OT~Boston Bombers

[Bob Hatch]

Hunters conservatives, "I think its an American nut case who is
protesting either abortion or gun control... or just hates the president...

Or.... the fact that the marathon was honoring the kids killed in
Newtown, and the resulting anti gun crusades... "

And Don's "Tea Party" members, turned out to be Muslim brothers of
Chechen origin with the last name Tsarnaev.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/gunshots-reported-on-mit-campus/

I've linked to Fox on purpose.

One is dead, the other on the run, one more police office dead and
another injured during a major firefight last night in Mass. A search
still going on for the live brother.

The liberal wet dream of these guys being right wing individuals dies,
and hopefully the other bomber will as well. I'm watching Fox News right
now and they are filming what appears to be gunfire and explosions.


--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:37:55 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:

>Hunters conservatives, "I think its an American nut case who is
>protesting either abortion or gun control... or just hates the president...
>
>Or.... the fact that the marathon was honoring the kids killed in
>Newtown, and the resulting anti gun crusades... "
>
>And Don's "Tea Party" members, turned out to be Muslim brothers of
>Chechen origin with the last name Tsarnaev.
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/gunshots-reported-on-mit-campus/
>
>I've linked to Fox on purpose.
>
>One is dead, the other on the run, one more police office dead and
>another injured during a major firefight last night in Mass. A search
>still going on for the live brother.
>
>The liberal wet dream of these guys being right wing individuals dies,
>and hopefully the other bomber will as well. I'm watching Fox News right
>now and they are filming what appears to be gunfire and explosions.

The more I read it was neither Liberal nor Conservative issues. Just
stupid alienated loners. It will be interesting if much comes out
about what motivated them.

[Bob Hatch]

Well, duh!

Just
> stupid alienated loners. It will be interesting if much comes out
> about what motivated them.
>

[nothermark]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 06:08:28 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:57 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:37:55 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hunters conservatives, "I think its an American nut case who is
>>> protesting either abortion or gun control... or just hates the president...
>>>
>>> Or.... the fact that the marathon was honoring the kids killed in
>>> Newtown, and the resulting anti gun crusades... "
>>>
>>> And Don's "Tea Party" members, turned out to be Muslim brothers of
>>> Chechen origin with the last name Tsarnaev.
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/gunshots-reported-on-mit-campus/
>>>
>>> I've linked to Fox on purpose.
>>>
>>> One is dead, the other on the run, one more police office dead and
>>> another injured during a major firefight last night in Mass. A search
>>> still going on for the live brother.
>>>
>>> The liberal wet dream of these guys being right wing individuals dies,
>>> and hopefully the other bomber will as well. I'm watching Fox News right
>>> now and they are filming what appears to be gunfire and explosions.
>>
>> The more I read it was neither Liberal nor Conservative issues.
>
>Well, duh!
>
> Just
>> stupid alienated loners. It will be interesting if much comes out
>> about what motivated them.
>>

Yes, Duh, some folks on both sides need the writing on the wall
explained to them.

[Hunter Hampton]

On 4/19/2013 5:37 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> The liberal wet dream of these guys being right wing individuals dies,
> and hopefully the other bomber will as well. I'm watching Fox News right
> now and they are filming what appears to be gunfire and explosions.

Bob, I didn't want them to be Americans in any party..... its a right
wing wet dream that I did.

Hunter

[Bruce S]

On 4/19/2013 5:57 AM, nothermark wrote:

They are Islamic sympathizers. What do you think motivated them?
Islamic Jihad, of course. (And that was the assessment of anyone with a
functioning brain from the first instant after the bomb went off.)

--
Bruce

Thomas Jefferson - "The policy of the American government is to leave
their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of
another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

[Bruce S]

On 4/19/2013 6:59 AM, stan....@hotmail.com wrote:

> Oh, big surprize; they are devout Muslims doing what Muslims do!

And that is exactly what anyone with a functioning brain thought about
the bombing from the instant it happened.

(Well, anyone except Hunter and the morons on MSNBC and CNN. But... I
did limit that thought to people with a functioning brain, so liberals
were excluded anyway.)

[Bruce S]

You can tell all the lies you want and attempt to justify your initial
post on the topic, but it was YOU who was the very first person here to

speculate on who committed the bombing, and you said:

"I think its an American nut case who is protesting either abortion or
gun control... or just hates the president...

Or.... the fact that the marathon was honoring the kids killed in
Newtown, and the resulting anti gun crusades... "

And, as I said at the time, your fantasy of discovering that someone
with a right wing political agenda was at fault was clear and obvious.
You established yourself as being exactly the same type of person as the
left wing scum at CNN and MSNBC who also speculated that right wing
politics was at fault.

[Hank]

Bruce, you are assuming their motive. When in fact nothing has been confirmed. How is that any different from Hunters posts?
You truly are a hypocrite.

Hank

[Bruce S]

First - I have never made even one post assuming motives for them. Stan
said they were Muslims doing what Muslims do. I responded that that was
exactly what any thinking person thought from the beginning. The
difference between what I wrote and what Hunter speculated was that I
speculated NOTHING. Until the perps were identified and their history
was reported, I did not speculate AT ALL. In fact, the only thing I did
was dispute the people (specifically Hunter) who were speculating. If
you could read, you would have noticed the difference.

Secondly - they identify themselves (on their you tube posts) as Islamic
radicals. I am assuming nothing. I am simply reporting what they said
about themselves - and I did not do even that until their YouTube
recordings were found, reported and made public.

Again, I understand that you are not smart enough to understand the
difference between Hunter speculating (while the dust from the bomb was
still in the air) that it was done by people with right wing political
causes and me reporting that the perps had described themselves as
Islamic radicals, but the difference is major.

