Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Reforming Islam....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Captain Trips
    started a topic Reforming Islam....

    Reforming Islam....

    Islam needs a reformation from things like this. It's been called;

    'A demonic practice' - see story below

    But all cultures are "equal" for liberals.

    This is the result.

    In effect liberals support pinning down little girls and cutting off part of their genitals.

    Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. They supposedly support womens rights, want equal pay for equal work, blah blah blah. ... then they turn around and support this ??? No ?

    Yes. They defend islam every day, islam that murders gay people, yet they defend gay people ?

    The writers of this story made sure to find a few nut-case Christians who did something similar to their young girls. What is interesting about this is that this is NOT a practice of Christianity. Not a common practice at all, I'd never heard of a case. Of course there are nuts in all religions. The common thread seems to be to make sure females get no pleasure from sex.

    Why ? I don't know, it makes no sense. Why would men want to have women uninterested in sex ?

    Islam needs a new and better practice.

    This practice involves removing most of the penis from males at a young age, leaving just enough to point and pee with.

    This is an excellent start to reforming the religion of islam. Leave the women alone, fix the men !



    ---------------------------------------------

    ....

    In a first-of-its kind federal prosecution, authorities have charged three people for their alleged roles in the genital cuttings of two 7-year-old Minnesota girls at a Livonia clinic in February. Authorities say the girls came to Michigan with their mothers, thinking it was a special girls trip, but ended up having their genitals cut instead.

    All three defendants belong to a small, Indian-Muslim community known as the Dawoodi Bohra, whose members say genital cutting is a deeply entrenched social and cultural norm, with some women viewing it as normal as having a period. Celebration parties are held after the cuttings, and the women and girls are supposed to keep it a secret. One of the key reasons for the procedure, victims say, is to curb a woman's sexuality.

    It was the summer of 1990.

    Mariya Taher was 7 years old, vacationing in India with her family, when one day her mother took her to a run-down apartment building without explaining why.

    She remembers climbing some stairs, opening a door and seeing older women in a room. There was laughter, and the place seemed cheerful.

    But then came the betrayal.

    The child ended up on the floor. Her dress was lifted up.

    “I remember something sharp down there and then I remember crying,” Taher, now 34, recalls. “I remember my mom comforting me afterward and holding me in her lap.”

    ....After years of suffering in silence, fearful of getting shunned by their families and communities if they denounced genital mutilation, they are speaking out and demanding change. They want the cutters punished, along with religious leaders and parents who continue to support a practice that is illegal in the U.S. and has been condemned by the World Health Organization.


    [ It's "illegal in the US" . . . kind of like coming to the US illegally is "illegal" . . . not really, we just pay it lip service ]

    “It's taken me a long time to be as comfortable as I am," said Taher, who hopes that her Sahiyo campaign to end female genital mutilation will gain momentum from the Michigan case. "We can’t have this happening ... Whether it’s a tradition, for religious reasons or for sex, I see all of it as controlling someone. This is a form of gender violence. It’s a form of child abuse. It’s oppression.”

    [ yet liberals want to import more people from places that do these kinds of things ]


    Growing up in India, she was told that the practice was meant to “curb a woman’s sexual desire” so that a woman wouldn’t have an affair or premarital sex. The Bohras do this, she said, by cutting the hood — or tip — off of the clitoris, which was done to her. Today, she said, the Bohras are changing their story about why they practice genital cutting, claiming the ritual is for cleanliness and religious reasons.

    [ it's about taking the pleasure of sex AWAY from women. that's all.....

    ..... Let's turn this around and have penile mutilations on all male children in the islamic culture ! Sounds to me like the perfect way to chill these people out. ]


    “If this can happen in the U.S.A. — it needs to stop,” Sulemanji said, stressing the cutting leaves permanent scars.

    “I remember everything,” she said. “It’s a bad, bad memory. It’s a scar on my life.”


    ....


    http://www.krem.com/news/local/genit...onic/433644391

  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Back to the original topic.

    That being reforming Islam.

    Or, recognizing it for what it is and acting accordingly..

    Islam was attacking us a long time ago. We still don't get it.

    So, they kill us.

    Still, 233 years later.

    We must be a little ... or a lot slow..

    Islam will NEVER be "reformed" !

