Targeting Muslims, just a new Red Scare

[hot enough]

22 minutes ago, Boges said:

Most people provide links to claims they cite. 

Although all US war crimes and terrorist acts of of great importance, let's just start with the 4 million murdered Muslims since 1990, described by the US Physicians for Social Responsibility.

If this doesn't put an end to all the silly suggestions that we poor westerners are living in such dangerous times, threatened as we are by the Muslim hordes, I don't know what will.

Red Scare - it's deja vu all over again.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Hitler was a conservative too. Very very conservative, like Paul Ryan, Jesse Helms, Billy Graham the war criminal,

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim il Sung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, nice list of heroes on your side.

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

A typical cowardly conservative meme. Professor Leroy Hulsey isn't on the fringes; he says, categorically, that there is zero chance that the NIST report on WTC7 is true. As a discerning conservative, you would have to understand the implications of that.

Do you think I give a damn what a loony says, regardless of his professed political affiliation?

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Is the cognitive dissonance once again roiling your brain?

No, just boredom at the brainless fringe leftism I've seen all too often before.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Pol Pot

You, as usual, do not know what you are talking about, Argus. Befuddled by a lifetime of conservative brainwashing.

Quote

4. Khmer Rouge: “How many people did (Khmer Rouge Foreign Minister Ieng Sary) kill? Tens of thousands? You should tell the Cambodians (i.e., Khmer Rouge) that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in the way. We are prepared to improve relations with them. Tell them the latter part, but don’t tell them what I said before.” (Nov. 26, 1975 meeting with Thai foreign minister)

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/the_10_most_ghoulish_quotes_of_henry_kissingers_monstrous_partner/

 

[Argus]

Just now, hot enough said:

You, as usual, do not know what you are talking about, Argus. Befuddled by a lifetime of conservative brainwashing.

Or calm logic. I'm not sure what your reply is all about. You've taken one of the names I posted and apparently sited something which had Kissinger say they were prepared to deal with them. So? I'm not a fan of Kissinger. And Kissinger's likes or dislikes are not of interest to me. Instead of telling me why Kissinger was willing to befriend them why don't you tell me why you admire Stalin and Mao?

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you think I give a damn what a loony says, regardless of his professed political affiliation?

You know absolutely nothing about the man, his profession, his study, his religion, his anything. Talk about jumping to crazy conclusions.

Who is the loony?

[kactus]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Maybe more posters would be inclined to discuss this with you if you weren't foaming at the mouth with hatred, and responded to the points being made, without the barrage of snark and insults.

Just a suggestion.

A bit of balanced argument would help in any discussion....Otherwise there would be no difference between you and those silent posters who tacitly approve extremism and hatred against another being muslim, christian etc.....

Edited March 29, 2017 by kactus

[Argus]

Just now, hot enough said:

You know absolutely nothing about the man, his profession, his study, his religion, his anything. Talk about jumping to crazy conclusions.

Who is the loony?

Anyone who is a 9/11 truther is a loony. End of story.

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Instead of telling me why Kissinger was willing to befriend them why don't you tell me why you admire Stalin and Mao?

Another of your famous leaps of logic, Argus. How many more are there? 

You don't like the murderous conservative Kissinger. How about the murderous conservative Nixon? Reagan? Ford? Bush? Bush? Eisenhower? 

[Argus]

Just now, hot enough said:

Another of your famous leaps of logic, Argus. How many more are there? 

Well, anyone who believes in an international Zionist elite controlling our media and banks would also qualify as pretty loony.

 

Just now, hot enough said:

You don't like the murderous conservative Kissinger. How about the murderous conservative Nixon? Reagan? Ford? Bush? Bush? Eisenhower? 

Wasn't a fan of any of them, to be absolutely honest.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Anyone who is a 9/11 truther is a loony

Take it to 

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26612-why-all-the-worldwide-turmoil/

and we can discuss why you are petrified of discussing science.

[Altai]

42 minutes ago, Boges said:

Most people provide links to claims they cite. 

Hiii 

 

"Let me describe briefly what happened. There were 114,000 separate aerial sorties in 42 days. That’s one every 30 seconds. 88,000 tons of bombs were dropped.

Only 7% of the bombs that fell upon Iraq were guided. 93% were free falling bombs that hit where chance, necessity and no free will took them. There were 38 aircraft lost by the United States in this slaughter. That number is less than the number of accidental losses in war games where no live ammunition is even used. No enemy aircraft rose to meet them, we know that, and no enemy anti-aircraft could reach them. And those who were there at the time know that.

The United States claims to have lost 148 people. It concedes that the majority were from accident and friendly fire. There was not a single US tank penetrated by an Iraqi missile. There was not a single B52 downed by enemy fire. We had planes fly from Berksdale, Louisiana without ever touching the ground and return to Berksdale, Louisiana, having killed thousands of people on the ground they never saw. And one of those facts of the enemy of truth was television telling us about the surgical strikes and nobody gets hurt: we just turn the lights out.

