By Jane Cutter at the PSL’s Liberation News:
On November 27, Robert Lewis Dear, a 57-year old white man, entered the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic and began shooting. At the end of the day, after killing three people, one a police officer, Dear surrendered, uninjured and was taken into custody.
Dear’s motives were not initially known; however, this armed attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic takes place in the context of a larger right-wing, assault on the family planning and women’s health care provider.
According to Party for Socialism and Liberation Presidential candidate Gloria La Riva, “This extreme right-wing campaign against Planned Parenthood, a major provider of health care for women, was sparked by a dishonest and manipulative video attack on the reproductive rights organization. Actors posing as medical researchers secretly videotaped a conversation with a Planned Parenthood doctor about fetal tissue donation for research purposes. A lengthy discussion was selectively edited down to 8 minutes and used to advance the ludicrous claim that Planned Parenthood was involved in selling fetal tissue for profit.
“Nothing could be further from the truth. Any fees received by Planned Parenthood for donated fetal tissue are used to cover the additional expenses involved in preserving and transporting the tissue. Fetal tissue research, like abortion itself, is legal. Such research has contributed to lifesaving medical advances.
“However, the extreme right-wing politicians in the House and Senate, and those involved in the Republican presidential primary, have seized on this video and are trying to make political hay of it, with investigations and hearings, and now the threat to shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenthood is continued.”
In the initial aftermath of the hateful video campaign, large right-wing demonstrations took place at many Planned Parenthood clinics. These hate rallies in some cases were followed with acts of terrorism, as in Pullman, Wa, where just days after a rally of 500 outside Planned Parenthood, a firebomb was thrown into the clinic, leading to its temporary closure.
Similarly in Colorado Springs, the Planned Parenthood has long been the target of ongoing small protests, but more recently, in the wake of the video campaign, some 300 people protested outside the clinic. It is not hard to link a hate-filled rally to a hateful shooting spree. After being taken into custody, Dear made the comment, “No more baby parts,” which would appear to reference the attack video campaign and support the idea that Dear was motivated by anti-abortion belief. That Twitter is now full of right-wing, anti-abortion extremists praising Dear’s murderous actions further leads credence to this hypothesis.
Colorado Springs: site of multiple domestic terrorism incidents
Liberation News spoke with Dr. James Tucker in Colorado Springs, publisher of the African American Voice newspaper. “I challenge Mayor John Suthers and Police Chief Pete Carey to call this what it is, white domestic terrorism,” he said.
Dr. Tucker pointed out that Colorado Springs has been the site of more than one incident of white domestic terrorism; a previous incident occurred just a few months ago. The city authorities are well aware of the potential for such terrorism as is evidenced by the security measures in place at City Hall.
The entrenched upholding of white supremacy by law enforcement was also on display in Colorado Springs as Dear was taken into custody unharmed. It is hard to to imagine a Black man similarly armed, who had killed a cop, being taken in alive, let alone uninjured.
As we see the whipping up of a new fascist, anti-Muslim, anti-migrant campaign, it is important to remember that the biggest terrorist danger to people in the United States comes from right-wing, domestic extremists. All progressive people should unite against domestic right-wing terrorism and stand in solidarity with the brave doctors, nurses and other workers at Planned Parenthood who brave these dangers every day to bring needed and legal health care to women.
Once again 4:17 had nothing to do with 4:01 and did not necessarily have anything to do with anything you did in this particular thread. It was a general note to the readers about something you have done many times on various threads, asking to be kept informed of it if and when it happens again. I’d say stop wasting time with your lies and bullshit but you clearly never will because you are either very bored, or it’s your job or part of your conditional release from prison to disrupt conversations here with your nonsense.
Chicken: _You’re_ lying. I didn’t say the post at 4:17 CLAIMED to have some explicit “reference” to my post at 4:01. Your foolish suggestion about copying and pasting full articles was and is irrelevant here: I did not do that, as a search upwards easily shows. Rather, Paulie merely displayed his passive-aggressive tendencies by using my 4:01 posting as an trigger for making his 4:17 post.
My 4:01 post has a link, but it has only four other lines of text, all of which I wrote myself. The link is to a YouTube video.
I’d say, “Try again”, but it’s obvious that the nonsense from you will continue anyway, with or without invitation.
