What is Terrorism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
(Cough)

Ayers, Bill[/quote]

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist today ??
[/quote]

Do we know he’s not still? He said he won’t comment on the number of bombing he is responsible for.[/quote]

You are sounding like a Nixon crony . I know to tell you America was close to revolution at that time . I know (IT WAS NOT ENDORSED BY SARAH PALIN:) but that was a tough time .

I remember Kent State , Little old ladies were pissed off . We won’t even mention young men . They were “REALLY FUCKING PISSED” I was 12 and I was pissed

62

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
(Cough)

Ayers, Bill[/quote]

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist today ??
[/quote]

For the left Ayers never was a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. Take the example of Nelson Mandela. Most white folk who didn’t grow up in SA consider him a messiah - a kind of sin eater for white guilt. But white South Africans remember a Communist who broke with the ANC because they weren’t violent enough and then carried out assassinations and car bombers. A guy who suggested cutting the noses off blacks who disagreed with him. A guy who backed Castro and Arafat and gave the country’s highest award to Colonel Gaddafi. It’s easy to see why Mandela was Obama’s prophet and why he attached himself with such fervour to the anti-apartheid movement in the 80’s. Obama is a radical leftist - for him Ayers and Mandela are models of virtue.[/quote]

Pure and simple Rhetoric , not even original , Via Rush Limp Dick and Glenn Asshole .

Some one cooked this shit up for their minions to repeat

63

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Pure and simple Rhetoric , not even original , Via Rush Limp Dick and Glenn Asshole .

[/quote]

I’d never even heard of Limbaugh in the late 90’s. I didn’t pay close attention to US domestic politics. But I did know what was going on in the world and I understood the motivations, ideologies and characters of the key players. I was studying history and current events not smoking bongs and watching WWF.

Limbaugh is just a guy who makes hundreds of millions of dollars by taking mainstream Republican talking points and trying to turn them into satire and “infonews.” He’s not original nor a deep thinker.

Beck is unhinged, has emotional problems and his lack of judgement and stability make him a liability for conservatives.

Hannity is just Limbaugh’s minimi.

Savage is Beck on steroids - Beck is delusional and passive aggressive whereas Savage is delusional and aggressive. Neither have sound judgement - both a liability.

Mark Levin is like Hannity and Limbaugh but he knows the law and is pretty well informed - but again not a deep thinker(I’ve read his books.)

I don’t get spoon fed my opinions from Fox News or talkshow hosts. I’m an independent thinker. You get your opinions from Obama’s court jesters like Maher and Stewart and hard left kooks like The Young Turks. You get your opinions from Putinians on RTV - these could be coming from the hard right and you don’t even know it. That’s why you don’t even understand the difference between Obama and Ron Paul. To you they’re just two guys who might legalise weed and unilaterally end wars somehow. That’s about the extent of your political acumen.

You don’t have the capacity to critically analyse what you read and you don’t have the capacity to form coherent and rational thoughts. I’ve tried being patient and polite but you keep expressing such strong opinions about things that you really don’t understand and then it falls upon others to call you out. That’s not people picking on you it’s people responding to the crazy things you keep saying.

I’m no one’s minion.

64

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Pure and simple Rhetoric , not even original , Via Rush Limp Dick and Glenn Asshole .

[/quote]

I’d never even heard of Limbaugh in the late 90’s. I didn’t pay close attention to US domestic politics. But I did know what was going on in the world and I understood the motivations, ideologies and characters of the key players. I was studying history and current events not smoking bongs and watching WWF.

Limbaugh is just a guy who makes hundreds of millions of dollars by taking mainstream Republican talking points and trying to turn them into satire and “infonews.” He’s not original nor a deep thinker.

Beck is unhinged, has emotional problems and his lack of judgement and stability make him a liability for conservatives.

Hannity is just Limbaugh’s minimi.

Savage is Beck on steroids - Beck is delusional and passive aggressive whereas Savage is delusional and aggressive. Neither have sound judgement - both a liability.

Mark Levin is like Hannity and Limbaugh but he knows the law and is pretty well informed - but again not a deep thinker(I’ve read his books.)

I don’t get spoon fed my opinions from Fox News or talkshow hosts. I’m an independent thinker. You get your opinions from Obama’s court jesters like Maher and Stewart and hard left kooks like The Young Turks. You get your opinions from Putinians on RTV - these could be coming from the hard right and you don’t even know it. That’s why you don’t even understand the difference between Obama and Ron Paul. To you they’re just two guys who might legalise weed and unilaterally end wars somehow. That’s about the extent of your political acumen.