    Islam will "reform" US !

    Or kill us.

    They're not afraid of us, they don't 'respect" us and they've made their goals very clear.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ...in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews.

    In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

    The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    ...centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

    Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.


    ...Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today

    -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._at_jihad.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by redrover View Post

    I am sure everyone at your church is armed to the teeth.
    I wouldn't know, as I don't do an arms check at the doors of the church.

    But you can believe as you wish, whatever the case may be LOL No one cares.

    Leave a comment:


  • redrover
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

    I agree.

    The man is clearly a nut case.

    It is too bad he was able to get away with it.

    I was just reading an article about churches of all faiths, starting to arm themselves and take more security measures.

    That is too bad I think. People want a safe place to worship, NOT a place where they have to fear they'll be the target practice of some random nut.
    I am sure everyone at your church is armed to the teeth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    While I'm not trying to claim this guy speaks for conservatives in any way shape or form to try and claim he isn't a racist right winger is to completely ignore the evidence of his manifesto and the fact he urged more violence against Muslims like the Mayor of London.
    I agree.

    The man is clearly a nut case.

    It is too bad he was able to get away with it.

    I was just reading an article about churches of all faiths, starting to arm themselves and take more security measures.

    That is too bad I think. People want a safe place to worship, NOT a place where they have to fear they'll be the target practice of some random nut.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterUK75
    replied
    While I'm not trying to claim this guy speaks for conservatives in any way shape or form to try and claim he isn't a racist right winger is to completely ignore the evidence of his manifesto and the fact he urged more violence against Muslims like the Mayor of London.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    If you carefully read what is written, and what the man wrote and said,....

    ..... in posts # 239 and # 241

    If you read, you can come to your own "conclusions."

    BUT, it's very difficult, without hard left bias confirmation, to conclude that he is a hard "right winger."

    I will be happy to conclude that he is a dangerous idiot, PROBABLY ( as I stated at the beginning of the above mentioned posts ) of the leftist variety ( based on what he says and writes), but right, left or from one of Jupiters moons, it doesn't matter.

    He represents NO serious, civilized political views.

    That the imbeciles in the media immediately want to cast this nut as a right winger, is only another crack-brained attempt to rabble rouse hate for Americas current president. It's ridiculous and silly.

    Here are some important writings, facts and statements we currently know about this fellow...

    Name; 28-year-old Australian Brenton Tarrant

    He "published a 74-page manifesto"

    He "wrote that Sir Oswald Mosley “is the person from history closest to my own beliefs."

    Fact; Mosely, was photographed with Mussolini on a visit to Italy in 1936, he was the leader of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s after serving as a member of Parliament.

    Brenton Tarrant says he could be described, “depending on the definition,” as “right wing” as well as “left wing,” and a “socialist.

    He says explicitly he is not a conservative, saying “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.

    He says he’s “an actual fascist.

    He considers himself “an Eco-fascist by nature.

    He declares that the “nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.

    He presents the political left as an enemy that conducted a “march through the institutions” and describes Antifa, communists, and Marxists as “anti-white scum.

    He disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god

    He attempts to link high-profile individuals — who have little in common with his stated ideology yet command large online followings and are frequently the target of unfair media hit pieces — to his attack. If it triggers a war of words between the media and their frequent targets, the result of this tactic would be more publicity for the shooter.

    He At three points in his manifesto, ..states his intention to spark a civil war in the United States

    .. a rabble rouser who wants to incite more hate and violence like his own.

    He predicts that his attack will lead to “calls for the removal of gun rights from whites in the United States… that is the plan all along.”

    He states that he chose firearms “for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world.

    He says; "With enough pressure the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. The attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines."

    Does he sound like a hard right winger ?

    Does he sound like a hard left winger ?

    He spends the most amount of time discussing this goal, which he believes will ultimately lead to a “fracturing” of the U.S. along "cultural and racial lines."

    Which, as I previously stated; "is what the left has been doing for awhile !!"

    We all can "conclude" whatever we wish about this nitwit and all be incorrect.

    The man is a nut, THAT is safe to conclude is it not ?

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    So we have a guy who kills 49 people in a mosque who has a manifesto filled with right wing talking points and claiming his inspiration is other mass murderers who killed Muslims and Trump and from all the available information you've come to the conclusion he's a leftist radical.