You’re lying. The post at 4:17 has no reference to the post at 4:01 and refers to other instances when you copy and paste full articles – sometimes several in a row – where only a link would do. 4:17 is not addressed to 4:01 nor to you at all and is a note to other people to identify if and when you post whole articles again, which you did not do at 4:01. It’s not an attempt to shut anything down but rather a courtesy to the readers so they don’t have to scroll past full article repost after full article repost. They can decide for themselves if they want to read any links you leave; just leave the link and no need to copy the rest. The link would still be there if it’s edited after the fact so absolutely no discussion would be shut down. 4:17 is a general note that appears to not be specific to this article.
Everybody should notice that Paulie is trying to shut down the discussion on this issue, in a threatening fashion above, the moment (16 minutes later!!!; my post was timed 4:01, his was timed 4:17) I posted a link to the bystanders’ video in the Minneapolis shooting: That video showed that there wasn’t an attack by the bystanders on the BLM protestors: Quite the opposite: The BLM protestors attacked the bystanders!
The bystanders (I previously called them “counter protestors”, but I’m no longer: They didn’t even do any obvious counter-protesting) simply showed up, and walked up to a point across the street of the BLM protestors.
One other thing. If anyone sees Jim copy and pasting whole articles please let me know and I will cut them down to a link only. Some of his original comments are just as long and I don’t want to look at them long enough them to figure out which is which.
Since the lying cartoon was posted here, alluding to the Minneapolis shootings, I will post the URL of the video from the counter-protestors point of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w
Clearly, the counter-protestors do not attack, or even provoke, the BLM protestors. Nevertheless, the BLM protestors mob them, and then attack them.
From: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/25/police-doc-black-lives-matter-protesters-started-confrontation-led-minneapolis-shooting/
Excerpt: “MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota—A search warrant related to the shooting of five Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis reveals new details that may strengthen the case that the shooting was an act of self-defense by white suspects who were being assaulted by black protesters.
Three suspects, all white, have been charged in connection with the incident. No black suspects have been charged, despite the information provided to police and recorded comments from Black Lives Matter protesters stating that the white suspects were attacked after being surrounded.
Evidence suggests that the Minneapolis police were aware that the initiation of force came from the black protesters.
As Breitbart News reported earlier, two black activist witnesses said on video shortly after the incident that, “Somebody out the crowd punched one of them and they hit the gate over here. after that, one of them started reaching and backing up.”
[end of section quoted]
This cartoon shows that cartoons can lie, just as much as the written word. If someone were to write down, in English, the phrase “If you aren’t in favor of the Black Lives Matter protestors, you must be a Nazi”, we would all recognize the foolishness of that claim. Further, not only that, but it also depicts only to choices, only to ‘sides’ to the argument. Clearly, there are many more ‘sides’ available. Innocent bystanders exist. Innocent bystanders who get assaulted by others also exist.
Another obvious problem is that since this cartoon was probably inspired by the Minneapolis shooting, is that we’ve now found that it probably didn’t happen the way the PC/MSM types usually reported it: As I found from a video, even the BLM protestor admitted, in front of a cell phone camera, that the BLM protestors FIRST attacked, struck, and ran after those others present (I have referred to the others as “counter protestors”, although they didn’t identify themselves as counter-protesting). In other words, the BLM protestors ASSAULTED the visitors. Did the visitors come armed? At least one of them did. But that was entirely legal, and it was also entirely legal to pull that gun and fire away in self-defense, aimed at those BLM attackers.
Ironically, this event was somewhat analogous to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, but involving many people. Trayvon didn’t like to be watched, so he eventually attacked Zimmerman, not realizing Zimmerman was armed with a pistol. Shots rang out, and Martin died.
So you see, this cartoon LIES.
Since this keeps getting brought up… I can’t fide the image source, even in the code, so here’s a screenshot. Just finally learned how to do screenshots in the last few days (d’oh!) so this is one of the first ….
Paulie said:
“I noticed that some people have claimed that the Colorado shooter is not actually a terrorist.”
First, the definition of “terrorist”, as is commonly used, is very vague. I already posted that comment from Wikipedia, explaining this.
Second, the one definition that I consider closest to best includes:
1. A deliberate attack.
2. Against otherwise uninvolved people.
3. In order to affect the actions of a government.
In the Colorado shootings, items 1 and 2 are satisfied. Item 3 is not, however.
It is, of course, possible that a different definition of “terrorism” would qualify.
An attack by a rabid dog would satisfy items 1 and 2; Item 3 wouldn’t qualify, however.
