Muslim Woman Competes in Weightlifting

Off Topic
361

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
The Quran is very much against offensive wars.
[/quote]

Which works quite well when you claim a need to defend against everything that you disagree with or don’t like.

“Hey, it was just self-defense when we flew those planes into those buildings!”

Everywhere Muslims go, they seem to find things that they need to “defend” themselves against, huh?

Hell, they even have to defend against other Muslims, it seems, given how often they kill each other (not to mention oppress each other) on religous grounds.[/quote]

Yeah well, that is of course something that only Muslims do.

[/quote]

Yep.

Pretty much, if we’re talking religion-based killing on a global scale.[/quote]

I like it how you cling to the religion bit, because not non muslims have ever killed for similar mass delusions.

Lets see, we had wars during the reformation, not quite global but extraordinairily bloody, than we did nationalism which was also fun, then we invented fascism and socialism and apparently decided that little shism with a healthy dose of both, but not before several hundred million died, we even exported it to all continents so those people could kill each other too.

Right now it is in the name of freedom and democracy, as if peoples life would suddenly be better if they could perform the magic ritual of voting.

Also, very, very bloody.
[/quote]

All of those have been criticized and condemned over and over for those reasons, including by you.

But because they took place, we’re now supposed to give Islam a pass?

Why aren’t YOU condemning Islam, if it’s as bad as what you list?[/quote]

Because they basically fuck up their own lifes and the pathethic little resitance they can put up against Western aggression is mostly directed against occupiers and those incidents where they were actually able to cause mayhem outside of the Middle East the numbers are insignificant.

You are much more likely to die in your bathtub than being killed by a terrorist, yet noone has called a war on bathtubs, including wars, Patriot act, monitoring of bank accounts, Guantanamo, torture and whatnot.

Terrorism is a non issue, the reaction to this nonissue by Western nations is a catastrophe and meek acceptance of it by their peoples is the only positive fact in all of this because at least we know for a fact that they deserve what they have coming.[/quote]

Not your best argument. Bathtubs did not activily attack anyone, terrorists did. By your logic Pearl Harbor was a non-event as it only killet ~60 civilians, and only ~2900 total. I take that back, your’s was a downright stupid argument.
[/quote]

Nonsense, Japan had a fully functional army and that was only the beginning.

The people you think of have AK 47 they tinkered together in their 12th century style smithies and homemade IEDs.

[/quote]

They attacked US soil and killed ~2800 unarmed civilians, dumbass.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Once.

Like, ever.

From 2000-2010 22000 people just slipped and died, 13000 fell from a chair and died, 300000-400000 were killed in a car crash, around 2000 children died in swimming pools, aspirin killed around 3000-4000, cigarettes a few million.

Moral of the story:

Stop smoking, fasten your seatbealt, teach your kids how to swim and dont worry about them A-rabs.

362

[quote]gregron wrote:
MODS can you please move this piece of shit thread over to PWI. It is obviously not a GAL thread.[/quote]

Bashing Muslims is not political, bashing public hysteria is?

Interesting.

Compartmentalization FTW.

363

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…and those incidents where they were actually able to cause mayhem outside of the Middle East the numbers are insignificant.
[/quote]

The 9/11 attacks were “insignificant?”
The multiple bombings in Londons underground were “insignificant?”
The amsterdam born filmmaker who was murdered was “insignificant?”
The multiple train bombings in Spain were “insignificant?”
The attack on the USS Cole was “insignificant?”
The united states embassy were “insignificant?”
The Air France flight being hijacked was “insignificant?”
The WTC bombing in 93 was “insignificant?”
Pan Am flight 103 was “insignificant?”
Ect…

The 9/11 attacks were “a non issue?”
The multiple bombings in Londons underground were “a non issue?”
The amsterdam born filmmaker who was murdered was “a non issue?”
The multiple train bombings in Spain were “a non issue?”
The attack on the USS Cole was “a non issue?”
The united states embassy were “a non issue?”
The Air France flight being hijacked was “a non issue?”
The WTC bombing in 93 was “a non issue?”
Pan Am flight 103 was “a non issue?”
Ect…[/quote]

Yes, they were.