You still need to find a child to help with your reading comprehension -
even a second grader would be a step up for you.

[Hank]

You said "They are Islamic sympathizers. What do you think motivated them?
Islamic Jihad, of course.". While the odds are that you may be correct, their motive may not have been from religeous beliefs as you state. Therefore, you are speculating their motive. Their motive could have been from something totally off the wall. It's time to start your squirming.

Hank

[Hank]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:33:34 AM UTC-4, stan....@hotmail.com wrote:

> >On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bruce, you are assuming their motive. When in fact nothing has been confirmed.
>
>
>

> Hank,
>
>
>
> It had already been confirmed, hours before you wrote that, the perpetrators were Muslims; as if
>
> anyone suspected any different from the very first moment we heard of this incident!!

Again, at this time, any assumption on their motive is nothing but ignorance on the assumers part.

I never assumed or speculated anything when I heard of the incident.

Hank <~~~~ badge 714 wannabe

[Bruce S]

I realize that you are a moron, so understanding this might be difficult
for you, but I'll give it one more try.

Hunter made her slanderous statements before a suspect had even been
identified. In that statement she slandered almost half the people in
the country.

I made my comment about the suspects being Islamic sympathizers AFTER
they had been identified, and AFTER those suspects had identified
themselves as Islamic jihadists. I did not slander them, and I did not
assume that they were Islamic radicals - they claimed that for
themselves. Watch their YouTube videos let them tell you who they are.

--
Bruce

Grammar - The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:39:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:57 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:37:55 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hunters conservatives, "I think its an American nut case who is
>>> protesting either abortion or gun control... or just hates the president...
>>>
>>> Or.... the fact that the marathon was honoring the kids killed in
>>> Newtown, and the resulting anti gun crusades... "
>>>
>>> And Don's "Tea Party" members, turned out to be Muslim brothers of
>>> Chechen origin with the last name Tsarnaev.
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/gunshots-reported-on-mit-campus/
>>>
>>> I've linked to Fox on purpose.
>>>
>>> One is dead, the other on the run, one more police office dead and
>>> another injured during a major firefight last night in Mass. A search
>>> still going on for the live brother.
>>>
>>> The liberal wet dream of these guys being right wing individuals dies,
>>> and hopefully the other bomber will as well. I'm watching Fox News right
>>> now and they are filming what appears to be gunfire and explosions.
>>
>> The more I read it was neither Liberal nor Conservative issues. Just
>> stupid alienated loners. It will be interesting if much comes out
>> about what motivated them.
>
>They are Islamic sympathizers. What do you think motivated them?
>Islamic Jihad, of course. (And that was the assessment of anyone with a
>functioning brain from the first instant after the bomb went off.)

That's roughly equivalent to saying "all Blacks" or "all Catholics".
Most of the Islamic world is pretty quiet. We only hear about a small
part of the world that has some legitomate issues and some wacko
attitudes that have little to do with the religion.

BTW, do you know who stirred up the Chechen's?.

[Bob Hatch]

Interesting how quickly you make excuses for the Muslims, and how
quickly you condemn Christians.

>
> BTW, do you know who stirred up the Chechen's?.
>

[Hank]

I ain't buyin your BS. Whether you are right or wrong, you were making assumtions before any facts. We all know what you meant. Keep squirming you hypocritical scumbag. <~~~~ word Bruce likes to use and understands.

Hank <~~~~ speaks Brucese

[Hank]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:32:08 PM UTC-4, Hank wrote:

>
> I ain't buyin your BS. Whether you are right or wrong, you were making assumtions before any facts. We all know what you meant. Keep squirming you hypocritical scumbag. <~~~~ word Bruce likes to use and understands.
>
>
>
> Hank <~~~~ speaks Brucese

Oops! I forgot to "p".

Hank

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:03:37 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

If you look I am more or less equal in my observations. I do not
condemn any of them off hand. I do condemn any of them trying to
force their views on everyone else. I also think it is a mistake to
allow immigration from areas where we know there are issues as "common
sense" is often tempered by religion but religion is often tempered by
ethnic backgrounds. Muslim is not a culture but it is a religious
view often at odds with Christianity. Mix that with ethnic views that
are at odds with the more or less accepted values in this country and
we are asking for trouble so we get it. The religious views sometimes
reinforce the ethnic views on one hand but form a convenient label on
the other. We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

[Bruce S]

It is my belief that EVERY Islamist in the world is a radical
sympathizer until they ACTIVELY work against the jihadists out there.
Sitting around doing nothing is evidence that they support the cause.

[Bruce S]

What's the matter, did NPR fail to inform you that these two had posted
their radical views on YouTube? They are/were radical Islamists
engaging in jihad.

[Bruce S]

>> Bruce
>
> I ain't buyin your BS. Whether you are right or wrong, you were making assumtions before any facts. We all know what you meant. Keep squirming you hypocritical scumbag. <~~~~ word Bruce likes to use and understands.
>
> Hank <~~~~ speaks Bruce

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Go back and find even one post
I made saying that I believed the bombers to be Muslims before they had
been officially identified by the police as such.

You really are a moron.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:46:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

If it comes to supporting "the cause" it all depends on what "the
cause" is.

That still does not make it any different that "all Catholics" or "all
Blacks".

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:47:33 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Considering that most of what I saw was on CNN and I watched very
little NPR had nothing to do with it. Being on vacation on the other
hand...

;-)

[Bruce S]

When it comes to radical Islam there is only one cause - global caliphate.

> That still does not make it any different that "all Catholics" or "all
> Blacks".

You are entitled to your wrong opinion (why would I expect anything
different here than everywhere else).

