this took place in Dearborn Mich. A very highly populated Islamic presence there, and this shootout was not about robbing the local liquor store. It was about gearing up for a massive terrorist activities. No difference I am sure, in your eyes.Mekstizzle wrote:
Even regular Americans have crazy shootouts with the authorities no shit a radical Muslim will eventually have one
The difference is the scope and the motives.SEREMAKER wrote:
if I do my math correctly .......... ( carry the 2 .... add 4 ........ divide by 0 )
theres has been quite a few headlines of certain ppl that just happen to believe in a certain religion
http://www.smbmarketingguide.com/wp-con … inking.jpg
It's because people like Lowing get off on it. There used to be articles and headlines about supposed socialists and commies running amok and covertly meeting back in the '50s. Usual media scare-mongering and playing up the fear to make money. You either recognize it for what it is or you go crazy pointing and shouting, "see I told you so."SEREMAKER wrote:
if I do my math correctly .......... ( carry the 2 .... add 4 ........ divide by 0 )
theres has been quite a few headlines of certain ppl that just happen to believe in a certain religion
http://www.smbmarketingguide.com/wp-con … inking.jpg
wait a min. ...... is your post toward me or for the threadlowing wrote:
The difference is the scope and the motives.SEREMAKER wrote:
if I do my math correctly .......... ( carry the 2 .... add 4 ........ divide by 0 )
theres has been quite a few headlines of certain ppl that just happen to believe in a certain religion
http://www.smbmarketingguide.com/wp-con … inking.jpg
Sorry if you do not believe that killing terrorists in America is big news, or strange news if a father runs over his daughter for the offense of becoming westernized.
the thread, sorry I didn't make that clearSEREMAKER wrote:
wait a min. ...... is your post toward me or for the threadlowing wrote:
The difference is the scope and the motives.SEREMAKER wrote:
if I do my math correctly .......... ( carry the 2 .... add 4 ........ divide by 0 )
theres has been quite a few headlines of certain ppl that just happen to believe in a certain religion
http://www.smbmarketingguide.com/wp-con … inking.jpg
Sorry if you do not believe that killing terrorists in America is big news, or strange news if a father runs over his daughter for the offense of becoming westernized.
oh oklowing wrote:
the thread, sorry I didn't make that clearSEREMAKER wrote:
wait a min. ...... is your post toward me or for the threadlowing wrote:
The difference is the scope and the motives.
Sorry if you do not believe that killing terrorists in America is big news, or strange news if a father runs over his daughter for the offense of becoming westernized.
Unfortunately, the rise in Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism is a reality and not paranoia. The media favors Obama if you deny this you are the one not facing reality.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's because people like Lowing get off on it. There used to be articles and headlines about supposed socialists and commies running amok and covertly meeting back in the '50s. Usual media scare-mongering and playing up the fear to make money. You either recognize it for what it is or you go crazy pointing and shouting, "see I told you so."SEREMAKER wrote:
if I do my math correctly .......... ( carry the 2 .... add 4 ........ divide by 0 )
theres has been quite a few headlines of certain ppl that just happen to believe in a certain religion
http://www.smbmarketingguide.com/wp-con … inking.jpg
Liberals appease terrorists and liberals run the media. This must be some sort of ass-backward way the media is trying to appease terrorists.
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-29 14:22:32)
"The rise in terrorism is a reality (widely attributed to US action in the MidEast by terrorism experts" <------which stems form terrorist attacks all over hte world before we went to the ME.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The rise in terrorism is a reality (widely attributed to US action in the MidEast by terrorism experts. Yes, even the ones in the CIA). Islam isn't taking over, you still are more likely to die by car accident or slipping in the shower than a terrorist attack. The paranoia comes in when people see these news stories as evidence of Islam's inherent danger and violence, and how terrorism is sending Americans into widespread panic. You are being led and fed by the mainstream media - that's your bad, not mine.
The media favors Obama...what a great argument. If you are saying that Obama is seen in a more positive light than Bush, yes, that is true. Nothing really tangible to tie that to - it is what it is. Stop complaining and don't read/watch the news if you have a problem. There are so many "news" outlets that you easily can find one that suits your viewpoint.
