Oslo Explosion - Page 6

Yes. Completely.

1. Abstinence.
2. Barrier method.
3. Oral contraceptives.
4. Surgery
5. Rhythm method.
6. Morning after pill.

All of those methods are promoted as alternatives to abortion. Abortion is not "promoted" as any method of birth control. Abortion is a terrible thing for any woman to go through, so the thing that is promoted on the left is to avoid it at all costs by not getting pregnant in the first place. The belief not only that teaching our kids not to have sex will keep them from having sex (Palin), but that all parents and schools can teach this equally well is complete and utter idiocy. This is why there are more abortions per capita in Texas than in California.

Abortion is only ever seen as a worst case scenario, available by women's choice if necessary if everything else goes wrong. The best way to avoid it is to have all the other options available. Not to close your eyes and pretend your kids aren't having sex.

The US right wing, and the corporate media kneepad drones who answer to them, are really spinning the terminology.

If the person who killed 80 or so people in Norway was a Muslim, the Press would have declared him as a terrorist. For now though, he is just an 'assailant', 'attacker' (Reuters), 'gunman' (BBC, CNN & Al Jazeera).

The US State Department calls it an 'Act of Violence', Not an 'Act of Terrorism'. Well, well.

Looks like the term 'Terrorist ' is reserved for Muslims and Arabs? Is AIPAC (etc) *that* influential? I guess so.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168986.htm

The word "violence" is used specifically three times in the short statement. Violence is the preferred term often referred to in cases of, for example, soccer hooliganism, fist fights and "enthusiastic street protests".

*

http://norway.usembassy.gov/#
The word "violence" is used to describe the recent terrorist attack.

*

NO mention of "terrorism" specifically with the recent events in Norway:
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/

*

NO mention of terrorism here either:
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/sit...in_oslo_norway

*

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/...-violence.html
No mention of "terrorism" from US State Dept. spokesperson Heide Bronke.

Now, imagine if the bomber/shooter had been Palestinian or Iranian? Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, TERRORISM, terrorism. T e r r o r i s m, TERRORISM. TERRORISM

and even terrorism

The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.

You know, until your last paragraph you made some interesting points. Then you wandered into...

Well, perhaps the main reason why, for you, that last statement of mine is a is on account of political correctness? Just wondering.

I think we all know that there has been a long running, decades-long state of friction/lack of cordiality/war/skirmishes/attacks between Israel and neighboring Arab states, and this has escalated into the "Jew-vs-Muslim" awareness of many people. It is also well known that some of the most powerful and influential lobbies in Washington DC are Israeli activists. It is also well-known that the "war on terrorism", which originated on the evening of the 9/11 attacks, was a concerted effort against *Islamic* terrorism, specifically.

It is also well known that an extraordinary proportion of the senior members of the (Bush) administration happened to be dual US-Israeli citizens, and although many of these people are not working within the Executive Branch, they are still working behind the scenes exerting influence. Not a word on the mainstream media was ever mentioned about this strange state of affairs. And coming to think about it... imagine if a US administration happened to be loaded to the rafters with dual US-Bolivian citizens, for example? Would it not come across as somewhat odd, which people would question as being "not kosher"? To which nation do dual-citizens, in positions of political power, have the most allegiance?

Political correctness re. these issues can be a very powerful gagging device, knowing how quickly people regurgitate "anti-Semitic" slurs at the slightest opportunity.

No Sammi. I have to disagree here. You have some weird ideas, but this one has to take the cake. Israel tells the US what to do. And I suppose Jews control the media too? And the banks? That is why this power exists over the nation? And why the powerful nation of Israel can make our leaders cower in fear?

No.

The answers will surprise you.


-Trumptman.


-Anders


-Trumptman (yes, really)


-Trumptman

Now besides trying to conflate my views with those of a rampaging murder, which of those statements (and the broader statements you've selected them from) do you actually dispute?

Do you dispute the birthrate in Spain is 1.2 children per couple? Do you dispute the birthrate of incoming Islamic immigrants is minimum of 2.4.

Shouldn't something be factually wrong rather than just attempting guilt by association?


I'm not concerned about it in the United States because our primary source of immigration both legal and illegal is from Mexico and Latin America. Long term I consider the United States in a much better position than Europe because of this due to better cultural compatibility with the existing legal, social and financial systems in place.