[Bruce S]

If you don't know what's happening in the world around you, you would be
better off not commenting on it.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:08:18 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I would find a global caliphate no less onerous than global Papism or
global Mormonism or a host of other religions that would all lke to
take over the world. The chances are about equal. What I do see is
you buying the Zionist propaganda hook, line and sinker

[Janet Wilder]

On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>

What "obvious evidence"

Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
deserves to die?

Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
been waiting for years to see?

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

[Janet Wilder]

On 4/20/2013 12:46 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 6:58 AM, nothermark wrote:

>> That's roughly equivalent to saying "all Blacks" or "all Catholics".
>> Most of the Islamic world is pretty quiet. We only hear about a small
>> part of the world that has some legitomate issues and some wacko
>> attitudes that have little to do with the religion.
>
> It is my belief that EVERY Islamist in the world is a radical
> sympathizer until they ACTIVELY work against the jihadists out there.
> Sitting around doing nothing is evidence that they support the cause.
>

Well said, Bruce.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:40:51 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I saw enough, it was just not NPR. Most was a cntinuous repetiton of
the the same small bits of data.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:49:06 -0500, Janet Wilder
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>>
>
>What "obvious evidence"
>
>Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
>it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
>deserves to die?
>
>Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
>from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
>been waiting for years to see?

The idea that anyone is owed such a thing is one of the bits of
propaganda.

[Lone Haranguer]

Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the
>> contrary.
>>
>
> What "obvious evidence"
>
> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches
> that's it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not
> worship as they do deserves to die?
>
> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New
> York Times from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize
> for 9/11 that I've been waiting for years to see?
>

Our immigration laws need an overhaul all right. Only instead of
just trying to placate the Hispanic voter we should have
background checks for those claiming the right of asylum. MN
shelters alarge number of Somalis, mostly living on welfare
status and at least 16 (so far) have traveled back to Somalia to
join the Jihad. Their local mosques are the recruiters and
funders of these terrorists.

LZ

[George Anthony]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kkuk2l$iat$1...@dont-email.me...

It's been said before. This is not only what's happening
with the Muslims, it's what's happening in this country:

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they
will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
- Edmund Burke

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:h6m5n85hf3agsrke7...@4ax.com...

CNN and NPR are, for all intents, the same. A socialist news organization by
any other name is still a socialist news
organization.

[nothermark]

You don't get around much, do you?

;-)

[MaxD]

On 4/20/2013 1:43 PM, nothermark wrote:

> I would find a global caliphate no less onerous than global Papism or
> global Mormonism or a host of other religions that would all lke to
> take over the world. The chances are about equal. What I do see is
> you buying the Zionist propaganda hook, line and sinker
>

You're way behind the curve on this one, Boy.
Islam is just about a thousand years behind the rest of civilization.
"Papism" apologized for their terrorism a long time ago.
When the Muslims realize that in order to fit into the civilized world
they will have to change their theology.
Even the Westboro Baptists aren't as bad and the rest of Christianity
chastises them.

[Vito00]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote

| nothermark wrote:
| > That's roughly equivalent to saying "all Blacks" or "all Catholics".
| > Most of the Islamic world is pretty quiet. We only hear about a small
| > part of the world that has some legitomate issues and some wacko
| > attitudes that have little to do with the religion.
|
| It is my belief that EVERY Islamist in the world is a radical
| sympathizer until they ACTIVELY work against the jihadists out there.
| Sitting around doing nothing is evidence that they support the cause.
|

I agree with you both. Most Muslims, and most Christians and most Blacks,
et al, are reasonably peaceable but by refusing to condemn those who
commit crimes in the name of their religion or cause or, worse yet,
financially and morally support those criminals become accessories to the
crimes.

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

According to numbnutsmark....
We're not supposed to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few "crazies".
But the acts of a few American "crazies" is enough to judge all Americans
who own guns!
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Lone Haranguer]

"NPR and Dina Temple-Raston are paid for with your tax dollars.
Apparently, the terrorist attack by two Muslim extremists in
Boston was the work of ‘right-wing extremist.’ You see according
to Dina Temple-Raston April is a big month for right-wing
extremism. Raston cities
Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City and Hitler’s birthday as an
example of ‘right-wing extremism.’ You got that? Columbine was
the work or right wing extremists. Branch Dravidian? Right
wingers too. Oklahoma City? Timothy McVeigh is always deemed a
right winger by the left and media hacks despite no proof like
his voting record. Lastly Hitler. Yes, Adolph Hitler who took
away citizens guns and from the National Socialist (NAZI) party
is some how a right-winger too."

************
How can people tune in to such drivel?

Or this twaddle from the Democrat's Propaganda organ, Salon.

http://www.infowars.com/salon-lets-hope-boston-marathon-bomber-is-a-white-american/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

“If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a
white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean
the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that
has no bearing on any larger policy debates,” Sirota wrote in his
Salon piece, which featured an image of Oklahoma City bomber
Timothy McVeigh cropped beside a photograph of Osama bin Laden.
**********
Where do the Democrats find these idiots?

LZ

[Owen McKenzie]

Thanks for pointing that out, Max.

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from St. Lucia West Indies

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
-- William G. McAdoo

[nothermark]

You do know that the Clergy in NY and Boston were taking up
collections to support the IRA not all that long ago, don't you? That
money was often used for weapons.

You also seem fixated on a small part of the Muslim world where there
is a problem differentiating between Moslem and tribal values. The
Moslem world is much larger than the middle east just like the
Christian world is bigger than Ireland.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:40:52 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
<jer...@whereever.com> wrote:

>According to numbnutsmark....
>We're not supposed to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few "crazies".
>But the acts of a few American "crazies" is enough to judge all Americans
>who own guns!

My view on gun control is that as a right under the US Constriction
there should be no local laws and few, if any, Federal laws regulating
the ownership of arms. Period. It is a right! In other words if you
can buy it go for it. If you have any money left over you might even
be able to shoot it at a rational place. I can accept the idea that
there are some issues equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theatre
but that is about the level that should be considered.

