Moms
Demand Muslim Control
[SNIP]
Here’s
a list of the ten deadliest terror attacks this year, all committed by
Muslim extremists, and all of which individually resulted in more
deaths than all the “mass shootings” in America this year, combined:
Date: Jan.
3
Death
Toll: 150 to 2,000.
Perpetrator: Boko
Haram
Location: Baga,
|
Date: March
20
Death
Toll: 137
Perpetrator: Islamic
State
Location: Yemen |
Date: April
2
Death
Toll: At
least 147
Perpetrator: Al-Shabab
Location: Kenya |
Date: Feb.
4 – 5
Death
Toll: At
least 91
Perpetrator: Boko
Haram
Location: Cameroon |
Date: June
25
Death
Toll: At least 154
Perpetrator: Islamic
State
Location: Syria |
Date: June
30 and July 1
Death
Toll: At
least 145
Perpetrator: Boko
Haram
Location: Nigeria |
Date: July
17
Death
Toll: 120
Perpetrator: Islamic
State
Location: Iraq |
Date: Aug.
13
Death
Toll: At
least 76
Perpetrator: Islamic
State
Location: Iraq |
Date: Sept.
20
Death
Toll: At
least 80
Perpetrator: Likely Boko Haram
Location: Nigeria |
Date: Oct.
31
Death
Toll: 224
Perpetrator: Islamic
State
Location: Egypt |
Some
of these, of course, barely rated mention in the American media, and
the Roanoke shooting got more coverage than all these events combined,
because the victim’s father was a media savvy gun control proponent.
But at the end of the day, the indisputable facts are that in the last
18 months, violent Islamic extremists around the globe have committed
mass murder with increasing frequency and efficacy.
Where,
on CNN, is the airtime for the parents of the victims of ISIS, or Boko
Haram, or al-Shabab to explain to us all what a menace Islamic
extremists are? Where are the brothers and sisters of the beheading
victims to call on the President to take strong military action instead
of ineffectual half measures that make the problem worse? Where are the
Christians who were targeted in Kenya to plead their case about the way
they are systematically executed by central African Muslim groups?
Now,
given the way the media has covered the mass shootings committed in
America, you would expect that they would be out there paying lip
service to the idea of religious pluralism while at the same time
explaining that devoutly religious Muslims as a whole are so dangerous
that they still deserve to have laws passed against them, right?
I mean, that makes sense according to the media’s logic, right? Even
though all gun owners or even most gun owners aren’t bad, we still have
to take precautions against them according to the media. Well, if all
or even most Muslims aren’t bad, but SOME are deadly – and much
deadlier even than the shootings here – wouldn’t media logic dictate
that we should take more precautions against Muslims in this country?
Of course not. Instead they are out there patiently explaining to all
us dolts who don’t want huge masses of Syrian refugees moved in next
door that the overwhelming majority of them are peaceful and that if
one of them turns out not to be and kills a couple hundred people,
that’s just the price of being tolerant and open minded, which the
media is only too happy to declare that we should pay.
The media’s condescension towards middle America is such a sad and
sickening spectacle. They sit in their coastal enclaves with their
self-loathing towards the oafish country of their origin and bend over
backwards to condemn anyone who might generalize even a little bit
about Muslims, even during the middle of a spate of Islam-inspired
terror attacks. [FULL]
You can't use logic or reason with a liberal or a Muslim. On the upside it looks like robots are going to kill them both. Those $15 an hour jobs are going to robots. That and robots printing money will kill of welfare. Soon there what's available for tax thieves will be protected by armed robots.
ReplyDeleteLiberals lack a sense of time (and reality). The difference between good Muslims and Muslim Extremists is just time. Just this time last week all of the worlds libs would have carried the water for each of the Paris attackers, they had done nothing wrong. "Don't paint them with that brush, it's not fair". Tick....Tick.... -Anymouse
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, David "Coexist" Cameron has warned that "we must be prepared for a number of British casualties".
ReplyDelete"We stand with France" (but we're so emasculated, all we can do is root for the French and all ten of their combat ready airplanes.)
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
1. Engage in conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.
ReplyDelete2. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
3. Wait until he says something to the effect of "using violence against violence doesn't solve anything."
4. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
5. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.
6. Wait until he agrees, and has pledged not to commit additional violence.
7. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
8. Repeat steps 5 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.
Shame on you Flyfish.....if he's down on the ground kick him until he's curled up in a ball, and then perform Flamenco
ReplyDeleteon his head. You need to leave permanent scars and a limp on so that every time he looks in the mirror and every time he gets out of bed, pain will remind him of his folly. Of course you may have to repeat this cycle. Stupid is hardwired.
If you could reason with a liberal, would any be left?
ReplyDeleteNotice in the media, the terrorists are always called "extremists", which include islamophobes(and republicans) but they NEVER CALL THEM MUSLIMS, that mafia of throat cutters since Mohamed, who decapitated 1,000 men, women and children in Medina...(they were the Banu Qureiza tribe, Jew/Zionists, no doubts) so it would then be OK for the Sandy Berniacs and the Sandalistas of Hitlery Clintoon...
ReplyDelete"would there be any left?"
ReplyDeleteI see what you did there......
Sir H the Comet