Well let's just say there are reasons Mumbo won't link to the source material. It was much broader and went into many more details than the quotes here.

That's nice, trumptman.

You have exactly the same beliefs as a "conservative nationalist" who massacred 68 young men and women in his fight to prevent Europe being Islamicised.

How does that feel?

Exactly the same? If he had exactly the same he would be on the news right now.

Glad that nobody continues trying to make political points off of this situation.

Interesting that there is no outcry from Hands on this topic when there were over 60 Murdered and a comparison is made directly to a person on this board calling the beliefs equal but when I do something that was seen by him as similar I am hateful and should be banned for it. Here, he plays along and answers the questions happily.

Hypocrisy is alive and well it seems.

Facts are not beliefs. I was stating facts. There were also a few conclusions based off those facts. I asked if you disputed the facts. Forward looking conclusions can always be disputed of course but drawing the same conclusion doesn't mean anyone is going to massacre someone. You are welcome to show anywhere where I have posted to take the same actions that person did.

I could you the day of the week., the month of the year, the planet on which you reside. If you give the same faction answers as Hitler, does that make you Hitler?

That is the guilt by associate you have attempted here. It is a logical flaw. I laughed at your assertion and had some fun with it because that is all you can do with pure nonsense.

Nation A has a government in which a significant proportion of its senior officials are also citizens of Nation B. You're telling us that B will not use it's status in the government of A to modify, direct, or even formulate its policies, to the advantage of B? It's not a case of "Israel telling the US what to do" ... Israeli interests are so deeply embedded within the US policy-making process that (Israel) doesn't have to "tell the US what to do".

Perhaps by mentioning this, I broke a taboo: We are dealing with a "special case nation" which is immune to any and every criticism in the US.


Here is a very common type of misstatement, used to mischaracterize an argument. No. It is not "the Jews" who control the media. Out of the millions of Jewish people in the US, the huge, vast, overwhelming majority have nothing to do with the media. However, the boards of directors of all the big media companies, Hollywood, etc. do have a considerable membership of Jewish people. There's nothing wrong with that... in fact it shows the resourcefulness and talents of the Jewish people to get to the top in so many fields ... perhaps centuries of persecution, to a degree unparalleled by any culture/creed has honed the survival instincts, as a community? If this is the case, why so much effort at hiding it, or not taking credit?


Likewise.


"Cower in fear" while enjoying a session of mutual masturbation? Hardly.

tonton...there is only one way to say this: You are absolutely, totally wrong. There are many people that have had abortions in the double digits. There are groups that think ANY restriction on abortion means abortion rights are eroding. Now, if you're talking about what is publicly promoted by mainstream groups, I agree.

Here is your post.
The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.
Try not to wander off your own message. It was fairly clear, unless you are saying that you misspoke and really intended to say something else.


Based on your first statement I wanted to clear up how this would work exactly. Israel does enjoy a protected status from the US. However, I don't believe that every policy regarding terrorism or security that is implemented revolves around them.

Haha!!!! First of all, we were never talking about individual choices in this debate. We were only ever talking about agenda. Your exact claim is that there are people on the left who promote abortion as birth control. You do know what "promote" means, right?

But what's LMFAO worthy is when you say "You're totally 100% wrong, but part of what you say is right." Never mind that the "part" you're talking about is 100% of what was on topic (agenda).

[SDW]YOU'RE WRONG tonton! WRONG WRONG WRONG![/SDW]

If you read my post, I did say... "more likely, reminded by...". Then perhaps I might have been even more specific, adding "more likely reminded by Israeli interests within the US government", as opposed to "Israel" itself. There is a huge difference between the state and people of Israel, and those who speak and act for it... (as there is with any nation)


Well, thats arguable. Every US policy regarding terrorism doesn't as much "revolve around Israel", but most definitely *does*, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent years, revolve around the religion of Islam, those who practice it, and Arabs. But since the Islamic faith, its adherents and Arabs are Israel's common enemy, then by extension one could say that the US government's policies on terrorism most certainly revolve around Israel. And since statistics indicate that Islamic terrorism, although a tangible threat, represents but a small proportion (<6%) of all terrorism cases, that further tells us that the 'war on terrorism', as pursued by successive US administrations from both (major) parties, is bogus: it *appears* on all counts to be more an agenda, with the mainstream media is full compliance to frame Islam and Arabs as a boogeyman, and an excuse to go to war against entire nations, than a genuine effort at preventing terrorism.