I have stated those views before. You should have been aware of them
so I have to wonder why you would try to relate the current anti gun
fervor with my views on firearms. That does not change the fact that
the source of a lot of the anti Moslem rhetoric is folks who have a
political need to make all Moslems look bad so they can justify
oppressing them. I assume you have a clue about oppression.

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito00 wrote:

> | I agree with you both. Most Muslims, and most Christians and
most Blacks, et al, are reasonably peaceable but by refusing to
condemn those who > commit crimes in the name of their religion
or cause or, worse yet, financially and morally support those
criminals become accessories to the crimes.

You areincluded in that group because you refuse to learn what
Dr. Gosnell's trial is all about.

LZ

[Janet Wilder]

On 4/20/2013 2:43 PM, nothermark wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:08:18 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

>> You are entitled to your wrong opinion (why would I expect anything
>> different here than everywhere else).
>
> I would find a global caliphate no less onerous than global Papism or
> global Mormonism or a host of other religions that would all lke to
> take over the world. The chances are about equal. What I do see is
> you buying the Zionist propaganda hook, line and sinker
>

Zionist propaganda??? Have you been living under a rock?

[Janet Wilder]

On 4/20/2013 7:40 PM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
> According to numbnutsmark....
> We're not supposed to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few "crazies".
> But the acts of a few American "crazies" is enough to judge all
> Americans who own guns!

Valid point.

[Bruce S]

Are you suggesting that the last 25 years (or more) of global Islamic
terrorism is "Zionist propaganda"?

And the difference between other religions looking to expand worldwide
and Islam's attempt to create a global caliphate is that Islam is the
only one using terrorism to achieve the goal.

[Janet Wilder]

On 4/20/2013 8:44 PM, nothermark wrote:
That does not change the fact that
> the source of a lot of the anti Moslem rhetoric is folks who have a
> political need to make all Moslems look bad so they can justify
> oppressing them. I assume you have a clue about oppression.
>

I have more than a "clue" about oppression, I have an ethnic history of
oppression reaching back hundreds of years, yet you find no history of
my people hijacking planes and flying them into large office buildings
on suicide missions that kill thousands of innocent people.

How many Moslem countries have come to our country's aid in disasters?
Are you aware that the first foreign country to respond to many of our
domestic disasters is Israel. They send relief crews and equipment and
don't make a media show of it, either.

You probably think that's Zionist propaganda, too.

[Bruce S]

On 4/20/2013 12:49 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>>
>
> What "obvious evidence"
>
> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
> it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
> deserves to die?
>
> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
> from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
> been waiting for years to see?

mark is a religious bigot who believes that it is ok for Muslims to
murder Jews.

[Bruce S]

Are you suggesting that it wasn't Muslims who flew airplanes into the
Twin Towers in an effort to further their religious bigotry?

And if it was Muslims who engaged in that act of terrorism, why would
you suggest that the rest of the Muslim world should not denounce the
act and apologize to the victims for murder committed in their name?

[Bruce S]

If you "knew enough" that would mean you knew that the two terrorists
were Muslim jihadists and that I was completely correct in what I said.

[Janet Wilder]

On 4/20/2013 9:09 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 12:49 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>
>> What "obvious evidence"
>>
>> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
>> it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
>> deserves to die?
>>
>> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
>> from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
>> been waiting for years to see?
>
> mark is a religious bigot who believes that it is ok for Muslims to
> murder Jews.
>

Evidently!

[Hunter Hampton]

> On 4/20/2013 7:40 PM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>> According to numbnutsmark....
>> We're not supposed to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few "crazies".
>> But the acts of a few American "crazies" is enough to judge all
>> Americans who own guns!

On 4/20/2013 7:05 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> Valid point.


Turn that around blaming all gun owners for what a few do is like
blaming all Muslims for what a few do.

Hunter

[Bruce S]

The difference (which you will fail to understand, even after it is
explained to you) is that ALL gun owners denounce violent crime
committed by criminal gun owners, and demand that they be punished
appropriately.

In 12 years, I have yet to hear a mainstream Muslim denounce the
violence of the jihadists and demand that anyone committing an act of
terrorism be punished appropriately for his actions.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:28:27 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 7:20 PM, Hunter Hampton wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 7:40 PM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>>>> According to numbnutsmark....
>>>> We're not supposed to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few "crazies".
>>>> But the acts of a few American "crazies" is enough to judge all
>>>> Americans who own guns!
>>
>>
>> On 4/20/2013 7:05 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>
>>> Valid point.
>>
>>
>> Turn that around blaming all gun owners for what a few do is like
>> blaming all Muslims for what a few do.
>>
>> Hunter
>
>The difference (which you will fail to understand, even after it is
>explained to you) is that ALL gun owners denounce violent crime
>committed by criminal gun owners, and demand that they be punished
>appropriately.
>
>In 12 years, I have yet to hear a mainstream Muslim denounce the
>violence of the jihadists and demand that anyone committing an act of
>terrorism be punished appropriately for his actions.

For two reasons.

The first is that your sources would not broadcast it. They are
heavily invested in "evil Muslims".

The second is that they are right in opposing anyone who tries to
over run their country. It is only folks who are stupid or who want
their country who ignore that. What would you advocate folks doing if
somebody invaded the US?

[nothermark]

Wrong. But I have no sympathy for Zionists. The only way they can
get land is to displace somebody who already has it.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:14:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I still do not know they were Muslim Jihadists. The only folks who
seem to be preaching that are the right wing nutter sources as of
yesterday morning.

