etc.,? If he is concerned about the safety of US citizens he should.
No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.

And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:57 am

I don't think this is uniformly the case. There have been many instances of the parents being as aghast as anyone else and not even having a knowledge of their children's activities. The UK girls who traveled on their own to Syria without their parents' knowledge being a case in point.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:46 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't think this is uniformly the case. There have been many instances of the parents being as aghast as anyone else and not even having a knowledge of their children's activities. The UK girls who traveled on their own to Syria without their parents' knowledge being a case in point.

Yeah, the Orlando shooter's dad too wouldn't have known of his son's plan to mass murder the gays, but he seems to have surely contributed to his sons hatred for gays.

by silvermani Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:58 am

kinnera-temp wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Will the President expand the list of countries in his travel ban to include London, France, Germany, Belgium etc.,? If he is concerned about the safety of US citizens he should.
No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.
And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!

It is a fundamental problem, not individual specific problem. It makes sense to not bring in those religionists at all. There are plenty of hard working, law abiding Christian potential refugees in the world who can provide cheap labor for the Western countries.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:06 am

silvermani wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.
And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!
It is a fundamental problem, not individual specific problem. It makes sense to not bring in those religionists at all. There are plenty of hard working, law abiding Christian potential refugees in the world who can provide cheap labor for the Western countries.

Yeah, but there's no guarantee that these christian refugees are going to vote for democrats. It can be guaranteed that muslim refugees will never in their lifetime will vote for the right-wing republicans. They are safe democrat vote banks forever!

Why do you think democrats love muslims so much despite the fact that the values that that religion holds is anything but liberal?

by Idéfix Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:39 am

silvermani wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
No, I think he should ban vans, trucks, knives and guns and follow Hillary's promised policy of bringing in 550% more pieceful refugees without proper vetting (coz "we can't expect passports and documents from refugees" as justified by Obama
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.
And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!
It is a fundamental problem, not individual specific problem. It makes sense to not bring in those religionists at all. There are plenty of hard working, law abiding Christian potential refugees in the world who can provide cheap labor for the Western countries.

Constitution, meet conservatives. Conservatives, meet Constitution.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:54 am

Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.
And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!
It is a fundamental problem, not individual specific problem. It makes sense to not bring in those religionists at all. There are plenty of hard working, law abiding Christian potential refugees in the world who can provide cheap labor for the Western countries.

Constitution, meet conservatives. Conservatives, meet Constitution.

Yeah! cut off the entire arm to cure a small wound on the hand.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:03 am

confuzzled dude wrote:

Yeah! cut off the entire arm to cure a small wound on the hand.

When the small wound starts turning into a gangrene, the whole hand needs to be cut off to save the whole body.

by silvermani Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:17 am

kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Yeah! cut off the entire arm to cure a small wound on the hand.
When the small wound starts turning into a gangrene, the whole hand needs to be cut off to save the whole body.

Liberals love gangrene! No point trying to talk sense to them.

by silvermani Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:18 am

Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
Actually, no amount of vetting can help if their american born future generations can be inspired to do Allah's work.

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.
And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!
It is a fundamental problem, not individual specific problem. It makes sense to not bring in those religionists at all. There are plenty of hard working, law abiding Christian potential refugees in the world who can provide cheap labor for the Western countries.

Constitution, meet conservatives. Conservatives, meet Constitution.

Is it a constitutional right to slaughter others in the name of religion?

by Idéfix Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:25 am

silvermani wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Glad you realize that. This is the very point those of us opposed to the travel ban have been making. In nearly every instance, in tecent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators have been natural born citizens. They may have been inspired by events and organizations thousands of miles away either by getting radicalized on the web or after spending time in Syria or Iraq, but nevertheless they are natural born citizens.

In fact the generation that actually immigrated, i.e. their parents', seem to be more aligned with the west and loyal to the countries they immigrated to. More than the travel ban, surveillance of the instruments of radicalization at home here in the west is likely to be more effective.
And why are they getting radicalized? Because of the family environment and the parents being ultra conservative. So there's this combination of dogmatic household, the modern western surroundings and then the radical stuff on the internet. This contributes to the confused, ill-fitting children of the immigrants to turn to radical islam.