You don’t have the capacity to critically analyse what you read and you don’t have the capacity to form coherent and rational thoughts. I’ve tried being patient and polite but you keep expressing such strong opinions about things that you really don’t understand and then it falls upon others to call you out. That’s not people picking on you it’s people responding to the crazy things you keep saying.

I’m no one’s minion.[/quote]

what sources do you get your news from , telepathically ?

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

It’s not clear that killing UBL prior to 9/11 would have prevented a large scale terrorist attack on US soil. Al-Qaeda’s organizational structure does not make decapitation a decisive victory.
[/quote]

Not only that for his theory that Clinton was wrong because he had no ability to see the future is bumping bizarre .

Probably every decision of history could have been improved with hind sight
[/quote]

No I am saying that because we know what happened, you cant call it the right the decision. You can pretty much say that it was the wrong one. But as Bismark said nothing is quite that cut and dry when dealing with matters over there and it might not have done any good. But given what we know now, not taking OBL out as when he had the chance was the wrong decision. I was merely contradicting you saying he made the right decision, which is horseshit. [/quote]

With Hind Sight (ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE ) all present decisions would be wrong . Every consequence could have a better scenario [/quote]

Oh, I get it now. You don’t know what hind sight is. That’s where the confusion comes in. Shouldn’t be surprised, you are completely confused and don’t realize it in almost every thread your in. Hind-sight is simply reflecting upon a situation after that situation has passed. Foresight is closer to seeing into the future but still not really the same thing.

And speak for yourself on having never made a correct decision. I have made some pretty good decisions that work out pretty well for me. I could see why you would think that though.

66

"With Hind Sight (ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE) "

Push, how about some gold bars.

LOLZ.

67

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks.

[/quote]

To claim the sanctions on Iran have been successful is a specious argument. Turki bin Faisal correctly described Iran as a paper tiger with real claws. Yes, their economy has been harmed by sanctions but its hard power and nuclear program remain in tact. The nuclear negotiations are just a farce that Iran cynically uses to extract concessions and buy time. They recently admitted to manufacturing detonators for nuclear bombs and they’ve just been given a four month extension on negotiations. The sanctions have in no way achieved their objective. Quite the contrary.[/quote]

Any comments from Turki bin Faisal re: Iran can’t be taken too seriously. Iran barks way louder than it can bite. I don’t think Iran has much hard power at all as it’s broke and has ancient military equipment. Iran’s been having some measure of success because the Middle East is easy to manipulate and just not very smart, and two of it’s largest impediments were wiped out by recent US wars. To the hardliners in Iran, the ones that sincerely believe in the IRI and what Khomeini stood for, these negotiations are an embarrassment of the highest order and symbolize kneeling and cowering before the USA.

The only reason IRI is in negotiation is because it fears for its survival. A point of pride for IRI loyalists is refusing to take any action that can be perceived as making concessions to the USA. Hardliners in Iran reject these negotiations as much as Lindsey Graham.

Having said all that, I’m not a fan of these negotiations either. If they are successful and Iran is able to bring in the foreign investment that is currently chomping at the bit, it’s economy will boom and the regime will be further entrenched and legitimized. I also think these sanctions hurt common people much more than it hurts millionaire Mullahs.

I’d like for regime change to happen and successful negotiations will probably set that effort back decades. I have no idea if they will be successful or not. I’d lean towards them not being successful because any acceptable agreement from P5+1 is likely not acceptable to the IRGC and the conservative faction of Mullahs. The IRGC is probably the biggest impediment as they cannot be controlled by even Khamenei whereas Khamenei can exert more influence on the Mullahs. But Iran is desperate and has a delicate propaganda game to play at home and in the broader Middle East so it’s truly just guessing for outsiders.

68

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Pure and simple Rhetoric , not even original , Via Rush Limp Dick and Glenn Asshole .

[/quote]

I’d never even heard of Limbaugh in the late 90’s. I didn’t pay close attention to US domestic politics. But I did know what was going on in the world and I understood the motivations, ideologies and characters of the key players. I was studying history and current events not smoking bongs and watching WWF.

Limbaugh is just a guy who makes hundreds of millions of dollars by taking mainstream Republican talking points and trying to turn them into satire and “infonews.” He’s not original nor a deep thinker.

Beck is unhinged, has emotional problems and his lack of judgement and stability make him a liability for conservatives.

Hannity is just Limbaugh’s minimi.