[Owen McKenzie]

On 4/20/2013 10:04 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 2:43 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:08:18 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>
>>> You are entitled to your wrong opinion (why would I expect anything
>>> different here than everywhere else).
>>
>> I would find a global caliphate no less onerous than global Papism or
>> global Mormonism or a host of other religions that would all lke to
>> take over the world. The chances are about equal. What I do see is
>> you buying the Zionist propaganda hook, line and sinker
>>
>
> Zionist propaganda??? Have you been living under a rock?

No, they're all between his ears!

[jerryosage]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 07:28:18 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

SO, may we assume that you intend to return your land holdings to the
Seneca people and return to where ever your ancestors came from?

AFAIK, Israel hasn't started many wars, and since their neighbors want
to eradicate them, and will given the chance, isn't turn about
considered 'fair play'? And, if not - screw it. Being the winner
beats being the loser, measured by any metric that I am aware of.

The first spear of the next attack against Israel may be nuclear
tipped. When that happens I can only hope that Israel can manage to
eradicate every Muslim, man, woman, and child within 20,000 miles of
Jerusalem before they stand down. That won't happen, however, one can
hope.

Overheard from years ago. He slapped you and he will be hospitalized
for days. Don't you consider that an over reaction? No, I intended
to stomp him to death and would have if those three guys hadn't pulled
me off him.

Jerry O.

[Bruce S]

I have to take some of the blame for the nonsense that is your response.
I thought it was clear that I was referring to the 9-11 attack on the
Twin Towers (I did specify 12 years, after all), but if you failed to
figure that out, OK - so I'll rephrase and try again.

In 12 years since the attack on the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001, I have yet

to hear a mainstream Muslim denounce the violence of the jihadists and

demand that anyone committing such an act of terrorism be punished
appropriately for his actions.

Until I hear that response from Muslims in general, I will continue to
believe that ALL Muslims support terrorism, and are, therefore, the
exact same type of scum as the terrorists.

[Frank Howell]

So when are you leaving the US and giving back what you stole from the
American Indians? :-)

--
Frank Howell

[Bruce S]

Have you still failed to go to YouTube and watch their video? If you
don't know about their extremism, you are the only one to blame.

[Lone Haranguer]

After all we saw a number of videos showing Muslims celebrating
when the twin towers went down. At a freezer factory in St.
Cloud MN Somalis were cheering when the towers went down and a
near riot ensued. The police arrived just in time. The local
newspaper printed the story but it can't be found in their
archives. I've spoken to a number of people who were thereand
they verified the story.

LZ

[Hank]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:28:27 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

> In 12 years, I have yet to hear a mainstream Muslim denounce the
>
> violence of the jihadists and demand that anyone committing an act of
>
> terrorism be punished appropriately for his actions.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce
>

How about this? Is it a start to peace with the Muslims in the USA?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/boston-bombers-mosque-cambridge_n_3125192.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D301799

Hank <~~~~~ knows Bruce will discredit it

[George Anthony]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c3330b5-d3e7-4514...@googlegroups.com...

He should. It is, after all, the Puffington Post.

[Janet Wilder]

Your history is flawed. "Palestinians" didn't have it either.
Palestinians are Arabs meaning that they originated on teh Arabian
Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) After the destruction of the Second Temple,
just about everyone "had" it. In recent history, the Ottoman empire had
it then the British had it. When the British gave it up, the UN
partitioned it giving land to the Arabs who had migrated to there over
the years. Unfortunately for the "Palestinians" their co-religionists
in Jordan took away the land that the UN gave them to live on.

The land you erroneously assume was "taken" by Zionists was won in wars
that Israel did not start.

With your thinking, we should probably give the US back to the Indians.
We have far less legitimate reason for owning the land we stole from the
original inhabitants than Israel has for keeping the land it won in
armed conflict that they did not initiate.

[Janet Wilder]

There was a section on CBS's Sunday Morning today about how the Muslim
community is funding terrorism through legitimate banks. They even have
a special fund to compensate the families of suicide bombers for the
loss of income that they would have had from the family member who,
being dead, can't work any longer.

[Bruce S]

On 4/21/2013 12:10 PM, Hank wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:28:27 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>
>> In 12 years, I have yet to hear a mainstream Muslim denounce the
>> violence of the jihadists and demand that anyone committing an act of
>> terrorism be punished appropriately for his actions.
>>

>> Bruce
>
>
> How about this? Is it a start to peace with the Muslims in the USA?
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/boston-bombers-mosque-cambridge_n_3125192.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D301799
>
> Hank <~~~~~ knows Bruce will discredit it

It's a start - a rather weak and self serving start, but a start none
the less. Now, when will they start denouncing the acts of 9-11? I't
only been 12 years, so I guess they haven't had time yet.

[Will Sill]

On 4/21/13 1:11 PM, Bruce S wrote in part:

> Until I hear that response from Muslims in general, I will continue to
> believe that ALL Muslims support terrorism, and are, therefore, the
> exact same type of scum as the terrorists.

I'm confident you mis-spoke, because there clearly ARE a few Muslims who
have spoken out in opposition to jihadists and violence. They certainly
are in a pretty quiet minority, but "ALL" is as unfair in this context
as it is is claiming ALL mall pet shops are puppy mills.


IMO

Will

[Hunter Hampton]

On 4/21/2013 5:09 PM, Will Sill wrote:
> I'm confident you mis-spoke, because there clearly ARE a few Muslims who
> have spoken out in opposition to jihadists and violence. They certainly
> are in a pretty quiet minority, but "ALL" is as unfair in this context
> as it is is claiming ALL mall pet shops are puppy mills.

No mall pet shops are puppy mills.... all mall pet shops sell puppy mill
puppies.

I see why you don't get it, you don't have a clue what a puppy mill is.