Take the example of boston bombers. Their mom seems to have tilted towards radical islam. Her rhetoric and the vitriol towards the western culture and america even after death/capture says a lot about her. No wonder her kids who grew up around such a mother were influenced by radical islam.
So is the case of the San bernadino shooter. His Paki wife was radicalized who could have influenced him, but his mom was also living with them and must've known everything that was going on. She probably approved everything.
How about the Orlando gay bar shooter? Have you heard what his father said in tv interviews? His strong denouncing and his hatred for gays, even after more than seventy innocent gays were murdered by his son says a lot. No wonder his son harbored such kind of hatred towards gays.
Parental influence!
It is a fundamental problem, not individual specific problem. It makes sense to not bring in those religionists at all. There are plenty of hard working, law abiding Christian potential refugees in the world who can provide cheap labor for the Western countries.

Constitution, meet conservatives. Conservatives, meet Constitution.
Is it a constitutional right to slaughter others in the name of religion?

Red herring. It is not.

The constitution forbids government from treating people of different religions differently. If you are aware of that but still believe what you wrote above, you are advocating unconstitutional activities. If you are unaware of what's in the constitution, you are talking about things you don't understand.

by Idéfix Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:28 am

kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Yeah! cut off the entire arm to cure a small wound on the hand.
When the small wound starts turning into a gangrene, the whole hand needs to be cut off to save the whole body.

So do you believe the Establishment Clause needs to be removed from the constitution? Do you want it to be legal for government to discriminate against you Hindus, if a plurality gets behind that idea?

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:55 am

Idéfix wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Yeah! cut off the entire arm to cure a small wound on the hand.
When the small wound starts turning into a gangrene, the whole hand needs to be cut off to save the whole body.

So do you believe the Establishment Clause needs to be removed from the constitution? Do you want it to be legal for government to discriminate against you Hindus, if a plurality gets behind that idea?

Sure. If Hindus carry an ideology that's churning out terrorists who pose a danger to the life of innocents in the country, then definitely extra attention needs to be paid to Hindus (you may call it discrimination) to prevent that. And that's in the larger interest of the nation.

That holds good for any religion or ideology(from jehadism, nazism, marxism, communism, white supremacy to 'chuddie-ism'). Anything to safeguard the safety and security of innocent citizens!

by garam-kuta Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:40 pm

the difference- in previous such "incidents", when people talked about islamic terrorism, folks like CD and other liberals used to chide them pointing that investigation not yet over and identities not released. now everybody "knows" who did it.

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:03 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't think this is uniformly the case.

The uniform factor in all the cases is Islam.

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:04 am

Idéfix wrote:
kinnera-temp wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Yeah! cut off the entire arm to cure a small wound on the hand.
When the small wound starts turning into a gangrene, the whole hand needs to be cut off to save the whole body.

So do you believe the Establishment Clause needs to be removed from the constitution? Do you want it to be legal for government to discriminate against you Hindus, if a plurality gets behind that idea?

Stupid strawman! If Hindus perpetrate terrorism in the manner and scale of Mussus, then yes, they should definitely be discriminated and kept out.

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:07 am

SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't think this is uniformly the case.

The uniform factor in all the cases is Islam.

Keep Mussus out and avoid all of the following. Please note that the below numbers are a little old. In most of the countries (like UK, for example), the Mussu population has grown on to the next level than what is shown below.

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

This is just the beginning, UK is gonna burn a lot more in the coming days and months and years as a result of this:

Fresh pieceful activities in London 1410729043423_Image_galleryImage_muslim_cristian_large_pre

Fresh pieceful activities in London 1410729043423_Image_galleryImage_muslim_cristian_large_pre

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:24 am

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:10 am

SomeProfile wrote:This is just the beginning, UK is gonna burn a lot more in the coming days and months and years as a result of this:

So why isn't Trump putting UK on the travel ban list? All the attacks recently in the UK have been carried out by Britons.

by Idéfix Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:08 am

Kinnera and SomeProfile: both of you fail to understand a fundamental element of the US constitution. The establishment clause is not going anywhere. Government should not -- and will not -- be allowed to discriminate against particular religions (or religion overall). The only way to change it is by constitutional amendment and that has less support than an amendment to bar dark money in campaigns (which also has no chance of getting through).

by silvermani Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:03 am

What's a few massacres here and there? Full constitutional rights must be provided to people who have utter disregard for the Constitution and slaughter other humans because their holy book says so.

by silvermani Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:15 am

SomeProfile wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't think this is uniformly the case.

The uniform factor in all the cases is Islam.

Keep Mussus out and avoid all of the following. Please note that the below numbers are a little old. In most of the countries (like UK, for example), the Mussu population has grown on to the next level than what is shown below.

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

Best post on the topic ever - in the history of CH(old and new).

by Idéfix Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:23 am

silvermani wrote:Full constitutional rights must be provided to people who have utter disregard for the Constitution ...