We used fuel air explosives, and it incinerates people and it crushes people, and we used it against civilians and military personnel. We had missiles fired from submarines in the Eastern Mediterranean for sport – just to see how they worked. We had Tomahawk cruise missiles by the hundred, launched from the Persian Gulf. A couple of thousand miles from the places that they hit – totally out of range. We put a couple of old fashioned battle ships up there and dumped 2.1 million pounds of hot metal on Southern Iraq, around Basra, killing people with impunity. You remember General Kelly announced before the beginning of the so called ground war….. but there was no ground war, name one battle, there wasn’t a battle: there was a slaughter. General Kelly said, when the troops finally moved forward, "They’re not many of them left alive to fight." And finally we learn that bulldozers and tanks with ploughs on the front, came in and buried thousands – dead, wounded and living.

The Geneva Convention – written in the blood of the millions and millions of people who died in World War II – and the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff of the United States army, when asked how many casualties he thought we had inflicted on Iraqi military and civilians said: "Frankly, that’s not a figure I’m very much interested in." [1] Forty eight hours after the cease fire, on the direct order of General Schwarzkopf as we know, major assaults occurred that took thousands of more lives. We killed at least 125,000 soldiers. WE HAVE KILLED TO DATE MORE THAN 130.000 CIVILIANS, WE KILLED AS MANY AS WE DARED."

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~gw/churchscript.htm
 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, anyone who believes in an international Zionist elite controlling our media and banks would also qualify as pretty loony.

How many of your nutty responses can we expect from a guy who constantly whines about people being off topic just to divert attention away from issues you are too frightened to address. 

conservatives ??

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Wasn't a fan of any of them, to be absolutely honest.

Who are your favorite murderous conservatives? Harper? Mulroney?

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

How many of your nutty responses can we expect from a guy who constantly whines about people being off topic just to divert attention away from issues you are too frightened to address.

So far everything I've posted is in answer to questions you've asked.

Anyone here, left or right, would tell you there are no issues I'm afraid to address. But everything you raise in your rants has been raised here before by other people on the fringes of the far left, and since it has zero credibility I don't feel much need to point out the lack of logic and just plain silliness.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Who are your favorite murderous conservatives? Harper? Mulroney?

If you're looking for someone who admires politicians you're addressing the wrong boy.

 

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

and since it has zero credibility

You illustrate, constantly, that you are in no position to determine that. What little you posted had nothing to do with science; it never does. You are woefully ignorant of the science issues surrounding 911, as are all your little cohorts. 

conservatives???

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

If you're looking for someone who admires politicians you're addressing the wrong boy.

 

You just can't seem to find a murderous conservative politician to love. But you state proudly you belong to a murderous party.

[Argus]

Just now, hot enough said:

You illustrate, constantly, that you are in no position to determine that. What little you posted had nothing to do with science; it never does. You are woefully ignorant of the science issues surrounding 911, as are all your little cohorts.

Been there, done that. I've simply given up trying to have a coherent or rational discussion on the 9/11 issue with truthers. Regardless of what point I address and destroy you will not be deterred, but will immediately jump to another, and another, and another, and another, and then back to the first as if it hadn't already been left crushed, broken and bleeding on the floor. I've been here a while. 9/11 truthers bore me.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You just can't seem to find a murderous conservative politician to love. But you state proudly you belong to a murderous party.

Calling Canadian Conservatives murderous is kind of laughable, you know. But as I've said many times, I simply support the least worst. Right now that's the Tories.

 

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Calling Canadian Conservatives murderous is kind of laughable, you know. But as I've said many times, I simply support the least worst. Right now that's the Tories.

Mackenzie King was a Nazi dontcha know. 

[Argus]

Just now, Boges said:

Mackenzie King was a Nazi dontcha know. 

Well, you know those Liberals.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Calling Canadian Conservatives murderous is kind of laughable, you know.

When one supports murderers, what else can they called?

[Michael Hardner]

Folks: I'm not up to date on many of these threads, but I see people being called "brainwashed" and "loony" which are both insults.

Do not respond to insults, report them and move on.  I'm also dismayed by the extreme level of thread drift, so I will be warning people about that moving forward.

Thanks

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

When one supports murderers, what else can they called?

Calling the tories murderers is silly hyperbole.

[kactus]

Getting into labelling people you don't agree with as 'liberals' is quite lame and just a lazy way to get away with an argument....

The problem with this forum is that it no one wants to concede when they are wrong despite being provided with ample of evidence then you can never change that opinion. I sometimes had to retract against someone who was very conservative in their political ideology just because I felt they had a point so I had to retracted my stance. It just seems that some posters here want to argue for the sake of arguing because they are so biased that are blinded from rationality.

Edited March 29, 2017 by kactus