    Really?
    Not sure if the New Zealand shooter can be characterized as conservative or a White Nationalist.


    Mosque killer: I'm a socialist 'eco-fascist' - WND
    https://www.wnd.com/2019/.../mosque-...n-the-definiti...
    19 hours ago - Describing himself as a “racist,” Tarrant state's he's not a conservative and could be labeled a socialist, “depending on the definition.” Mosely ...
    "conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it." he states in his manifesto.

    But I realize that the left's most favorite thing is to blame cast everything on everyone else, especially non-leftists at every opportunity possible, whether irrational or down right fabrications or not.

    It has also been reported that one of his motivations for this shooting was to incite a race war and / or political division within the US. We can see this taking root already (never takes the left long, does it?)

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut casting blame on President Trump for the attacks for example.

    Rather than blame casting 'he's one of yours', I think it fair to say that he's no political party's, but rather far off on his own.

    Leave a comment:


  • redrover
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    So we have a guy who kills 49 people in a mosque who has a manifesto filled with right wing talking points and claiming his inspiration is other mass murderers who killed Muslims and Trump and from all the available information you've come to the conclusion he's a leftist radical.

    Really?
    Leftist radical? Maybe you should read more about this guy.His rhetoric sounds a lot like your anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim posts. I just heard that unlike you this guy wasn't on any terrorist watch-lisst

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    So we have a guy who kills 49 people in a mosque who has a manifesto filled with right wing talking points and claiming his inspiration is other mass murderers who killed Muslims and Trump and from all the available information you've come to the conclusion he's a leftist radical.

    Really?
    Maybe you and Rover can take a reading class together. Read carefully;


    He probably IS a leftist radical.

    However the "media' will forever lie and present him as a "white nationalist" who was "motivated by president Trump."

    Truth is very challenging for these media people.

    ... and our friend rover...

    but...

    Here's what we're finding....

    -----------------------------------------------------


    The primary suspect in the massacre Friday of 49 people at two mosques in New Zealand named a prominent British fascist leader who was allied with Italy’s Benito Mussolini in the 1930s as the historical political figure with whom he most identified.

    The suspect, 28-year-old Australian Brenton Tarrant, published a 74-page manifesto before killing 49 people and injuring another 20 at the Christchurch mosques.

    Tarrant wrote that Sir Oswald Mosley “is the person from history closest to my own beliefs.”

    Describing himself as a “racist,” Tarrant state’s he’s not a conservative and could be labeled a socialist, “depending on the definition.”

    Mosely, who was photographed with Mussolini on a visit to Italy in 1936, was the leader of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s after serving as a member of Parliament.

    Already, Democratic leaders, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, are casting blame on President Trump for the attacks.

    In his manifesto, Tarrant describes his political ideology in a Q&A format. In summary, he says he could be described, “depending on the definition,” as “right wing” as well as “left wing,” and a “socialist.”

    He says explicitly he is not a conservative, saying “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

    To the question of whether or not he is a Christian, he writes, “That is complicated.”

    Tarrant says he’s “an actual fascist.”


    “I am sure the journalists will love that,” he says, adding he considers himself “an Eco-fascist by nature.”

    Tarrant also declares that the “nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.”

    He poses the question of whether he is or was a “homophobe.”

    “No, I simply do not care all that much what gay people do,” he writes. “As long as they are loyal to their people and place their peoples well being first, then I have no issues.”



    https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/mosque-k...cat_orig=world

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It gets even better ....

    .........


    On the one hand, the manifesto presents the political left as an enemy that conducted a “march through the institutions” and describes Antifa, communists, and Marxists as “anti-white scum.” Elsewhere, the shooter writes that “under some definitions,” he is both on the right and the left.

    Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”

    “The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities.”

    Parts of the manifesto appear to be insincere trolling, aimed at sowing confusion about his motivations. At one point, the shooter blames his action on popular video game titles, saying “Spyro the Dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism” and that “Fortnite trained me to be a killer.”

    Elsewhere in the document, the shooter identifies black conservative Candace Owens — obviously neither a white nationalist nor a supporter of violence — as the “person that has influenced me above all.” In a video posted online, the shooter also tells viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie” — the pseudonym of Felix Kjellberg, a comedian and video game streamer who runs the most-subscribed channel on YouTube and whose content is majority non-political.

