Yet the leftists have always supported CNN who are Hillary pros and swearing as iron that they have checked their source especially all the blows against Trump. and They spoke well of what Tilly said plus the terrorist banned from the mosque
growing Islamophobia
- Thread starter Aries
- Start date
But you forgotten the attacks before the 11th of September 2001? Is what you think Westerners are going to be massacred eternally without declared war on their enemies?The whole planet was asking not to go Iraq and he did...the rest is history.
Isis and AL qaeda wouldn't have thrived in Iraq during Saddam''s rule. The US invasions with the coalition embolded the ISIS and others....it's a beef between imperialism and terrorism don't get us ordinary Muslims into it, we didn't sing up for this fiasco.
You know what's a war? What's going on? There is no Army in the streets. it is a invisible war And what for the Iraq of Syria is related to the September 11, 2001 everything starting with its attacks in the USA does not deceive and Obama is well responsible the one who to withdraw the troops in Iraq is what had Create the Birth of ISIS.I condemn what happened. But why should I answer to what happened? Because I happenjoy to be Muslim ?
I had a busy day yesterday, I wasn't glued to the TV the whole day. Because I got a life
It's like me asking you....I hate you because the US bombed Mosul and killed +100 civilians.
I've said since the Iraq invasion and all other invasions....it will back fire, and the terrorists will be recruiting like crazy. No one attacks, gabon, South africa, japan, brasil, singapore?
I wonder why???
And yes those countries do have lot of Muslims in them.
The moral of the story , the greed of some countries over natural resources led them to create this mess. The people in the region die by thousands because of that. It wasn't the case when they had their dictators, was it?
Be careful what you wish for. Your Googly Image (what if I told you making a post with nothing heavier than a Googly Image --- which can say anything you and Photoshop want it to --- means you have no point?) says "Google it". So I did.
This is Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, an Italian performance artist travelling in Turkey on a peace mission who was killed by a motorist, whose story was misrepresented by a blog site candidly called "Yes I'm Right" which claimed "media was ignoring" the story.
>> After reports of Ms. Bacca’s death circulated, Ms. Bacca’s family and Italian and Turkish government officials immediately emphasized that the killing had been a cruel act by a possibly deranged person and could have happened almost anywhere.
“Just read any newspaper — people get killed for playing music too loudly, and women get raped in the subway; there are fiends everywhere,” (Rosalia Pasqualino, a sister of Ms. Bacca) said. “This was not a question of Turkey or of religion.” <<
“Just read any newspaper — people get killed for playing music too loudly, and women get raped in the subway; there are fiends everywhere,” (Rosalia Pasqualino, a sister of Ms. Bacca) said. “This was not a question of Turkey or of religion.” <<
This was random violence by a random unemployed stranger for his own nefarious motives having nothing to do with religion. And it was nine years ago, which is why media were "ignoring" the story when the dishonest blog site tried to sell this as some kind of bigot bait in 2016. Here's the New York Times "ignoring" the story at the time it actually happened -- in 2008.
When the **** are you idiots going to learn to vet your sources before making fools of yourselves?
See my next post for yet another exposure of fake news.
MindWars
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2016
- 42,227
- 11,223
- 2,040
- Banned
- #1,145
What if I told you , ------------------------------------- Or you can only find the information you want to find because finding something that isn't a LIBERAL BS FKING LIE fits what you want it to.
this is a real incident which actually happened. some asses don't know how to Search a fkn thing
LEARN HOW THE FK TO FIND INFORMATION---- SO YOU BECAREFUL WHAT THE FK LIES YOU SPREAD BASED OF STUPIDITY.
MILAN — The two friends, both performance artists, hatched the idea about a year ago: wearing white wedding dresses, they would hitchhike from Italy to the Balkans to the Middle East to send a message of peace and “marriage between different peoples and nations.”
But the message delivered by their performance piece was mostly sad and raw. After just three weeks on the road, one of the two Italian artists, Pippa Bacca, 33, was killed by a driver who offered her a ride.
Her naked body was found on April 11 in some bushes near a Turkish village after a suspect led investigators to the site. Although an official cause of death has not been given, local Turkish authorities said Ms. Bacca had been raped and strangled.
The killing has stirred broad public anger and grief in Turkey and Italy. Still, what Ms. Bacca would have wanted, her family and friends said, was her message of peace to live on.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
“She thought that in the world there were more positive than negative
Pippa Bacca, an Italian Artist Killed During Performance Trip for Peace, Is Mourned
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 146,275
- 33,014
- 2,180
OK fake-news junkies, I gave you two hours. Time's up. By this point you've either pored through the link to find out your headline is bullshit, or you're running away in fear of what it actually says.
Based on my experience with these things I'm impressed. This is actually a pretty comprehensive study. Very thorough, finding out exactly where people live, how they got there, what they think about their country (UK) and how they're treated there and how they view their cultural ideals (interestingly, for one, the idea of Sharia as community law checks in at a whoppng 1%).
Notable finds:
- In Question 22 (p 243) three-quarters all respondents condemn the use of threats of violence/terrorism. 83% condemn the idea of terrorist acts used as protest (and, p 260, well over 90% condemn depending on region)
- In Question 23 (p 275) greater than four out of five condemn the idea of "suicide bombing to fight injustice"
- Question 35 (p 317) asks "Have you personally seen anything which has tried to encourage people to support violent extremism in the name of religion? 82% responded "no".
Not looking real good for the veracity of this headline is it?
Here it is -- Question 37, page 323:
"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)
The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)
Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.
The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.
In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.
That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.
So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?
Again that was asserted here:
and here:
Where does that finding appear in this poll?
NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.
A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!
Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.
Always vet your source. Thanks to Papageorgio providing the link that disproves the fake news with his own link that he didn't bother to read but didn't hesitate to trot out when he thought it said something it doesn't.
His own link.
Last edited:
Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 64,877
- 49,674
- 3,615
You seriously believe this bolsters your insane take on her rape and murder?
What was the purpose of her trek again???
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Growing? Is not, in your opinion, fully fledged? It sure is by my observation.
BlueGin
Diamond Member
- Jul 10, 2004
- 24,923
- 17,448
- 2,405
I'm trying to remember if I have seen any liberals on this board express outrage for that.
I don't think I have.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
OK fake-news junkies, I gave you two hours. Time's up. By this point you've either pored through the link to find out your headline is bullshit, or you're running away in fear of what it actually says.
Based on my experience with these things I'm impressed. This is actually a pretty comprehensive study. Very thorough, finding out exactly where people live, how they got there, what they think about their country (UK) and how they're treated there and how they view their cultural ideals (interestingly, for one, the idea of Sharia as community law checks in at a whoppng 1%).
Notable finds:
- In Question 22 (p 243) three-quarters all respondents condemn the use of threats of violence/terrorism. 83% condemn the idea of terrorist acts used as protest (and, p 260, well over 90% condemn depending on region)
- In Question 23 (p 275) greater than four out of five condemn the idea of "suicide bombing to fight injustice"
- Question 35 (p 317) asks "Have you personally seen anything which has tried to encourage people to support violent extremism in the name of religion? 82% responded "no".
Not looking real good for the veracity of this headline is it?
Here it is -- Question 37, page 323:
"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)
The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)
Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.
The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.
In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.
That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.
So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?
Again that was asserted here:
and here:
Where does that finding appear in this poll?
NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.
A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!
Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.
Always vet your source. Thanks to Papageorgio providing the link that disproves the fake news with his own link that he didn't bother to read but didn't hesitate to trot out when he thought it said something it doesn't.
His own link.
So two thirds would not report it to the police. Why not?
OK fake-news junkies, I gave you two hours. Time's up. By this point you've either pored through the link to find out your headline is bullshit, or you're running away in fear of what it actually says.
Based on my experience with these things I'm impressed. This is actually a pretty comprehensive study. Very thorough, finding out exactly where people live, how they got there, what they think about their country (UK) and how they're treated there and how they view their cultural ideals (interestingly, for one, the idea of Sharia as community law checks in at a whoppng 1%).
Notable finds:
- In Question 22 (p 243) three-quarters all respondents condemn the use of threats of violence/terrorism. 83% condemn the idea of terrorist acts used as protest (and, p 260, well over 90% condemn depending on region)
- In Question 23 (p 275) greater than four out of five condemn the idea of "suicide bombing to fight injustice"
Not looking real good for the veracity of this headline is it?
- Question 35 (p 317) asks "Have you personally seen anything which has tried to encourage people to support violent extremism in the name of religion? 82% responded "no".
Here it is -- Question 37, page 323:
"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)
The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)
Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.
The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.
In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.
That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.
So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?
Again that was asserted here:
and here:
Where does that finding appear in this poll?
NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.
A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!
Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.
Always vet your source. Thanks to Papageorgio providing the link that disproves the fake news with his own link that he didn't bother to read but didn't hesitate to trot out when he thought it said something it doesn't.
His own link.
So two thirds would not report it to the police. Why not?
Aaaaaand here we go AGAIN ----
*****WHERE******* does it say "two thirds would NOT"?
You never read your own link, and this is where the not-reading got you. Now you have to read it.
I already did. It ain't there.
BlueGin
Diamond Member
- Jul 10, 2004
- 24,923
- 17,448
- 2,405
Good question
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
OK fake-news junkies, I gave you two hours. Time's up. By this point you've either pored through the link to find out your headline is bullshit, or you're running away in fear of what it actually says.
Based on my experience with these things I'm impressed. This is actually a pretty comprehensive study. Very thorough, finding out exactly where people live, how they got there, what they think about their country (UK) and how they're treated there and how they view their cultural ideals (interestingly, for one, the idea of Sharia as community law checks in at a whoppng 1%).
Notable finds:
- In Question 22 (p 243) three-quarters all respondents condemn the use of threats of violence/terrorism. 83% condemn the idea of terrorist acts used as protest (and, p 260, well over 90% condemn depending on region)
- In Question 23 (p 275) greater than four out of five condemn the idea of "suicide bombing to fight injustice"
Not looking real good for the veracity of this headline is it?
- Question 35 (p 317) asks "Have you personally seen anything which has tried to encourage people to support violent extremism in the name of religion? 82% responded "no".
Here it is -- Question 37, page 323:
"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)
The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)
Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.
The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.
In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.
That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.
So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?
Again that was asserted here:
and here:
Where does that finding appear in this poll?
NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.
A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!
Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.
Always vet your source. Thanks to Papageorgio providing the link that disproves the fake news with his own link that he didn't bother to read but didn't hesitate to trot out when he thought it said something it doesn't.
His own link.
So two thirds would not report it to the police. Why not?
Aaaaaand here we go AGAIN ----
*****WHERE******* does it say "two thirds would NOT"?
You never read your own link, and this is where the not-reading got you. Now you have to read it.
I already did. It ain't there.
You quoted it!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Panel Approves President Trump’s White House Ballroom Project Amid Legal Fight
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Zone1 Could tiny nuclear reactors a mile deep be the energy problem answer?
- Started by evenflow1969
- Replies: 4
-
NBC Reporter: It is Ok to Celebrate Artemis II Launch, But Only as A Human Being, and Not as an American- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 25