” I have no idea on what basis.”
Don’t play stupid. I already stated my objection in previous comments.
“He killed people at a Planned Parenthood office and said something like no more baby parts.”
How does his killing there affect the operations of a government? The only relationship between Planned Parenthood and government is that some government money goes to fund the operations of Planned Parenthood.
” I haven’t had time to read the articles but various things that send me notifications to email indicate he is a religious fundamentalist, judging by the headlines.”
I’m not seeing anything like that. When I Google-search ‘Robert Louis Dear fundamentalist’ I see a lot of speculation, very little fact.
“Some right wing propagandists have foolishly tried to claim he is a transgender leftist. ”
Then you are showing how foolish _you_ are. That HUMOROUS reference was triggered by the fact that Dear had apparently registered to vote, checking the box for “female”, rather than “male”. The result was used as fodder for a joke, as if he was claiming to be transgender. Evidently, you didn’t get the joke. Clearly it was a language barrier problem.
“The sole “evidence” for this that I have seen is that he marked female and no political party on his voter registration. Unless there is some other evidence that only shows he was not very careful when he filled out the voter form.”
A JOKE, Paulie, a JOKE.
“I see it all the time at work. Not having a party is not an indication of leftism, and even if he is transgender as opposed to sloppy on paperwork that does not make him a leftist either. On the other hand being a religious fundamentalist who makes remarks about baby parts when shooting up a Planned Parenthood office is a very strong indication of being a right wing terrorist.”
I just found this comment at: http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz-casually-offers-that-planned-parenthood-shooter-was-transgendered-leftist-activist/
(note: this is not MY comment: It is 6 hours old)
“John Williams • 6 hours ago
Jared Lee Loughner, identified as the Gabby Giffords shooter, said The Communist Manifesto was his favorite book, yet for days the media said he was a Tea Party activist and even named an innocent man.
Arapahoe High School shooter Karl Pierson was a hardcore leftist Keynesian who mocked Republicans.
The killer of two reporters – Allison Parker and Adam Ward – this year was a gay leftist so that crime had to be depicted as a gun crime and of course conservatives are responsible for that. When these killers have knives, that’s ignored.
The Aurora theater shooter, James Holmes, was a registered Democrat, an occupier and a progressive who hated Christians.
Elliot Rodger was a leftist mass murderer who also used a car to kill.
Nidal Hasan, the Ft Hood Shooter was a registered Democrat and Muslim.
The Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis, was a black liberal Obama supporter.
Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff. He was a registered Democrat.
Extreme leftist Amy Bishop killed her colleagues in Alabama. She loved Obama.
Then, but not finally, there is Andrew J. Stack who flew a plane into IRS building in Texas. He was a leftist Democrat.”
[end of quote]
I noticed that some people have claimed that the Colorado shooter is not actually a terrorist. I have no idea on what basis. He killed people at a Planned Parenthood office and said something like no more baby parts. I haven’t had time to read the articles but various things that send me notifications to email indicate he is a religious fundamentalist, judging by the headlines. Some right wing propagandists have foolishly tried to claim he is a transgender leftist. The sole “evidence” for this that I have seen is that he marked female and no political party on his voter registration. Unless there is some other evidence that only shows he was not very careful when he filled out the voter form. I see it all the time at work. Not having a party is not an indication of leftism, and even if he is transgender as opposed to sloppy on paperwork that does not make him a leftist either. On the other hand being a religious fundamentalist who makes remarks about baby parts when shooting up a Planned Parenthood office is a very strong indication of being a right wing terrorist.
‘And a lot of terrorists are PC leftists, and a lot of PC leftists are terrorists.’
It feels great to make up things on the spur of the moment, doesn’t it Paulie?
That mask is like a one way mirror, but Jim doesn’t realize it is only opaque on his end.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/12/white-more-than-muslim-in-us-cops/
White (Racist -p) Terrorists Kill More than Muslim Terrorists in US, But Cops Kill More than Both
Of course, many, quite likely most, of those killer cops are white racists, and it’s likely many of them have hidden (or in a small number of cases quite open) ties to white racist terrorist organizations such as the KKK. Many, many sources have indicated that white racist groups are absolutely crawling with cops and government agents of all sorts. Some of them, of course, are just there to spy on the racists for the government and law enfarcement, but in many of those cases the infiltration seems to work in the opposite direction. Racist terrorists also consciously make a point to infiltrate law enfarcement, the military and regime spy agencies especially. So, a lot of killer racists are undercover cops, and a lot of killer cops are undercover racists.