    In both cases, the shooter attempts to link high-profile individuals — who have little in common with his stated ideology yet command large online followings and are frequently the target of unfair media hit pieces — to his attack. If it triggers a war of words between the media and their frequent targets, the result of this tactic would be more publicity for the shooter.

    At three points in his manifesto, the shooter also states his intention to spark a civil war in the United States by triggering crackdowns on the Second Amendment. In his laundry list of motivations, the shooter spends the most amount of time discussing this goal, which he believes will ultimately lead to a “fracturing” of the U.S. along “cultural and racial lines.”


    As he describes it, his attack will “Create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political, and racial divide within the United States.”

    This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will eventually result in a civil war that will Balkanize the U.S. along political, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.”

    Elsewhere in the manifesto, the shooter predicts that his attack will lead to “calls for the removal of gun rights from whites in the United States… that is the plan all along.”

    While the shooter lists a number of highly lethal methods he might have used to carry out the act of terrorism, he states that he chose firearms “for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world.”

    With enough pressure the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. The attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines.



    https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ead-thank-god/


    "....the shooter spends the most amount of time discussing this goal, which he believes will ultimately lead to a “fracturing” of the U.S. along "cultural and racial lines.”"

    Which is what the left has been doing for awhile !!

    In otherwords, we have another creep who hates America surprise surprise, and he's made a mass murderer of himself.

    Another violent nut who hates America, willing to kill for hate....... it does get old doesn't it ?

    Then we have to watch the retards in the "
    media" lie to the entire world about it !!


    Link to original post if you need... https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...982#post560982

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterUK75
    replied
    So we have a guy who kills 49 people in a mosque who has a manifesto filled with right wing talking points and claiming his inspiration is other mass murderers who killed Muslims and Trump and from all the available information you've come to the conclusion he's a leftist radical.

    Really?

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
    In this manifesto he didn't profess to be a White Supremacist. His manifesto would seem to indicate that he's a leftist radical.
    He probably IS a leftist radical.

    However the "media' will forever lie and present him as a "white nationalist" who was "motivated by president Trump."

    Truth is very challenging for these media people.

    ... and our friend rover...

    but...

    Here's what we're finding....

    -----------------------------------------------------


    The primary suspect in the massacre Friday of 49 people at two mosques in New Zealand named a prominent British fascist leader who was allied with Italy’s Benito Mussolini in the 1930s as the historical political figure with whom he most identified.

    The suspect, 28-year-old Australian Brenton Tarrant, published a 74-page manifesto before killing 49 people and injuring another 20 at the Christchurch mosques.

    Tarrant wrote that Sir Oswald Mosley “is the person from history closest to my own beliefs.”

    Describing himself as a “racist,” Tarrant state’s he’s not a conservative and could be labeled a socialist, “depending on the definition.”

    Mosely, who was photographed with Mussolini on a visit to Italy in 1936, was the leader of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s after serving as a member of Parliament.

    Already, Democratic leaders, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, are casting blame on President Trump for the attacks.

    In his manifesto, Tarrant describes his political ideology in a Q&A format. In summary, he says he could be described, “depending on the definition,” as “right wing” as well as “left wing,” and a “socialist.”

    He says explicitly he is not a conservative, saying “conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

    To the question of whether or not he is a Christian, he writes, “That is complicated.”

    Tarrant says he’s “an actual fascist.”


    “I am sure the journalists will love that,” he says, adding he considers himself “an Eco-fascist by nature.”

    Tarrant also declares that the “nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.”

    He poses the question of whether he is or was a “homophobe.”

    “No, I simply do not care all that much what gay people do,” he writes. “As long as they are loyal to their people and place their peoples well being first, then I have no issues.”



    https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/mosque-k...cat_orig=world

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It gets even better ....

    .........


    On the one hand, the manifesto presents the political left as an enemy that conducted a “march through the institutions” and describes Antifa, communists, and Marxists as “anti-white scum.” Elsewhere, the shooter writes that “under some definitions,” he is both on the right and the left.

    Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”

    “The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities.”