That they were hyped up to be big media events is another matter, but practically speaking the chances of you dying in a terrorist attack are as close to zero as to make no difference.

[/quote]

I worked 6 blocks from the TWC in 2001. This whole time I thought that it was a significant event in my life. I guess I was wrong. I’ll tell my best friends sister who barely made it out of the tower as well that she can just get over it too since it wasn’t very significant. I basically worked on the same block as the NYSE, no risk for a terrorist attack there either right?

It was all hype. Thanks for setting me straight.
[/quote]

Yes, Orion knows all about the WTC being in Austria. He’s proven a new low in his “humanity”.

364

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…and those incidents where they were actually able to cause mayhem outside of the Middle East the numbers are insignificant.
[/quote]

The 9/11 attacks were “insignificant?”
The multiple bombings in Londons underground were “insignificant?”
The amsterdam born filmmaker who was murdered was “insignificant?”
The multiple train bombings in Spain were “insignificant?”
The attack on the USS Cole was “insignificant?”
The united states embassy were “insignificant?”
The Air France flight being hijacked was “insignificant?”
The WTC bombing in 93 was “insignificant?”
Pan Am flight 103 was “insignificant?”
Ect…

The 9/11 attacks were “a non issue?”
The multiple bombings in Londons underground were “a non issue?”
The amsterdam born filmmaker who was murdered was “a non issue?”
The multiple train bombings in Spain were “a non issue?”
The attack on the USS Cole was “a non issue?”
The united states embassy were “a non issue?”
The Air France flight being hijacked was “a non issue?”
The WTC bombing in 93 was “a non issue?”
Pan Am flight 103 was “a non issue?”
Ect…[/quote]

Yes, they were.

That they were hyped up to be big media events is another matter, but practically speaking the chances of you dying in a terrorist attack are as close to zero as to make no difference.

[/quote]

I worked 6 blocks from the TWC in 2001. This whole time I thought that it was a significant event in my life. I guess I was wrong. I’ll tell my best friends sister who barely made it out of the tower as well that she can just get over it too since it wasn’t very significant. I basically worked on the same block as the NYSE, no risk for a terrorist attack there either right?

It was all hype. Thanks for setting me straight.
[/quote]

Yes, Orion knows all about the WTC being in Austria. He’s proven a new low in his “humanity”.
[/quote]

Getting all touchy and feely all of a sudden you big, bad conservative you?

Making laws for 300 million people because of your gut feelings is a horrible idea, but then you already know that.

Most of the time.

365

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
They attacked US soil and killed ~2800 unarmed civilians, dumbass.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Once.

Like, ever.

From 2000-2010 22000 people just slipped and died, 13000 fell from a chair and died, 300000-400000 were killed in a car crash, around 2000 children died in swimming pools, aspirin killed around 3000-4000, cigarettes a few million.

Moral of the story:

Stop smoking, fasten your seatbealt, teach your kids how to swim and dont worry about them A-rabs.

[/quote]
You obviously aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between an accident and an attack, and therefore not intelligent enough to discuss this subject.

366

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
They attacked US soil and killed ~2800 unarmed civilians, dumbass.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Once.

Like, ever.

From 2000-2010 22000 people just slipped and died, 13000 fell from a chair and died, 300000-400000 were killed in a car crash, around 2000 children died in swimming pools, aspirin killed around 3000-4000, cigarettes a few million.

Moral of the story:

Stop smoking, fasten your seatbealt, teach your kids how to swim and dont worry about them A-rabs.

[/quote]
You obviously aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between an accident and an attack, and therefore not intelligent enough to discuss this subject.
[/quote]

You obviously are not intelligent enough to understand that some problems cannot be solved but are made worse by the HULK SMASH approach.

Especially ones that are hardly more than background noise statistically speaking.

367

[quote]orion wrote:

Getting all touchy and feely all of a sudden you big, bad conservative you?

Making laws for 300 million people because of your gut feelings is a horrible idea, but then you already know that.

Most of the time.

[/quote]

No, just being human, while also pointing out what a Richard you are.