Paulie, Don’t forget that it was YOU who screwed up, not me! I used the term “Neglish”, which you then virtually automatically criticized. But you hadn’t even Googled it, like I did, and found it was a perfectly reasonable word, having been invented at least as early as 2011. No derogatory implications were present in the definition, and you didn’t present any evidence to the contrary.
YOU were the person who was INVENTING the offense, NOT ME!!! You should be utterly ashamed of your concoction of false outrage.
And YOU, Jill, were the person who foolishly backed up Paulie, and THEN you erased your screwup message, in a dishonest fashion! Admit that you actually had no legitimate objection to what I said, merely who said it.
You two are DISGUSTING.
Ditto on Jim.
Also, I can’t remember if it was this thread or not, but I’ve quit reading Jim’s comments, and will not mention him except to advise other people to do the same. Same policy as Dave Terry. If anyone notices either of them say anything that really crosses the line and that you think requires more drastic action please let me know.
_I’m_ not the one talking about a “mask”.
That mask is not as concealing as Jim would like to think it is.
“If it is the truth, what does it matter who said it?”
Caption from a very early 1970’s poster. Interestingly, THEN the Left actually believed in the concept of ‘free speech’. Not any more, apparently.
“Plus, he can’t discuss things without calling people names. Maybe he’s still in junior high school.”
Yes, I think his name must be Jim Crow, and his comments are too long to read for being so worthless. Maybe he takes turns … like mask on/mask off? At https://www.instagram.com/p/-nI9rPirgW/ for anyone who missed it earlier. I agree he is probably just trolling. And did he really just cite Faux News? Was he serious? LOL. I didn’t read the rest of it but that part of the link just stuck out like a pus oozing sore when scrolling past his comment.
The thing is, Jim, that your comments always come back to the same thing: lumping a group of people into a category and pointing out what’s stereotypical of that group, as if that’s true of everyone in that group. There are millions of other topics you can bring up on IPR, yet this is what you talk about incessantly. You can deny it, use fancy words and links, and accuse everyone else of just wanting to be “politically correct” all you want, but it’s easy to see through your comments. You are a racist.
I actually think you’re trolling us. Seriously, who except for a professional has time to write such long comments that people like me don’t even have time to read?.Have you changed anyone’s mind about anything here? Are people lining up to agree with you?
There’s so much to be done to share the word of what Libertarians have to offer, or to remind other people that there are more parties in this country besides the Democratic and Republican parties. It’s easy to point out that both liberals and conservatives have let everyone down in this country, but that we have some better ideas. Wouldn’t that be a better use of time for a true liberty lover?
Well, my latter paragraph spells out my priorities. So, you do what you want, but I don’t choose to be a party to it. I’ve got too much else to do.
Alex: Apparently you believe that to merely cite (correct) statistics that put some individuals or groups in a bad light automatically constitutes “racism”. Politically-correct (PC) people would probably agree with you on that. However, most people agree that accurate information can be cited, without being inherently labelled “racist”.
I cited black-gang murders because their numbers are far more numerous than killings of “right-wing extremists”. Whether a fraction of them can be labelled, “Islam-inspired”, is the question. Here, I show why:
For instance, nationalgangcenter[dotgov]/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems says that there were 2363 gang-related murders in 2012 (note: this figure counts ALL gang related murders, not only black) And, the number is rising quickly.
I said, above:
“Further, note Chicken stated, “Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.””
It doesn’t require much mathematics to conclude that 10 years of murders at the rate of about 2000/year, or 20,000, would be vastly greater than “a total of 254 fatalities” said to be cause “right wing extremists” over a similar 10-year period.
It may be argued that most “gang-related homicides” are not “inspired by Islam”. Presumably, and statistically, we can easily agree that most WHITE gang murders aren’t “inspired by Islam”. But if 1/2 of those 20,000 gang-related homicides over 10 years were involving blacks, or 10,000, and only 5% of those were due to religious differences, that would be 500, far more than those killed by “right-wing extremists”. (blacks commit about 53% of all homicides.)
So, it can be easily seen that the statistical comparison being cited in posts above is dangerously close to being arbitrary.