    Parts of the manifesto appear to be insincere trolling, aimed at sowing confusion about his motivations. At one point, the shooter blames his action on popular video game titles, saying “Spyro the Dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism” and that “Fortnite trained me to be a killer.”

    Elsewhere in the document, the shooter identifies black conservative Candace Owens — obviously neither a white nationalist nor a supporter of violence — as the “person that has influenced me above all.” In a video posted online, the shooter also tells viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie” — the pseudonym of Felix Kjellberg, a comedian and video game streamer who runs the most-subscribed channel on YouTube and whose content is majority non-political.

    In both cases, the shooter attempts to link high-profile individuals — who have little in common with his stated ideology yet command large online followings and are frequently the target of unfair media hit pieces — to his attack. If it triggers a war of words between the media and their frequent targets, the result of this tactic would be more publicity for the shooter.

    At three points in his manifesto, the shooter also states his intention to spark a civil war in the United States by triggering crackdowns on the Second Amendment. In his laundry list of motivations, the shooter spends the most amount of time discussing this goal, which he believes will ultimately lead to a “fracturing” of the U.S. along “cultural and racial lines.”


    As he describes it, his attack will “Create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political, and racial divide within the United States.”

    This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will eventually result in a civil war that will Balkanize the U.S. along political, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.”

    Elsewhere in the manifesto, the shooter predicts that his attack will lead to “calls for the removal of gun rights from whites in the United States… that is the plan all along.”

    While the shooter lists a number of highly lethal methods he might have used to carry out the act of terrorism, he states that he chose firearms “for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world.”

    With enough pressure the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. The attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines.



    https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ead-thank-god/


    "....the shooter spends the most amount of time discussing this goal, which he believes will ultimately lead to a “fracturing” of the U.S. along "cultural and racial lines.”"

    Which is what the left has been doing for awhile !!

    In otherwords, we have another creep who hates America surprise surprise, and he's made a mass murderer of himself.

    Another violent nut who hates America, willing to kill for hate....... it does get old doesn't it ?

    Then we have to watch the retards in the "
    media" lie to the entire world about it !!

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Originally posted by redrover View Post

    In his manifesto the Christian mass murder credited Trump for his inspiration and even called immigration an invasion; then Trump went on to on to use the invasion rhetoric again today right after the shooting. He wouldn't even admit that white nationalist terrorism is a growing problem. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSup...ing_threat_of/
    In this manifesto he didn't profess to be a White Supremacist. His manifesto would seem to indicate that he's a leftist radical.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    In his manifesto the Christian mass murder
    Where does it say in his writings that he is a "Christian" ? Can we see that please ?

    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    credited Trump for his inspiration and even called immigration an invasion;
    The mass illegal immigrant problem on our southern border IS an invasion. This killer could have "credited" ME for use of that word.

    That in no way means I, OR the President condone, or are in favor of what this person did.

    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    then Trump went on to on to use the invasion rhetoric again today right after the shooting.
    So ?

    The mass illegal immigrant problem on our southern border IS an invasion.

    That in no way means I, OR the President condone, or are in favor of what this person did.

    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    He wouldn't even admit that white nationalist terrorism is a growing problem. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSup...ing_threat_of/
    You and the mental cases in Washington D.C. won't admit that there's a national emergency on our southern border.

    "White Nationalist Terrorism" is a term pretty open to interpretation..... can you define that in two or less sentences, so we can know for sure when we're seeing an instance of it ?

    "White Nationalist Terrorism" ...... what is that ?

    Leave a comment:


  • redrover
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post


    I think you've confused a thing or two.

    It's Muslims that want to reform Infidels.

    Generally by shooting, bombing, beheading, or throwing people off buildings ( that's the special treatment gay people get from Islamists )

    Americans get cool stuff like airplanes flown into their buildings !

    Some crazy people out there ... some get tired of it all and might start killing to defend.

    Probably where the saying; "Live by the sword, die by the sword." came from.

    https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...966#post560966
    In his manifesto the Christian mass murder credited Trump for his inspiration and even called immigration an invasion; then Trump went on to on to use the invasion rhetoric again today right after the shooting. He wouldn't even admit that white nationalist terrorism is a growing problem. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSup...ing_threat_of/

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X