TN: Officer Shot, & Shooting Naval Yard

[ChrisL]

Obama's mishandled Ft Hood, well actually he didnt mishandle it, he gave his brothers in Jihad the OK to do it again

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Someone gave me quite a good explanation on another thread. Maybe I'll find it for you later.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hello dickhead.

My original post was submitted before we knew the identity of the shooter.

And no. I've not smiled.

But I know you have.

Oh, you're little "Americans will claim this was a Muslim" shit? Yeah, you ignorant fools tend to do that. But it is yet ANOTHER terrorist attack on American soil by the Muzzie Beasts. No doubt that filthy fuck Obama will term this "work place violence" or some shit - democrats covering for their Muslim allies...

Let's face it, you and the Muzzie Beasts have a common enemy - America.

No dumbfuck. That wasn't me.

 

[ChrisL]

Obama's mishandled Ft Hood, well actually he didnt mishandle it, he gave his brothers in Jihad the OK to do it again

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

 

[defcon4]

Was the police officer unarmed?

It wasn't on a military base.

The first reports said it was. The location has changed multiple times in reporting. But don't let me stop you from your little game

i'm left wondering why they're tying the shooting to the naval recruiting station. aren't those usually in strip malls and the like?

Dunno but ABC radio was reporting that the Mayor labeled the scene horrific.

If only those passengers had been armed.

Making fun of a tragedy? Enjoying yourself that unarmed marines we murdered? Despicable...

 

[JGalt]

They're calling it an act of "domestic terrorism" which is a complete whitewash. The murdering shithead was most likely influenced by foreign Islamic influences, so it's not "domestic terrorism".

I'm just surprised that cocksucker Obama didn't call it "workplace violence" like he did the Ft. Hood shooter.

 

[defcon4]

Has FOX labeled the shooter a Muslim yet?

No.. FBI did… What a *$#@**
I knew, you on the "progressive movement" hated military but actually being happy about marines being murdered on the homeland is nauseating.

 

[defcon4]

Has FOX labeled the shooter a Muslim yet?

It's a foregone conclusion he's a Democratic ISIS Mexican with Ebola.

Are you people out of your fucking minds? Trying to make fun of a very serious situation???? You deserve ISIS.

 

[2aguy]

Obama's mishandled Ft Hood, well actually he didnt mishandle it, he gave his brothers in Jihad the OK to do it again

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

 

[ChrisL]

Obama's mishandled Ft Hood, well actually he didnt mishandle it, he gave his brothers in Jihad the OK to do it again

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

Well, I thought it was a pretty valid explanation for what Obama is doing, although I still don't trust Iran. We should avoid another war, IMO.

I also think it makes sense that when we bomb these countries and kill these people's friends and relatives, they take up the Muslim extremist cause. Like, if some foreign invaders came here and bombed your neighbor, killing your family and friends.

Oops, that should have been "neighborhood."

 

[Asclepias]

Obama's mishandled Ft Hood, well actually he didnt mishandle it, he gave his brothers in Jihad the OK to do it again

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

How do you people get so stupid? Youre suggesting the very thing that has led to these wars which by the way produces more terrorists.

 

[Ravi]

Marines shouldn't be sitting targets. Not sure why they were.

 

[Ravi]

Has FOX labeled the shooter a Muslim yet?

No.. FBI did… What a *$#@**
I knew, you on the "progressive movement" hated military but actually being happy about marines being murdered on the homeland is nauseating.

I find it rather embarrassing.

 

[2aguy]

Obama's mishandled Ft Hood, well actually he didnt mishandle it, he gave his brothers in Jihad the OK to do it again

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

How do you people get so stupid? Youre suggesting the very thing that has led to these wars which by the way produces more terrorists.

No, what produced these terrorists was the creation of Islam......its followers are required to spread sharia until the entire world follows it....what we do has no bearing on that goal.....

 

[Asclepias]

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

How do you people get so stupid? Youre suggesting the very thing that has led to these wars which by the way produces more terrorists.

No, what produced these terrorists was the creation of Islam......its followers are required to spread sharia until the entire world follows it....what we do has no bearing on that goal.....

Sounds like imperialism and christianity to me.

 

[ChrisL]

While I don't agree with a lot of Obama policies, I do not think he is a terrorist. That is just silly. It's not any different than those who would blame GWB for 9/11.

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

How do you people get so stupid? Youre suggesting the very thing that has led to these wars which by the way produces more terrorists.