Savage is Beck on steroids - Beck is delusional and passive aggressive whereas Savage is delusional and aggressive. Neither have sound judgement - both a liability.

Mark Levin is like Hannity and Limbaugh but he knows the law and is pretty well informed - but again not a deep thinker(I’ve read his books.)

I don’t get spoon fed my opinions from Fox News or talkshow hosts. I’m an independent thinker. You get your opinions from Obama’s court jesters like Maher and Stewart and hard left kooks like The Young Turks. You get your opinions from Putinians on RTV - these could be coming from the hard right and you don’t even know it. That’s why you don’t even understand the difference between Obama and Ron Paul. To you they’re just two guys who might legalise weed and unilaterally end wars somehow. That’s about the extent of your political acumen.

You don’t have the capacity to critically analyse what you read and you don’t have the capacity to form coherent and rational thoughts. I’ve tried being patient and polite but you keep expressing such strong opinions about things that you really don’t understand and then it falls upon others to call you out. That’s not people picking on you it’s people responding to the crazy things you keep saying.

I’m no one’s minion.[/quote]

Savage is pretty damn funny/entertaining though.

69

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Pure and simple Rhetoric , not even original , Via Rush Limp Dick and Glenn Asshole .

[/quote]

I’d never even heard of Limbaugh in the late 90’s. I didn’t pay close attention to US domestic politics. But I did know what was going on in the world and I understood the motivations, ideologies and characters of the key players. I was studying history and current events not smoking bongs and watching WWF.

Limbaugh is just a guy who makes hundreds of millions of dollars by taking mainstream Republican talking points and trying to turn them into satire and “infonews.” He’s not original nor a deep thinker.

Beck is unhinged, has emotional problems and his lack of judgement and stability make him a liability for conservatives.

Hannity is just Limbaugh’s minimi.

Savage is Beck on steroids - Beck is delusional and passive aggressive whereas Savage is delusional and aggressive. Neither have sound judgement - both a liability.

Mark Levin is like Hannity and Limbaugh but he knows the law and is pretty well informed - but again not a deep thinker(I’ve read his books.)

I don’t get spoon fed my opinions from Fox News or talkshow hosts. I’m an independent thinker. You get your opinions from Obama’s court jesters like Maher and Stewart and hard left kooks like The Young Turks. You get your opinions from Putinians on RTV - these could be coming from the hard right and you don’t even know it. That’s why you don’t even understand the difference between Obama and Ron Paul. To you they’re just two guys who might legalise weed and unilaterally end wars somehow. That’s about the extent of your political acumen.

You don’t have the capacity to critically analyse what you read and you don’t have the capacity to form coherent and rational thoughts. I’ve tried being patient and polite but you keep expressing such strong opinions about things that you really don’t understand and then it falls upon others to call you out. That’s not people picking on you it’s people responding to the crazy things you keep saying.

I’m no one’s minion.[/quote]

Savage is pretty damn funny/entertaining though.
[/quote]

His son started the RockStar drink empire.

/random

71

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks.

[/quote]

To claim the sanctions on Iran have been successful is a specious argument. Turki bin Faisal correctly described Iran as a paper tiger with real claws. Yes, their economy has been harmed by sanctions but its hard power and nuclear program remain in tact. The nuclear negotiations are just a farce that Iran cynically uses to extract concessions and buy time. They recently admitted to manufacturing detonators for nuclear bombs and they’ve just been given a four month extension on negotiations. The sanctions have in no way achieved their objective. Quite the contrary.[/quote]

Any comments from Turki bin Faisal re: Iran can’t be taken too seriously. Iran barks way louder than it can bite. I don’t think Iran has much hard power at all as it’s broke and has ancient military equipment. Iran’s been having some measure of success because the Middle East is easy to manipulate and just not very smart, and two of it’s largest impediments were wiped out by recent US wars. To the hardliners in Iran, the ones that sincerely believe in the IRI and what Khomeini stood for, these negotiations are an embarrassment of the highest order and symbolize kneeling and cowering before the USA.

The only reason IRI is in negotiation is because it fears for its survival. A point of pride for IRI loyalists is refusing to take any action that can be perceived as making concessions to the USA. Hardliners in Iran reject these negotiations as much as Lindsey Graham.

Having said all that, I’m not a fan of these negotiations either. If they are successful and Iran is able to bring in the foreign investment that is currently chomping at the bit, it’s economy will boom and the regime will be further entrenched and legitimized. I also think these sanctions hurt common people much more than it hurts millionaire Mullahs.

