Stigmatize

[eagle1462010]

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

So says the Obama drone...................refusing to say what it really is........You can split hairs on the danged definition til the cows come home.................Hassan was a Terrorist.............and a Treasonist SOB.............and to deny the families of the victims the benefits they are due..........................is the act of a President that is the laughing stock of the world.

You seem to think that just because you're emotional, that makes you correct.

Emotional is not exactly correct........PISSED OFF would be the correct terminology......................

Your Lover Child Obama loves to do EO's for his own purposes.............why the hell didn't he do it here to make sure these families got the support they deserved..............You are a PC clown and nothing more......

I choose to call a spade a spade, and you don't..........That is your malfunction not mine..........Hassan can burn in hell..............and he is a terrorist and Traitor to this country.

 

[S.J.]

Only hacks need to look for loopholes to define an argument

How can I answer a question that isn't defined?

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How can I answer a question that isn't defined?

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

So says the Obama drone...................refusing to say what it really is........You can split hairs on the danged definition til the cows come home.................Hassan was a Terrorist.............and a Treasonist SOB.............and to deny the families of the victims the benefits they are due..........................is the act of a President that is the laughing stock of the world.

You seem to think that just because you're emotional, that makes you correct.

Emotional is not exactly correct........PISSED OFF would be the correct terminology......................

Your Lover Child Obama loves to do EO's for his own purposes.............why the hell didn't he do it here to make sure these families got the support they deserved..............You are a PC clown and nothing more......

I choose to call a spade a spade, and you don't..........That is your malfunction not mine..........Hassan can burn in hell..............and he is a terrorist and Traitor to this country.

No, the difference between you and I is that I'm talking about facts and reality, and you're talking about your feelings.

As I've already said, I think Obama is a fuckhead. I've never voted for him, and you won't find a single post of mine on this site where I've praised him.

This isn't an emotional conversation for me.

 

[S.J.]

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
   

 

[Contumacious]

That is what the president is accusing many of you folks of. Stigmatizing Islam. One should note that in order to "stigmatize" a person or group you need to lie about them. So following that rule of thumb lets see how I do.

"When the Amish flew those planes into the World Trade Center"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Baptists killed all those people in France"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Quakers blew a hole in the USS Cole"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Mormons killed all those people in Brussels"....
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Catholics set off those bombs in Boston"...
Oh, that was muslins.

"When the Methodists killed all those people in Munich 72"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Pentecostal's killed all those people in San Bernardino"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Pagans killed all those children at an Easter egg hunt"..
Oh, that was muslims

"When the Atheists killed all those people in Mosul"...
Oh, that was muslims.

In order to "stigmatize" a person OR group of people you HAVE to lie about them. So WHO is lying? Me OR the president of the United States?

Fury

Stigmatize

stig·ma·tize
ˈstiɡməˌtīz/
verb

1. 1.
   describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.
   "the institution was stigmatized as a last resort for the destitute"

Yep, surprisingly the prez is correct




1- The Zionists invaded Palestine in 1925 , determined to disappear the Palestinians by any means necessary

2- In 1949 Harry S Truman is in a tight race against Dewey - he accepted a 2 million dollar donation from Ben Gurion and assurances that he would get the Jewish vote - subsequently he made 2 million Palestinians foreigners in their own homeland

3- The US has been financing the Palestinian Holocaust since 1949

4- in 1990 the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses and remained there for 18 years - the US slaughtered millions of Iraqis

5- The US invaded the Afpak region where it has slaughtered thousand of Muslims

6- The US invaded Syria where it completely destroyed the country . According to recently disclosed emails , Ms Clinton stated that Syria was invaded in order to defend Israel

Solution

The US government must adhere to Constitutional restraints which DOES NOT authorize it to

A) meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

and

B) support and defend any country especially one which is a THEOCRATIC state

/

 

[eagle1462010]

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

So says the Obama drone...................refusing to say what it really is........You can split hairs on the danged definition til the cows come home.................Hassan was a Terrorist.............and a Treasonist SOB.............and to deny the families of the victims the benefits they are due..........................is the act of a President that is the laughing stock of the world.

You seem to think that just because you're emotional, that makes you correct.

Emotional is not exactly correct........PISSED OFF would be the correct terminology......................

Your Lover Child Obama loves to do EO's for his own purposes.............why the hell didn't he do it here to make sure these families got the support they deserved..............You are a PC clown and nothing more......

I choose to call a spade a spade, and you don't..........That is your malfunction not mine..........Hassan can burn in hell..............and he is a terrorist and Traitor to this country.

No, the difference between you and I is that I'm talking about facts and reality, and you're talking about your feelings.

As I've already said, I think Obama is a fuckhead. I've never voted for him, and you won't find a single post of mine on this site where I've praised him.

This isn't an emotional conversation for me.

What happened to the victims of this asshat is to me................It's a travesty of justice to screw over the victims of that POS Hassan.....................

Obama could have done at least an EO to ensure this didn't happen............So he's a POS on this instance.

You can play the lawyer games all day long..............Hassan is a terrorist and a traitor to this country............My opinion stands and I don't give a FUCK how you take it..................

What went down in the aftermath is FUCKING BS..........and you damned well know it.