Hunter

[Bruce S]

On 4/21/2013 5:09 PM, Will Sill wrote:

You are correct, but one or two out of a billion is close enough to none
to warrant the hyperbole.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:03 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I know what you were referring to. Some folks who were not involved
said they regreted the attacks. The folks who did the attack had, and
still have, a legitimate complaint. They have little to apologize for
if you assume they think they are freedom fighters who want us to stop
invading their territory.

[MaxD]

On 4/21/2013 7:08 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 4/21/2013 5:09 PM, Will Sill wrote:
>> On 4/21/13 1:11 PM, Bruce S wrote in part:
>>
>> > Until I hear that response from Muslims in general, I will continue to
>>> believe that ALL Muslims support terrorism, and are, therefore, the
>>> exact same type of scum as the terrorists.
>>
>> I'm confident you mis-spoke, because there clearly ARE a few Muslims who
>> have spoken out in opposition to jihadists and violence. They certainly
>> are in a pretty quiet minority, but "ALL" is as unfair in this context
>> as it is is claiming ALL mall pet shops are puppy mills.
>>
>>
>> IMO
>>
>> Will
>
> You are correct, but one or two out of a billion is close enough to none
> to warrant the hyperbole.
>

Bruce, I think it might be prudent to do a little research before making
so bold a statement.

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

http://m.wect.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wect.com%2fstory%2f7058691%2fcair-condemns-bin-ladens-praise-for-911-hijacker

[Bruce S]

When you side with scum, you become scum.

[Will Sill]

You're partly right and mostly both wrong and stupid.

I should have written that you adamantly insist that all mall pet shops
sell puppy mill puppies. Your ignorant words exactly.

Will

[Janet Wilder]

The state of California thinks they do. They have banned the sale of
puppies in mall and mall-type stores.

[Hunter Hampton]

On 4/22/2013 4:05 AM, Will Sill wrote:
>
> I should have written that you adamantly insist that all mall pet shops
> sell puppy mill puppies. Your ignorant words exactly.
>
> Will

Since you've opened the puppy mill door yet again, can you tell me where
you 1. think mall puppy shops get enough puppies to cover their monthly
mortgage and 2. Who do you think they get their puppies from when
reputable breeders would never sell their puppies to a wholesaler who
would then sell them to a puppy store.

You are so wrong on this subject, yet you continue to make yourself look
so wrong by bringing it up again and again.

So many people have become enlightened about mall puppy stores that many
of them have been shut down, yet you carry on oblivious to any facts.

Here's a little fact for you, the Amish in Pennsylvania are some of the
largest puppy millers in the country....

Hunter

[Hunter Hampton]

On 4/22/2013 6:40 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> The state of California thinks they do. They have banned the sale of
> puppies in mall and mall-type stores.

So have many countries.....

Hunter

[David "The Hamster" Malone]

On Apr 22, 11:07 am, Hunter Hampton <airstreamingy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here's a little fact for you, the Amish in Pennsylvania are some of the
> largest puppy millers in the country....

There's no such thing as a puppy miller... as far as I know millers
only have cats and chickens.

David "The likes-puppies Hamster" Malone

[Hunter Hampton]

On 4/22/2013 8:11 AM, David "The Hamster" Malone wrote:
> There's no such thing as a puppy miller... as far as I know millers
> only have cats and chickens.
>
> David "The likes-puppies Hamster" Malone

When I typed that I thought Kevin would be the first to jump on it....
maybe he's too busy counting his chickens.

Hunter

[Bruce S]

On 4/21/2013 8:04 PM, MaxD wrote:
> On 4/21/2013 7:08 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 4/21/2013 5:09 PM, Will Sill wrote:
>>> On 4/21/13 1:11 PM, Bruce S wrote in part:
>>>
>>> > Until I hear that response from Muslims in general, I will
>>> continue to
>>>> believe that ALL Muslims support terrorism, and are, therefore, the
>>>> exact same type of scum as the terrorists.
>>>
>>> I'm confident you mis-spoke, because there clearly ARE a few Muslims who
>>> have spoken out in opposition to jihadists and violence. They certainly
>>> are in a pretty quiet minority, but "ALL" is as unfair in this context
>>> as it is is claiming ALL mall pet shops are puppy mills.
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO
>>>
>>> Will
>>
>> You are correct, but one or two out of a billion is close enough to none
>> to warrant the hyperbole.
>>
>
> Bruce, I think it might be prudent to do a little research before making
> so bold a statement.
>
> http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

Look at the list of people signing that statement - I really don't
believe that any statement made by terrorist organizations (Hamas,
Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) can be taken seriously. It was nothing but
them seeking cover. It was NOT a statement condemning terrorism.

> http://m.wect.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wect.com%2fstory%2f7058691%2fcair-condemns-bin-ladens-praise-for-911-hijacker

Another self serving statement from a terrorist sympathizing
organization on the day before they go back to supporting terrorists.
As I said, when I see Muslims seriously condemning terrorism, then I
will reconsider my opinion. Until then, Muslims are terrorist scum and
sympathizers of terrorist scum.

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:li69n85fdhl6j5iq8...@4ax.com...

Now you've become a Jihadist apologist!

[bill horne]

David "The Hamster" Malone wrote:

> On Apr 22, 11:07 am, Hunter Hampton <airstreamingy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here's a little fact for you, the Amish in Pennsylvania are some of the
>> largest puppy millers in the country....
>
> There's no such thing as a puppy miller... as far as I know millers
> only have cats and chickens.

Are you sure they have chickens?

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[bill horne]

I'm still not convinced he has any chickens - unhatched or otherwise.
He just doesn't seem like a chicken miller to me. (but since he's very
good about sending my check i have to say that whether i believe it or
not)

[David "The Hamster" Malone]

On Apr 22, 11:20 am, Hunter Hampton <airstreamingy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> When I typed that I thought Kevin would be the first to jump on it....
> maybe he's too busy counting his chickens.