I’d like for regime change to happen and successful negotiations will probably set that effort back decades. I have no idea if they will be successful or not. I’d lean towards them not being successful because any acceptable agreement from P5+1 is likely not acceptable to the IRGC and the conservative faction of Mullahs. The IRGC is probably the biggest impediment as they cannot be controlled by even Khamenei whereas Khamenei can exert more influence on the Mullahs. But Iran is desperate and has a delicate propaganda game to play at home and in the broader Middle East so it’s truly just guessing for outsiders.[/quote]

I don’t think you need to worry about successful negotiations.

I think this is all a game on Iran’s part.[/quote]

How so? Iran already has a credible breakout capacity.

72

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks.

[/quote]

To claim the sanctions on Iran have been successful is a specious argument. Turki bin Faisal correctly described Iran as a paper tiger with real claws. Yes, their economy has been harmed by sanctions but its hard power and nuclear program remain in tact. The nuclear negotiations are just a farce that Iran cynically uses to extract concessions and buy time. They recently admitted to manufacturing detonators for nuclear bombs and they’ve just been given a four month extension on negotiations. The sanctions have in no way achieved their objective. Quite the contrary.[/quote]

Any comments from Turki bin Faisal re: Iran can’t be taken too seriously. Iran barks way louder than it can bite. I don’t think Iran has much hard power at all as it’s broke and has ancient military equipment. Iran’s been having some measure of success because the Middle East is easy to manipulate and just not very smart, and two of it’s largest impediments were wiped out by recent US wars. To the hardliners in Iran, the ones that sincerely believe in the IRI and what Khomeini stood for, these negotiations are an embarrassment of the highest order and symbolize kneeling and cowering before the USA.

The only reason IRI is in negotiation is because it fears for its survival. A point of pride for IRI loyalists is refusing to take any action that can be perceived as making concessions to the USA. Hardliners in Iran reject these negotiations as much as Lindsey Graham.

Having said all that, I’m not a fan of these negotiations either. If they are successful and Iran is able to bring in the foreign investment that is currently chomping at the bit, it’s economy will boom and the regime will be further entrenched and legitimized. I also think these sanctions hurt common people much more than it hurts millionaire Mullahs.

I’d like for regime change to happen and successful negotiations will probably set that effort back decades. I have no idea if they will be successful or not. I’d lean towards them not being successful because any acceptable agreement from P5+1 is likely not acceptable to the IRGC and the conservative faction of Mullahs. The IRGC is probably the biggest impediment as they cannot be controlled by even Khamenei whereas Khamenei can exert more influence on the Mullahs. But Iran is desperate and has a delicate propaganda game to play at home and in the broader Middle East so it’s truly just guessing for outsiders.[/quote]

I don’t think you need to worry about successful negotiations.

I think this is all a game on Iran’s part.[/quote]

How so? Iran already has a credible breakout capacity. [/quote]

Type in Tel Aviv then dial in whatever yield you think they can muster.

73

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks.

[/quote]

To claim the sanctions on Iran have been successful is a specious argument. Turki bin Faisal correctly described Iran as a paper tiger with real claws. Yes, their economy has been harmed by sanctions but its hard power and nuclear program remain in tact. The nuclear negotiations are just a farce that Iran cynically uses to extract concessions and buy time. They recently admitted to manufacturing detonators for nuclear bombs and they’ve just been given a four month extension on negotiations. The sanctions have in no way achieved their objective. Quite the contrary.[/quote]

Any comments from Turki bin Faisal re: Iran can’t be taken too seriously. Iran barks way louder than it can bite. I don’t think Iran has much hard power at all as it’s broke and has ancient military equipment. Iran’s been having some measure of success because the Middle East is easy to manipulate and just not very smart, and two of it’s largest impediments were wiped out by recent US wars. To the hardliners in Iran, the ones that sincerely believe in the IRI and what Khomeini stood for, these negotiations are an embarrassment of the highest order and symbolize kneeling and cowering before the USA.

The only reason IRI is in negotiation is because it fears for its survival. A point of pride for IRI loyalists is refusing to take any action that can be perceived as making concessions to the USA. Hardliners in Iran reject these negotiations as much as Lindsey Graham.

Having said all that, I’m not a fan of these negotiations either. If they are successful and Iran is able to bring in the foreign investment that is currently chomping at the bit, it’s economy will boom and the regime will be further entrenched and legitimized. I also think these sanctions hurt common people much more than it hurts millionaire Mullahs.