368

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
They attacked US soil and killed ~2800 unarmed civilians, dumbass.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Once.

Like, ever.

From 2000-2010 22000 people just slipped and died, 13000 fell from a chair and died, 300000-400000 were killed in a car crash, around 2000 children died in swimming pools, aspirin killed around 3000-4000, cigarettes a few million.

Moral of the story:

Stop smoking, fasten your seatbealt, teach your kids how to swim and dont worry about them A-rabs.

[/quote]
You obviously aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between an accident and an attack, and therefore not intelligent enough to discuss this subject.
[/quote]

You obviously are not intelligent enough to understand that some problems cannot be solved but are made worse by the HULK SMASH approach.

Especially ones that are hardly more than background noise statistically speaking.

[/quote]

But this one has been made better. Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.

Comparing accidents to an aggressive attack is completely asinine.

369

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Getting all touchy and feely all of a sudden you big, bad conservative you?

Making laws for 300 million people because of your gut feelings is a horrible idea, but then you already know that.

Most of the time.

[/quote]

No, just being human, while also pointing out what a Richard you are.
[/quote]

Well, there are times when “just being human” just will not do.

Usually that is the time when you man up and do or endure what you must, like the 0,000000001 chance of being killed by an A-rab.

370

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
They attacked US soil and killed ~2800 unarmed civilians, dumbass.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Once.

Like, ever.

From 2000-2010 22000 people just slipped and died, 13000 fell from a chair and died, 300000-400000 were killed in a car crash, around 2000 children died in swimming pools, aspirin killed around 3000-4000, cigarettes a few million.

Moral of the story:

Stop smoking, fasten your seatbealt, teach your kids how to swim and dont worry about them A-rabs.

[/quote]
You obviously aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between an accident and an attack, and therefore not intelligent enough to discuss this subject.
[/quote]

You obviously are not intelligent enough to understand that some problems cannot be solved but are made worse by the HULK SMASH approach.

Especially ones that are hardly more than background noise statistically speaking.

[/quote]

But this one has been made better. Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.

Comparing accidents to an aggressive attack is completely asinine.[/quote]

Bathroom safety can be increased significantly at less cost.

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont, at what cost?

A significant amount of your liberties are gone and maybe, maybe a few American lifes were saved at the cost of a few million and a few hundred if not thousand innocent lifes abroad for each.

Claiming that you cannot put a price tag on human lifes may be popular but it is buffonery, because insurance companies certainly can. Incidentally, nobody likes them either, which does not change that to spend vast amounts to eliminate even the tiniest risks is political and financial madness.

371

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.
[/quote]

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

how can you say that those tactics didnt work?

"Not ONE terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started… how can you refute that it hasnt worked in preventing terrorist attacks on US Soil?

lol

372

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
But this one has been made better. Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.

Comparing accidents to an aggressive attack is completely asinine.[/quote]

Bathroom safety can be increased significantly at less cost.

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont, at what cost?

A significant amount of your liberties are gone and maybe, maybe a few American lifes were saved at the cost of a few million and a few hundred if not thousand innocent lifes abroad for each.

Claiming that you cannot put a price tag on human lifes may be popular but it is buffonery, because insurance companies certainly can. Incidentally, nobody likes them either, which does not change that to spend vast amounts to eliminate even the tiniest risks is political and financial madness.

[/quote]
So if we are attcked we should just shrug it off? “well, they only killed 3000 people. Heck more die from falls than that. No need to retaliate…”

Like I said, asinine.

373

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.
[/quote]

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

how can you say that those tactics didnt work?

"Not ONE terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started… how can you refute that it hasnt worked in preventing terrorist attacks on US Soil?

lol[/quote]

Greg,

Because you can just as easily claim that, had the “war on terror” not been launched, there still could’ve been zero attacks on American soil since 9/11…and you would’ve had the same argument. It’s correlational, not causal.

Did it work? I don’t know, but I personally don’t think a determined terrorist is any less determined due to the “war on terror.” That’s like locking up your steering wheel with The Club. I’m sure a determined car jacker would still break in and steal the car if so inclined. These are people who are willing to blow up / die for their cause. I doubt they’re put off by some wars we’re fighting and Threat Level Sunny D (orange).