No, what produced these terrorists was the creation of Islam......its followers are required to spread sharia until the entire world follows it....what we do has no bearing on that goal.....

That's true, but what realistic approach would you take to end this? War? More American lives lost . . . for what? You can kill some, and more will be born and raised. We need to try to bring these people into modern times. I think the young people of Iran (as demonstrated during their "spring" protests), are wanting a change.

 

[2aguy]

Nothing else explains Obama's switching sides and helping the Jihadists

Here is a explanation that seemed valid to me. This is from bendog.

First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.

And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.

But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices

You are naive. Iran will stop complying the moment they lift the sanctions. No one, including the democrats here will have any stomach for starting the sanctions back up. They could give a flying fuck about their economy...they want money to kill people with and they want ballistic missles, which they can get now, to give them to their terrorist buddies to kill Israelis.....

The choice was pretty simple...increase the sanctions, help overthrow the regime....flood their country with weapons and help any resistance....we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...both sides of Iran...hard to control all of that border area.

How do you people get so stupid? Youre suggesting the very thing that has led to these wars which by the way produces more terrorists.

No, what produced these terrorists was the creation of Islam......its followers are required to spread sharia until the entire world follows it....what we do has no bearing on that goal.....

That's true, but what realistic approach would you take to end this? War? More American lives lost . . . for what? You can kill some, and more will be born and raised. We need to try to bring these people into modern times. I think the young people of Iran (as demonstrated during their "spring" protests), are wanting a change.

They are and they aren't getting any help...and giving the iranian government billions of new dollars and giving them oil money won't help those young people. We need to do something besides giving them nuclear weapons and more money.

 

[defcon4]

4 Marines dead. 1 cop wounded. Terror attack in Tennessee. Killer was a local resident. Lived in a nice suburb.

His identity was just revealed.

Muhammad. ...as I said...is the rest even necessary? Native of Kuwait...nation who's ass we saved.

A radical Muslim attacks our military and police here at home. He had all the wonderful opportunities America can offer...and chose this.

Muslims dont assimilate.

Mr. Obama...how bout that confederate flag? Thats what really matters right?

bucs90

You're another RW who ignores the fact that 4 REAL Americans died to day and instead, uses their deaths for his own warped agenda.

You really think those who fly the confederate battle flag are as bad as ISIL?

I disagree. You cockroach white supremacist slime are just wannabes.

So much for guns saving lives though.

Muddly, you are not pushing your agenda, are you? Your pseudo American-patriotism does not fool anybody.

 

[bornright]

Those of us that remember well the Vietnam era thought of Bill Ayers and his groups hatred for the military. There favorite target was the recruiting stations. The military has to be armed to defend themselves whether it be in a combat zone or here as this has obviously become a combat zone. I wish death for those that desire harm to America and its military whether it be the likes of Bill Ayers or this idiot.

 

[defcon4]

4 Marines dead. 1 cop wounded. Terror attack in Tennessee. Killer was a local resident. Lived in a nice suburb.

His identity was just revealed.

Muhammad. ...as I said...is the rest even necessary? Native of Kuwait...nation who's ass we saved.

A radical Muslim attacks our military and police here at home. He had all the wonderful opportunities America can offer...and chose this.

Muslims dont assimilate.

Mr. Obama...how bout that confederate flag? Thats what really matters right?

bucs90

You're another RW who ignores the fact that 4 REAL Americans died to day and instead, uses their deaths for his own warped agenda.

You really think those who fly the confederate battle flag are as bad as ISIL?

I disagree. You cockroach white supremacist slime are just wannabes.

So much for guns saving lives though.

So, the killer didn't use 4 dead Americans (Marines, to boot...) for his agenda? You're a traitor, plain and simple.

Yes he did.

Obama kills ISIL and they retaliate.

In your warped minds, that makes Obama their friend and at fault.

That's just plain stupid.

How long before one of you pretends to care about the four REAL Americans who were killed? How about you try to imagine what their families are going through right now.

You are not fooling anybody. You post this bold type settings above in every reply… This method is straight out of Alinsky's handbook. If you were grieving as you try to look by "being solemn" you would shut the fuck up.

 

[Votto]

We have all heard the report. Some guy named Muhammad (something, something) shoots and kills 4 innocent people.

So Dims, would it be short sided and bigoted to now ban the Koran like you have the Confederate flag? Is it unfair to stereotype a whole group of people based upon the prejudice that is created by the ongoing Islamic terrorism?