I’d like for regime change to happen and successful negotiations will probably set that effort back decades. I have no idea if they will be successful or not. I’d lean towards them not being successful because any acceptable agreement from P5+1 is likely not acceptable to the IRGC and the conservative faction of Mullahs. The IRGC is probably the biggest impediment as they cannot be controlled by even Khamenei whereas Khamenei can exert more influence on the Mullahs. But Iran is desperate and has a delicate propaganda game to play at home and in the broader Middle East so it’s truly just guessing for outsiders.[/quote]

I don’t think you need to worry about successful negotiations.

I think this is all a game on Iran’s part.[/quote]

How so? Iran already has a credible breakout capacity. [/quote]

Type in Tel Aviv then dial in whatever yield you think they can muster.[/quote]

Allowing Iran to maintain breakout capacity may mollify the security concerns that drive it to seek nuclear capability in the first place. Regardless, Iran wouldn’t commit national suicide by launching a preemptive nuclear attack.

74

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Regardless, Iran wouldn’t commit national suicide by launching a preemptive nuclear attack.[/quote]

You are probably right. But you don’t fucking know this for a fact.

Governments are run by people who make decisions; decision makers are not always rational. JFK was inches away from launching a pre-emptive strike during the Cuban missile crisis because he was worried he might lose an election if he didn’t and he was under massive pressure by the Hawks to do so; its a fucking miracle we are here discussing this right now at all. If JFK had responded to the 1st Khrushchev letter and not the 2nd Khrushchev letter no one would here, we would all be dead or never born. Nodody knows what events might precipitate an irrational leader from launching a preemptive nuclear strike if they have the capability to do so.

75

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Regardless, Iran wouldn’t commit national suicide by launching a preemptive nuclear attack.[/quote]

You are probably right. But you don’t fucking know this for a fact.

Governments are run by people who make decisions; decision makers are not always rational. JFK was inches away from launching a pre-emptive strike during the Cuban missile crisis because he was worried he might lose an election if he didn’t and he was under massive pressure by the Hawks to do so; its a fucking miracle we are here discussing this right now at all. If JFK had responded to the 1st Khrushchev letter and not the 2nd Khrushchev letter no one would here, we would all be dead or never born. Nodody knows what events might precipitate an irrational leader from launching a preemptive nuclear strike if they have the capability to do so. [/quote]

Fair enough, which is a reason why the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is vitally important to international security. The reasons Iran seeks the bomb are legitimate, but that doesn’t mean it should be permitted to go nuclear.

76

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Allowing Iran to maintain breakout capacity may mollify the security concerns that drive it to seek nuclear capability in the first place.
[/quote]

Iran’s nuclear program is not motivated by “security concerns.” It’s motivated by two things:

  1. A desire for regional hegemony and the revival of Persia as a great power.

  2. An insane apocalyptic vision of ushering in the 12th Imam, annihilating the Jews and capturing the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount.

[quote]

Regardless, Iran wouldn’t commit national suicide by launching a preemptive nuclear attack.[/quote]

It would not be a “preemptive” strike as Israel is not intending to and does not have the capacity to invade Iran - nor do they have to the will to launch a nuclear strike on Iran.

Besides, as I have said before even if Iran does not use nuclear weapons merely being a nuclear power with credible offensive nuclear capability will allow them to wage asymmetric and conventional warfare with impunity.

77

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Regardless, Iran wouldn’t commit national suicide by launching a preemptive nuclear attack.[/quote]

You are probably right. But you don’t fucking know this for a fact.

Governments are run by people who make decisions; decision makers are not always rational. JFK was inches away from launching a pre-emptive strike during the Cuban missile crisis because he was worried he might lose an election if he didn’t and he was under massive pressure by the Hawks to do so; its a fucking miracle we are here discussing this right now at all. If JFK had responded to the 1st Khrushchev letter and not the 2nd Khrushchev letter no one would here, we would all be dead or never born. Nodody knows what events might precipitate an irrational leader from launching a preemptive nuclear strike if they have the capability to do so. [/quote]

Fair enough, which is a reason why the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is vitally important to international security. The reasons Iran seeks the bomb are legitimate, but that doesn’t mean it should be permitted to go nuclear. [/quote]

I am all for non-proliferation goals, not just for countries like Iran.

79

Elderly woman beheaded by Muslim in London:

Nothing to do with terrorism of course. Nothing to see here; move along.

80

Saw that. Horrifying. Just like the guy who killed Theo van Gogh was just a “nutjob”. No ties to terrorism in that case either I guess…

Yeah, right. Way to sweep it under the rug so to speak.