Another reason why the statistics cited are arbitary is this: How do you determine if a killing is “Inspired by Islam”? If there is a so-called “honor killing”, where usually a female member of a family is killed due to some slight, is that “inspired by Islam”? Would the family involve claim it was? This url
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/10/honor-killing-in-america-doj-report-says-growing-problem-is-hidden-in-stats/
claims that there are 27 “honor killings” in America per year. Is that number already included in the statistics previously cited?
Note what Chicken said:
“As UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer explained last June in the New York Times, Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.””
Already I see a major problem! If there are about 27 “honor killings” per year, and if that figure was sustained over “13.5 years”, do the multiplication and you get 365 killings. Yet, Chicken cited the statistic above of “50 fatalities” over the ENTIRE period!!!. Where did those 315 (365-50=315) fatalities go, which just covered the “honor killings”?
The answer? THEY WERE NOT COUNTED! Presumably, professors Kurzman and Schanzer DIDN’T WANT to include them in the statistics! Could it be because adding 365 killings to 50 killings would raise the number of “islam-inspired killings” to well over the figure (254) ascribed to “right-wing extremist groups”. Or are they claiming that for a family to kill a daughter ISN’T an “Islam-inspired killing”?!?
Chicken!!! How does it feel to cite statistics which are LIES? Why do you LIE, CHICKEN?
Plus, he can’t discuss things without calling people names. Maybe he’s still in junior high school.
I came back to IPR to post some links about the 9/11 Commission Report, and how its authors denounced it, but forget it. I have more constructive things to do.
Maybe he takes turns … like mask on/mask off?
Jim said: “Also, these statistics probably ignore the fact that a rather disproportionately large number of “Muslims” in America happen to be black.”
You don’t even try to hide your racism, do you?
“Fun K. I think Jim could be either of the two guys on the left of your little cartoon.”
You may well be correct. The real question is … is he only one or both of them?
Wolfefan: You said,
“I think most people believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists (as opposed to “the Muslims.”) Assuming that and without having thought it through a ton, it seems to me that if there are 20 or so attacks that kill from 1-10 people each and 1 attack that kills 30,000 I am still more likely to be killed in the smaller attacks because one is more likely to take place in my area.”
Maybe you are off by a factor of 10 on the effectiveness of the 9/11/01 attacks. If you include just that date, the number was stated by Wikipedia as “2996” deaths, not “30,000”.
And I can see you were definitely correct when you said, “and without having thought it through a ton…”
Maybe you OUGHT to “think it through” a bit more. If you look at the whole thing using hindsight, anybody who was not in the area of a terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 had virtually a zero chance of being hurt or killed. But how are we supposed to know, ahead of time, WHERE such an attack is going to occur?
Chicken foolishly claimed:
“Though terrorism perpetrated by Muslims receives a disproportionate amount of attention from politicians and reporters, the reality is that right-wing extremists pose a much greater threat to people in the United States than terrorists connected to ISIS or similar organizations. As UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer explained last June in the New York Times, Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.” Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.””
If we limited our study to, say, Tacoma Washington, we could say “right-wing extremists average 0 (zero) attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 0 fatalities”. Hundreds of other small towns across America.
Further, note Chicken idiotically stated, “Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.””
That’s an average of perhaps 254 fatalities, divided by (337 times 10 years), or perhaps 0.08 deaths per attack. Not very much! Sounds to me like those numbers are screwed up, huh?
Also, these statistics probably ignore the fact that a rather disproportionately large number of “Muslims” in America happen to be black. When a black person kills somebody else, do we classify that as being “terrorism”? You might be inclined to say no, but many such killings are inter-gang warfare. Why is that NOT “terrorism”, depending on some definition of terrorism?
Dumb Alex said:
“I can’t believe Jim is using Wikipedia as a source.”
A person can use anything as a source. Whether it is credible is a question of fact. Can you show that its conclusions are not factual in this specific case?
“Jim, I don’t know what happened on 9/11.”
Which is very close to admitting that you don’t know what DIDN’T happen on that date, too. Your claim it wasn’t “Muslims” would, if true, require that you have contradicted yourself: On the one hand, you say you KNOW it wasn’t Muslims, but then you claim “Jim, I don’t know what happened on 9/11.” You are clearly a very sloppy thinker.
“There is a lot of evidence out there that it was a collaboration of several world powers.”
Give us a cite, a URL. I’m sure some people would want to read it, in addition to me.
“Just saying it was “Muslims” is too simplistic.”
Look up at the comments on this thread. The references to “Muslims” are, generally, by YOU. You’re the one who raised that canard, not me.