374

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.
[/quote]

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

how can you say that those tactics didnt work?

"Not ONE terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started… how can you refute that it hasnt worked in preventing terrorist attacks on US Soil?

lol[/quote]

Because those half baked attempts that were prevented from happening does not make it look like Al Quaeda has attacks on the US very high on their to do list.

Bin Laden specifically stated that he wanted to draw the US into a war in order to bleed it dry, a strategy that he already had seen succeed with the SU.

Guess what, mission accomplished, no further attacks necessary.

375

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
But this one has been made better. Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.

Comparing accidents to an aggressive attack is completely asinine.[/quote]

Bathroom safety can be increased significantly at less cost.

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont, at what cost?

A significant amount of your liberties are gone and maybe, maybe a few American lifes were saved at the cost of a few million and a few hundred if not thousand innocent lifes abroad for each.

Claiming that you cannot put a price tag on human lifes may be popular but it is buffonery, because insurance companies certainly can. Incidentally, nobody likes them either, which does not change that to spend vast amounts to eliminate even the tiniest risks is political and financial madness.

[/quote]
So if we are attcked we should just shrug it off? “well, they only killed 3000 people. Heck more die from falls than that. No need to retaliate…”

Like I said, asinine.
[/quote]

And attacking a few countries and killing a few hundred thousand to appease the hoi polloi is morally superior?

Do you know how grown ups do this?

When confronted with two shitty options, they choose the less shitty one.

376

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.
[/quote]

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

how can you say that those tactics didnt work?

"Not ONE terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started… how can you refute that it hasnt worked in preventing terrorist attacks on US Soil?

lol[/quote]

Because those half baked attempts that were prevented from happening does not make it look like Al Quaeda has attacks on the US very high on their to do list.
[/quote]

now you’re admitting that the US has prevented terrorist attacks? How has the tactic not worked if you just said that they prevented multiple attacks?

lol

377

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Greg,

Because you can just as easily claim that, had the “war on terror” not been launched, there still could’ve been zero attacks on American soil since 9/11…[/quote]

there already have been several (many that you never hear about… trust me) attempts that have been prevented since the “war on terror” started. Part of “The War on Terror” is increased security in the US and increased surveillance overseas which lead to terrorist attack prevention here.

378

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Not one terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started. I’m not a big fan of it, but it has been successful.
[/quote]

Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

how can you say that those tactics didnt work?

"Not ONE terrorist attack on US soil since the “War on Terror” started… how can you refute that it hasnt worked in preventing terrorist attacks on US Soil?

lol[/quote]

Because those half baked attempts that were prevented from happening does not make it look like Al Quaeda has attacks on the US very high on their to do list.
[/quote]

now you’re admitting that the US has prevented terrorist attacks? How has the tactic not worked if you just said that they prevented multiple attacks?

lol[/quote]

I am admitting that one tried to smuggle in explosives in his underwear and one tried to ignite his shoe.

Both attempts were spoiled by PASSENGERS.

I also admit that the few cases were American Muslims tried to blow shit up using the most extraordinairily complicated and contrived plans, the FBI had usually recruited them, given them the idea and supplied them with the explosives if they had any.

All that Al Quaeda did was send you the bottom of the barrel types to keep you occupied.

You might not understand economics of conflicts, but if you can make you enemies shell out billions by sacrificing the occasional semi retard, you inevitably win.

379

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:
I am admitting that one tried to smuggle in explosives in his underwear and one tried to ignite his shoe.

Both attempts were spoiled…

I also admit that the few cases were American Muslims tried to blow shit up…
[/quote]

LOL

380

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, even if I conceded that those tactics worked, which I dont…
[/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:
I am admitting that one tried to smuggle in explosives in his underwear and one tried to ignite his shoe.

Both attempts were spoiled…

I also admit that the few cases were American Muslims tried to blow shit up…
[/quote]

LOL[/quote]

Lol what?

Those plans were obviously not spoiled by heroes in uniform, even if the threat level was magenta or something equally gay, but by ordinary citizens that kept their eyes open in order not to die.