 

[DarkFury]

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Defining a word in debate when used in the context of the writer is up to the writer. Should the writer define Obama as a fool or terrorists it then becomes the standard at LEAST for that thread.

The person defending "Obama" has NO right to RE-define that word or words to HIS liking.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How can I answer a question that isn't defined?

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Wow.

A muslim screaming allahu akbar as he systematically shoots over 40 unarmed soldiers. The 32 others that survived are not eligible to receive lifetime medical treatment since it is not an official act of war.

If the congress decreed it as a terror attack that we all know it was, they would be eligible since by definition it would be an act of war.

In the video – “The Truth About Fort Hood” – the victims also accuse the government of “political correctness”and turning a blind eye to the fact that the alleged shooter consulted by e-mail with then-top al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki about whether an attack against American soldiers was justified to “protect our brothers.”

One victim, Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, said in the video that the U.S. soldiers who were killed and wounded at Fort Hood were attacked “by a domestic enemy, someone who was there that day to kill soldiers to prevent them from deploying.”

“If that's not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don't know what is,” Manning, a former Army staff sergeant, said.

Doc, you are an unreal disgrace.

I see that you're upset and emotional, but you're completely wrong.

There is no such thing as an "act of terrorism" in the UCMJ, and "declaring" Ft. Hood to be one would not magically make the survivors eligible for combat status.

Terrorism can't be an "act of war" by definition, because there is no definition of terrorism in the UCMJ.

None of what you've posted has any basis in reality.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Defining a word in debate when used in the context of the writer is up to the writer. Should the writer define Obama as a fool or terrorists it then becomes the standard at LEAST for that thread.

The person defending "Obama" has NO right to RE-define that word or words to HIS liking.

I didn't define anything, I asked S. J. to define it.

 

[S.J.]

You know what a terrorist is. Stop being a dumbass

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

The political goals of not only Hassan, but the other Islamic terrorists as well are many. Forcing Islam on others, forcing others (through intimidation) to act in their interests regarding the ME, pressuring our leaders to bow to their demands within our society. Hassan was merely part of an organized effort by Islamic leaders to use terror to achieve their goals. You know this, you're just too disingenuous to admit it because you're a water boy for Obama and the leftist agenda.

 

[S.J.]

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what the dictionary says, but I'm asking S. J. what he thinks a terrorist is.

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

The political goals of not only Hassan, but the other Islamic terrorists as well are many. Forcing Islam on others, forcing others (through intimidation) to act in their interests regarding the ME, pressuring our leaders to bow to their demands within our society. Hassan was merely part of an organized effort by Islamic leaders to use terror to achieve their goals. You know this, you're just too disingenuous to admit it because you're a water boy for Obama and the leftist agenda.

You know, I think there's a kernel of truth to your argument.

Hassan was a dissatisfied American Muslim who was then manipulated by extremist elements to act - and there is an argument to be made casting him as an agent of other interests, which would then qualify the shooting as terrorism.

It's an interesting argument, though. By that same reasoning, William Pierce could have been held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

 

[BULLDOG]

ok then you are lying.


There are 1.6 billion muslims on earth, a very small percentage of that 1.6 billion has actually performed a terrorist act

Point out the lie in the OP. Let the readers decide.

It's a lie of misdirection and inaccurate context.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, we will get the predictable responses.

But but but...Christians. (code for white right wing republicans have blown up abortion clinics and they love bringing up McVeigh to highlight their warped point)

Or....

ALL RELIGIONS are bad. (Code for obfuscation from the BROWN stink bombs who commit all of these atrocities and suggest that atheists like them are the only rational thinkers and white christians are the real trouble makers.)

In fact it was in post two.

Now, do you have something to say on the topic, or are you just here to stigmatize other posters?

Yeah, cause you people never stigmatize people. Oh wait a minute. The arrogant left do it, it is perfectly ok. Why? Cause we on the right are these flat earther knuckle dragging toothless members of the KKK.

Again, the hypocrisy of the left is just so......automatic.

Let us all know how "good" muslims are.

In the meantime let us see your predictable responses. Obfuscating from muslims to the horrible things Christians do.

Tell me. Have you have seem the charitable work that TRUE Christians have been doing for 2000 years? Want me to list those things.

Instead of going to the old abortion clinics being bombed (not nearly as as common as the deliberate targeting of random citizens and not worthy of any sort of comparison whatsoever), why don't we list the things Christians do all around the world for.......(like I said) 2000 years.

I know, to a left winger, a charitable deed is insisting that governments ought to be doing these things.

Anyway, let us see the attacks on Christians. I know what that is code for as I stated. You can deny it. That is when I snicker to myself.

I'm sure you talk and snicker to yourself quite often. Tinfoil hat wearers usually do.

 

[Freewill]

ok then you are lying.


There are 1.6 billion muslims on earth, a very small percentage of that 1.6 billion has actually performed a terrorist act

Are you saying that that small group wasn't Muslim? All those events were done by Muslims who at least thought they were defending Islam. Why do you feel the need to defend them so much that you call people liars who don't lie?

 

[Freewill]

Just as I thought, the OP is protecting Islam. He failed to bring up that a New Waver murdered all those folks at Fort Hood. Oh wait it was a Muslim New Waver.