Yes, I believe you should have full constitutional rights.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:27 am

interesting the apologists have stopped offering standard excuses from earlier times and are now focused on diverting attention to the Orange. his twitter droppings and the sparring with london's terrorist mayor are more important than the actual incident and it's perpetrators.

by silvermani Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:02 pm

Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:Full constitutional rights must be provided to people who have utter disregard for the Constitution ...
Yes, I believe you should have full constitutional rights.

so smart na, just like your pre-election predictions.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:03 pm

silvermani wrote:What's a few massacres here and there? Full constitutional rights must be provided to people who have utter disregard for the Constitution and slaughter other humans because their holy book says so.

That conclusion only follows if you have the pessimistic view that the only way to combat terrorism is by instituting religion based travel bans.

by silvermani Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:04 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:interesting the apologists have stopped offering standard excuses from earlier times and are now focused on diverting attention to the Orange. his twitter droppings and the sparring with london's terrorist mayor are more important than the actual incident and it's perpetrators.

They are consistent in one thing. Whenever shit like this happens they never say anything against the perps or at-least express sympathy for the victims.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:07 pm

silvermani wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:interesting the apologists have stopped offering standard excuses from earlier times and are now focused on diverting attention to the Orange. his twitter droppings and the sparring with london's terrorist mayor are more important than the actual incident and it's perpetrators.
They are consistent in one thing. Whenever shit like this happens they never say anything against the perps or at-least express sympathy for the victims.

I don't see people of your political ilk express sympathy for the victims after every attack. Mostly what we hear is barely-couched jubilation that one more terrorist attack by your favorite enemies has happened, which provides another reason to bash their co-religionists without heed to whether they are law-abiding citizens or terrorists. Why is the burden always on us to express sympathy? There is not much to say about the perps. It's black and white, they want to annihilate humanity if they don't have their way as specified in their holy book. So they are despicable and need to be stopped. However, I am for stopping them before they begin -- which means paying attention to recruiting on the internet and dissemination of their hate-filled ideology on the internet. What more needs to be said?

by Guest Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:37 pm

SomeProfile wrote:This is just the beginning, UK is gonna burn a lot more in the coming days and months and years as a result of this:

is this for real? the discrepancy between adults and children seems a bit much.. is it coz most christians are of grand-parenting age, and already have adult children? but still... what is the source of this?

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:25 pm

t w wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:This is just the beginning, UK is gonna burn a lot more in the coming days and months and years as a result of this:

is this for real? the discrepancy between adults and children seems a bit much.. is it coz most christians are of grand-parenting age, and already have adult children? but still... what is the source of this?

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755654/The-changing-face-Britain-A-child-Birmingham-likely-Muslim-Christian.html

Isn't the reason for the discrepancy between adults and kids kind of obvious? Hint: Hum paanch; humaare pacchees!

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:27 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
However, I am for stopping them before they begin -- which means paying attention to recruiting on the internet and dissemination of their hate-filled ideology on the internet. What more needs to be said?

That is like bringing down the medium by which the message is passed and not addressing the message itself. They will just find another channel / medium. The message itself needs to be addressed, just like the world decided to address Nazism.

by SomeProfile Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Mostly what we hear is barely-couched jubilation that one more terrorist attack by your favorite enemies has happened, which provides another reason to bash their co-religionists without heed to whether they are law-abiding citizens or terrorists.

Do you get into "barely-couched jubilation" when there is gun violence in the US by a non-Ismalic person so that you can bash guns?

by Guest Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:51 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
t w wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:This is just the beginning, UK is gonna burn a lot more in the coming days and months and years as a result of this:

is this for real? the discrepancy between adults and children seems a bit much.. is it coz most christians are of grand-parenting age, and already have adult children? but still... what is the source of this?

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755654/The-changing-face-Britain-A-child-Birmingham-likely-Muslim-Christian.html

Isn't the reason for the discrepancy between adults and kids kind of obvious? Hint: Hum paanch; humaare pacchees!

that's ouch.. having multiple philosophical feelings thinking about a country like UK that ruled the world for centuries, spreading religion... and other ancient countries like Egypt that got taken over relatively more recently by islam. India seems to have fared somewhat better, atleast so far.

Wonder if all this will lead to uprising of gangs like kkk in uk. Either way, hard to see a bloodless future for UK, but at the same time, have trust that they they will come up with a solution soon. They are more hardcore than US.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:51 pm

Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:Full constitutional rights must be provided to people who have utter disregard for the Constitution ...
Yes, I believe you should have full constitutional rights.

They're torchbearers of constitutional rights only on the issues related to 2nd amendment.

by Sponsored content