As an example which illustrates the absurdity of the situation with the so-called 'war on terrorism": The US went to war in Afghanistan, in the words of President George W. Bush, to "get Osama bin Laden". One man. The final words rom the White House, before the bombs started raining down, was: "We gave the Taliban a chance to hand him over and they refused". That, however, was an outright lie: the reality of this episode was that the Taliban was given an ultimatum to arrest bin Laden on account of the 9/11 attacks.. the they responded.. "give us your evidence that he was involved, and we'll get him". No response was forthcoming from the White House... as if it ever would. The Afghanistan war was already a done deal... but here we were sold the story that the US and an international coalition force attacked a sovereign nation to "get Osama bin Laden for 9/11", despite the fact that the FBI didn't want him for 9/11, and the Justice Department never indicted him for 9/11. So it looks as if the Taliban were essentially correct.... don't get me wrong... the Taliban IMHO are a bunch of fvckheads of the worst order.

And now we have one of the most vicious terrorist attacks in the last decade, targeting of all people, mostly defenseless kids who were sitting targets in the water desperately trying to swim to safety.. and the State Department carefully downgrades the atrocity to a "crime committed by a gunman". There's thousands of "crimes committed by gunmen" in the US every month, and presumably because this particularly heinous attack was carried out by a non-Muslim, or even more to the point, someone who hates Islam, to classify him as a "terrorist" is regarded as so far off message that a certain amount of damage control happened at State. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they were deciding on the 'language' of the response.

Excellent and reality based article here. Finally, someone in the media, albeit the mainstream alternative media, has the guts to tell the truth.

To quote:

Many of the American writers who influenced Breivik spent years churning out calls for the mass murder of Muslims, Palestinians and their left-wing Western supporters. But the sort of terrorism these US-based rightists incited for was not the style the Norwegian killer would eventually adopt. Instead of Breivik's renegade free-booting, they preferred the "shock and awe" brand of state terror perfected by Western armies against the brown hordes threatening to impose Sharia law on the people in Peoria. This kind of violence provides a righteous satisfaction so powerful it can be experienced from thousands of miles away.

And so most American Islamophobes simply sit back from the comfort of their homes and cheer as American and Israeli troops -- and their remote-controlled aerial drones -- leave a trail of charred bodies from Waziristan to Gaza City. Only a select group of able-bodied Islamophobes are willing to suit up in a uniform and rush to the front lines of the clash of civilizations. There, they have discovered that they can mow down Muslim non-combatants without much fear of legal consequences, and that when they return, they will be celebrated as the elite Crusader-warriors of the new Islamophobic right -- a few particularly violent figures have been rewarded with seats in Congress. Given the variety of culturally acceptable, officially approved outlets for venting violent anti-Muslim resentment, there is little reason for any American to follow in Breivik's path of infamy.

And don't forget. McVeigh was a christian. I sure hope no one builds a church near the Murrah building.

I forget. The Crusades were such a long time ago. Do Christians have a history of erecting 'victory churches' on the sites of contested battlegrounds?

Whichever side you are on the GZ mosque debate, you can at least acknowledge that the issue isn't that of just erecting a random house of worship near a blast site.

And atheists are the rude, immoral ones. Yeesh.

As I understand it, the people who are objecting to the GZ mosque building are concerned that its placement will be used by some as a traditional islamic 'victory mosque' which celebrates great military triumphs over the enemies of Islam.

Is that incorrect?

I see no similarity to someone erecting a church next to the Murrah building, unless its a particular Christian denomination that would celebrate such a terrorist disaster as doing God's work (and I'm not aware of any that currently do that.)

Is it incorrect that some people hold ignorant, bigoted, terrible beliefs? Is it incorrect that some people have ulterior motives, are hypocritical, and hold all other minorities to double standards? I guess since that's what you're asking, I have to say no. It's not incorrect.

You're getting more incoherent by the post. Even the new sig is crazier than ever.

Did anyone here actually claim that the steel cross was divinely inspired, or just that a segment of the population claimed it as a reminder of faith amidst a great tragedy?