Not before they're hatched one hopes...

David "The Hamster" Malone

[Lone Haranguer]

bill horne wrote:
> David "The Hamster" Malone wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 11:07 am, Hunter Hampton <airstreamingy...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a little fact for you, the Amish in Pennsylvania are
>>> some of the
>>> largest puppy millers in the country....
>>
>> There's no such thing as a puppy miller... as far as I know
>> millers
>> only have cats and chickens.
>
> Are you sure they have chickens?
>

If they do they better keep an eye on those cats.

LZ

[bill horne]

Speaking of cats, I'm now catless. First, one cat vanished, and about
3 days later, the other one was gone. And I had spent good money
having them fixed and vaccinated a while back. A sweep of the
surrounding area revealed no clues. I think it's mysterious, but the
wife thinks it's suspicious. It'll probably become a cold case.

[David "The Hamster" Malone]

On Apr 22, 1:37 pm, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> wrote:

> Speaking of cats, I'm now catless. First, one cat vanished, and about
> 3 days later, the other one was gone. And I had spent good money
> having them fixed and vaccinated a while back. A sweep of the
> surrounding area revealed no clues. I think it's mysterious, but the
> wife thinks it's suspicious. It'll probably become a cold case.

Coyotes?

David "The Hamster" Malone

[bill horne]

David "The Hamster" Malone wrote:

Could be, but I haven't heard any around here recently. 'Course, their
plan may have been to go silent for a while to throw suspicion off
themselves when they eventually did the grab. They're cunning little
bastards.

[nothe...@not.here]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:11:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 1:52 PM, nothermark wrote:

>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:49:06 -0500, Janet Wilder
>> <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>>>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What "obvious evidence"
>>>
>>> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
>>> it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
>>> deserves to die?
>>>
>>> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
>>>from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
>>> been waiting for years to see?
>>

>> The idea that anyone is owed such a thing is one of the bits of
>> propaganda.
>
>Are you suggesting that it wasn't Muslims who flew airplanes into the
>Twin Towers in an effort to further their religious bigotry?
>
>And if it was Muslims who engaged in that act of terrorism, why would
>you suggest that the rest of the Muslim world should not denounce the
>act and apologize to the victims for murder committed in their name?

No. I'm suggesting that when any entity tries to use violence to
control another entity a logical expectation is that there will be a
violent response.

It is also worth noting that both Afghanistand and Iraq, as well as
Iran, have a history of folks trying to take over their territory and
being violently rebuffed. In short, we had a chance to help
Afghanistan after we helped toss out the Russians but we screwed it up
by putting Pakistan in the middle. That put us out of favor over
there. We have not really been in favor since maybe WWII, if then, as
we have been at odds with various folks since before the country was
founded. Anyone with half a brain and some knowledge of the people
there know that the best response we will et from them is "goodbye and
good riddance".

[nothe...@not.here]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:28:50 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 07:28:18 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:

>
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:24:32 -0500, Janet Wilder
>><kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/20/2013 9:09 PM, Bruce S wrote:

>>>> On 4/20/2013 12:49 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>>>>>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What "obvious evidence"
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
>>>>> it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
>>>>> deserves to die?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
>>>>> from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
>>>>> been waiting for years to see?
>>>>

>>>> mark is a religious bigot who believes that it is ok for Muslims to
>>>> murder Jews.
>>>>
>>>Evidently!
>>
>>Wrong. But I have no sympathy for Zionists. The only way they can
>>get land is to displace somebody who already has it.
>

>SO, may we assume that you intend to return your land holdings to the
>Seneca people and return to where ever your ancestors came from?
>
>AFAIK, Israel hasn't started many wars, and since their neighbors want
>to eradicate them, and will given the chance, isn't turn about
>considered 'fair play'? And, if not - screw it. Being the winner
>beats being the loser, measured by any metric that I am aware of.
>
>The first spear of the next attack against Israel may be nuclear
>tipped. When that happens I can only hope that Israel can manage to
>eradicate every Muslim, man, woman, and child within 20,000 miles of
>Jerusalem before they stand down. That won't happen, however, one can
>hope.
>
>Overheard from years ago. He slapped you and he will be hospitalized
>for days. Don't you consider that an over reaction? No, I intended
>to stomp him to death and would have if those three guys hadn't pulled
>me off him.
>
>Jerry O.

I suggest you read the history of Israel and their expansion.

[MaxD]

I think it was an agent of the NCAA
No Cats Anywhere in America.

[nothe...@not.here]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:12:10 -0700, "Frank Howell"
<fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:24:32 -0500, Janet Wilder
>> <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 9:09 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2013 12:49 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>>>>>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the
>>>>>> contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What "obvious evidence"
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches
>>>>> that's it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not
>>>>> worship as they do deserves to die?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York
>>>>> Times from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11
>>>>> that I've been waiting for years to see?
>>>>
>>>> mark is a religious bigot who believes that it is ok for Muslims to
>>>> murder Jews.
>>>>
>>> Evidently!
>>
>> Wrong. But I have no sympathy for Zionists. The only way they can
>> get land is to displace somebody who already has it.
>

>So when are you leaving the US and giving back what you stole from the
>American Indians? :-)

As soon as the Amerindian population gets big enough to need it.

If you read your history most were dead of the diseases we traded
after the first landings. That left some room for the early settlers.
After that I am not what you would call happy about how we treated the
earlier settlers. I am also not happy about some of what the current
tribes have done to try to hide evidence of other migrations.

[Bob Hatch]

Based on your last line, don't let your wife look in the freezer.


--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.