Liberals wanted Bush to fail...and you go on and on about how Obama fails. So we could say conservatives want Obama to fail. Wow, congratulations, you have passed your first test in Partisan Politics 101. Next chapter - how the two heads of the same dragon play against each other to bolster their dualistic power over the general public.
Its a vicious cycle (the terrorism/action/terrorism). Why do we continue to meddle if it creates more terrorism? We are fighting a War on Terror, but the result is more terrorism. Seems to be pointless.lowing wrote:
"The rise in terrorism is a reality (widely attributed to US action in the MidEast by terrorism experts" <------which stems form terrorist attacks all over hte world before we went to the ME.
Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the media. He is able to load his audiances and questions asked of him. Hei s unxhecked by any media outlet less Fox News.
Liberals wanted Bush to fail at the expense of the American soldier fighting for their country. If you think this is akin to wanting Obama to fail at govt. control over the auto industry then you would be blind.
no such thing imoKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
terrorism experts
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-10-30 02:56:27)
We were not in the ME uninvited on 911, and we wouldn't be in Afghanistan now if not for it. Iraq, who knows.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Its a vicious cycle (the terrorism/action/terrorism). Why do we continue to meddle if it creates more terrorism? We are fighting a War on Terror, but the result is more terrorism. Seems to be pointless.lowing wrote:
"The rise in terrorism is a reality (widely attributed to US action in the MidEast by terrorism experts" <------which stems form terrorist attacks all over hte world before we went to the ME.
Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the media. He is able to load his audiances and questions asked of him. Hei s unxhecked by any media outlet less Fox News.
Liberals wanted Bush to fail at the expense of the American soldier fighting for their country. If you think this is akin to wanting Obama to fail at govt. control over the auto industry then you would be blind.
Presidents load audiences and vet questions. Presidents deny press passes. It's not a new phenomena. I don't agree with it either, but I understand that it's not something Obama implemented.
"Liberals wanted Bush to fail at the expense of the American....blah blah blah." Knee-jerk emotive response much? An argument like that doesn't deserve a response.
I have little problem with the FBI shooting dead someone that was shooting at them. It's irrelevant to me the allegations of terror. Bottom line is that this dumbass fired on federal authorities.
No, what is creating more terrorism is the audacity we have to actually stand up against it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Are you disputing that our action in the Middle East is creating more terrorism? Maybe Terrorism Experts is the wrong term...how about Terrorism Analysts?
Like I said and you chose ( wisely) to let go, big difference between wanting Obama to fail with his socialist agenda, and wanting Bush to fail fighting a war at the expense of the American service man.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Presidents lie. All the time. Maybe it's your bad for falling for the "transparency" platform. Obama isn't the first and he won't be the last. It's not just liberals that are hypocrites - all of them are. I really don't think you fell for his empty promises; I think you were chomping at the bit to say, "see, I told you so" (something you seem to call out 'liberals' for doing to GWB).
In my world, shooting at an FBI agent is enough to warrant being shot and killed. The suspect could have been a pastor at a church - he shot at federal authorities, bottom line.
Context, learn it, love it, live it.
I don't choose to let it go - it's part of a larger problem I have with politicians in the US - they lie, cheat, are morally bankrupt, the list goes on. The dominant political parties are great at playing off each other, vilifying each other to the extent they play their constituencies against one another enough that many do not see that they are of the same cloth. I don't like either party (Democrat or Republican), and I don't like the majority of politicians in either parties.lowing wrote:
Like I said and you chose ( wisely) to let go, big difference between wanting Obama to fail with his socialist agenda, and wanting Bush to fail fighting a war at the expense of the American service man.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Presidents lie. All the time. Maybe it's your bad for falling for the "transparency" platform. Obama isn't the first and he won't be the last. It's not just liberals that are hypocrites - all of them are. I really don't think you fell for his empty promises; I think you were chomping at the bit to say, "see, I told you so" (something you seem to call out 'liberals' for doing to GWB).
In my world, shooting at an FBI agent is enough to warrant being shot and killed. The suspect could have been a pastor at a church - he shot at federal authorities, bottom line.
Context, learn it, love it, live it.
mine to, what is your point? This guy was killed plotting destruction on American soil sorry if your "context" does not deem this relevant. It is.
Also relevant, thatyou chose to ignore is the roll that the Patriot Act might have played in finding this dipshit.