[nothe...@not.here]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:21:47 -0500, Janet Wilder
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 4/21/2013 6:28 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:24:32 -0500, Janet Wilder
>> <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 9:09 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2013 12:49 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2013 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> We have a group in this country wth a vested interest in
>>>>>> branding all Muslims as evil despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What "obvious evidence"
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the "evidence" I've seen is that their religion teaches that's
>>>>> it okay to lie to non-Muslims and anyone who does not worship as they do
>>>>> deserves to die?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I miss anything? Like maybe the full page ad in the New York Times
>>>>> from the "peaceful Muslims" who wanted to apologize for 9/11 that I've
>>>>> been waiting for years to see?
>>>>
>>>> mark is a religious bigot who believes that it is ok for Muslims to
>>>> murder Jews.
>>>>
>>> Evidently!
>>
>> Wrong. But I have no sympathy for Zionists. The only way they can
>> get land is to displace somebody who already has it.
>>
>

>Your history is flawed. "Palestinians" didn't have it either.
>Palestinians are Arabs meaning that they originated on teh Arabian
>Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) After the destruction of the Second Temple,
>just about everyone "had" it. In recent history, the Ottoman empire had
>it then the British had it. When the British gave it up, the UN
>partitioned it giving land to the Arabs who had migrated to there over
>the years. Unfortunately for the "Palestinians" their co-religionists
>in Jordan took away the land that the UN gave them to live on.
>
>The land you erroneously assume was "taken" by Zionists was won in wars
>that Israel did not start.
>
>With your thinking, we should probably give the US back to the Indians.
>We have far less legitimate reason for owning the land we stole from the
>original inhabitants than Israel has for keeping the land it won in
>armed conflict that they did not initiate.

I'm not going down this road other than to say that I do not believe
in anybody going anyplace to "take back" land that they have not
controled for many generations. Just because our great ancestors were
stupid we do not need to carry on their evilness.

[nothe...@not.here]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:04:21 -0500, Janet Wilder
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 2:43 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:08:18 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>
>>> You are entitled to your wrong opinion (why would I expect anything
>>> different here than everywhere else).
>>
>> I would find a global caliphate no less onerous than global Papism or
>> global Mormonism or a host of other religions that would all lke to
>> take over the world. The chances are about equal. What I do see is
>> you buying the Zionist propaganda hook, line and sinker
>>
>
>Zionist propaganda??? Have you been living under a rock?


Not all Zionists are Jews. OTOH anyone who supports pushing out the
Palestinians is, by definition, a Zionist.

[Janet Wilder]

That is true about the Amish. I was astounded when I first learned of
it, but their culture doesn't seem to concern itself with issues of
animal cruelty.

[nothe...@not.here]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:07:32 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 12:43 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:08:18 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 11:04 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:46:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2013 6:58 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:39:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 5:57 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:37:55 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hunters conservatives, "I think its an American nut case who is
>>>>>>>>> protesting either abortion or gun control... or just hates the president...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or.... the fact that the marathon was honoring the kids killed in
>>>>>>>>> Newtown, and the resulting anti gun crusades... "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Don's "Tea Party" members, turned out to be Muslim brothers of
>>>>>>>>> Chechen origin with the last name Tsarnaev.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/gunshots-reported-on-mit-campus/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've linked to Fox on purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One is dead, the other on the run, one more police office dead and
>>>>>>>>> another injured during a major firefight last night in Mass. A search
>>>>>>>>> still going on for the live brother.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The liberal wet dream of these guys being right wing individuals dies,
>>>>>>>>> and hopefully the other bomber will as well. I'm watching Fox News right
>>>>>>>>> now and they are filming what appears to be gunfire and explosions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The more I read it was neither Liberal nor Conservative issues. Just
>>>>>>>> stupid alienated loners. It will be interesting if much comes out
>>>>>>>> about what motivated them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are Islamic sympathizers. What do you think motivated them?
>>>>>>> Islamic Jihad, of course. (And that was the assessment of anyone with a
>>>>>>> functioning brain from the first instant after the bomb went off.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's roughly equivalent to saying "all Blacks" or "all Catholics".
>>>>>> Most of the Islamic world is pretty quiet. We only hear about a small
>>>>>> part of the world that has some legitomate issues and some wacko
>>>>>> attitudes that have little to do with the religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my belief that EVERY Islamist in the world is a radical
>>>>> sympathizer until they ACTIVELY work against the jihadists out there.
>>>>> Sitting around doing nothing is evidence that they support the cause.
>>>>
>>>> If it comes to supporting "the cause" it all depends on what "the
>>>> cause" is.
>>>
>>> When it comes to radical Islam there is only one cause - global caliphate.
>>>
>>>> That still does not make it any different that "all Catholics" or "all
>>>> Blacks".

>>>
>>> You are entitled to your wrong opinion (why would I expect anything
>>> different here than everywhere else).
>>
>> I would find a global caliphate no less onerous than global Papism or
>> global Mormonism or a host of other religions that would all lke to
>> take over the world. The chances are about equal. What I do see is
>> you buying the Zionist propaganda hook, line and sinker
>

>Are you suggesting that the last 25 years (or more) of global Islamic
>terrorism is "Zionist propaganda"?

I'm suggesting that the last 50 years of problems from the Moslem
world over the way we deal with folks in the middle east is earned
retribution. Piss on somebody and they think about how to get even.


>
>And the difference between other religions looking to expand worldwide
>and Islam's attempt to create a global caliphate is that Islam is the
>only one using terrorism to achieve the goal.

If you believe that you are stupider and denser than you have ever
accused me of being.

[Janet Wilder]

Kudos for having had them fixed. Sorry they are missing. If they don't
turn up you might consider going to the local shelter and adopting a few
kittens who need a loving home.