You might wish to read some of the latest news about 9/11.”
What is “the latest news about 9/11”. For something that happened 14 years ago, “the latest” is rather vague. Do you mean in the last day, or last week, or last month, or last year?
“Heck, it doesn’t even need to be recent. Just research what the members of the 9/11 Commissions said about their work.”
Which members? When?
I think most people believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists (as opposed to “the Muslims.”) Assuming that and without having thought it through a ton, it seems to me that if there are 20 or so attacks that kill from 1-10 people each and 1 attack that kills 30,000 I am still more likely to be killed in the smaller attacks because one is more likely to take place in my area.
I can’t believe Jim is using Wikipedia as a source.
Jim, I don’t know what happened on 9/11. There is a lot of evidence out there that it was a collaboration of several world powers. Just saying it was “Muslims” is too simplistic.
You might wish to read some of the latest news about 9/11. Heck, it doesn’t even need to be recent. Just research what the members of the 9/11 Commissions said about their work. That’s a good place to start.
According to the Wikipedia article, “September 11 Attacks”.
September 11 attacks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“9/11” redirects here. For the date, see September 11.
For other uses, see September 11 attacks (disambiguation).
September 11 attacks
A montage of eight images depicting, from top to bottom, the World Trade Center towers burning, the collapsed section of the Pentagon, the impact explosion in the south tower, a rescue worker standing in front of rubble of the collapsed towers, an excavator unearthing a smashed jet engine, three frames of video depicting airplane hitting the Pentagon.
[…]
Perpetrators
al-Qaeda[1] (see also responsibility and hijackers)
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks consisted of suicide attacks used to target symbolic U.S. landmarks.
Four passenger airliners—which all departed from airports on the U.S. East Coast bound for California—were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within an hour and 42 minutes, both 110-story towers collapsed, with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense) in Arlington County, Virginia, leading to a partial collapse in the Pentagon’s western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, initially was steered toward Washington, D.C., but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, the attacks claimed the lives of 2,996 people (including the 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage[2][3] and $3 trillion in total costs.[4] It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers[5] in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.
Alex: Is the problem that you don’t think those 19 hijackers were “Muslims”?
Fun K. I think Jim could be either of the two guys on the left of your little cartoon.
Seriously–I didn’t know ANYONE still believes the story that Muslims did 9/11. Hilarious! That’s a good one!!!
It’s all on the same general subject, but it is nevertheless the more interesting question. I would be interested what others here think: which one or more of these characters does Jim most closely resemble?
https://www.instagram.com/p/-nI9rPirgW/
Of course, we won’t be so silly as to pretend Jim has been living under a rock and has never heard of any theories about 9/11 other than the official government story, or that he is incapable of looking them up himself. So again, the more interesting question is:
which one or more of these characters does Jim most closely resemble?
https://www.instagram.com/p/-nI9rPirgW/
People who say, “…the more interesting question” are those who are trying to change the subject.
Not that Jim even begins to deserve a response to that silly long winded post, but the more interesting question is which of these guys he is most like….or is it more than one?
https://www.instagram.com/p/-nI9rPirgW/
Chicken said:
“There’s a lot of disagreement over who really perpetrated those 9/11 attacks.”
Could you be more specific about a CREDIBLE belief that it wasn’t done by Muslims?
“But even if you believe it was the Muslims, clearly it was an atypical event,”
No, it wasn’t “clearly…an atypical event”. Considered worldwide, it was a very typical event. To the extent that it might not have been seen as “typical” in America, the relatively small number of Muslims in America explains that well.
” where the attack from right wing terrorists are constant and increasing.”
Statistics, please.
BTW, I don’t concede that the bombing of the Murrah bldg in Oklahoma City in 1995 qualifies as “terrorism”. If the definition of “terrorism” is an attack on third parties, the large majority of those killed in OKC were government employees. Many of the rest were children, who were present there because someone had the bright idea of putting a day-care center in a Federal building.
As is stated in Wikipedia, article “Definitions of Terrorism”
“As Bruce Hoffman has noted: “terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (…) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization ‘terrorist’ becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.”[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like “bombers”, “militants”, etc.[9][10]”
“And if you are among the many who believe the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the right wing fascists in the Bush-Cheney junta, that makes the equation even more lopsided.”
I’ve never heard such a nutty theory. I HAVE heard, however, that what became the 9/11/2001 attack had been in planning for many years prior to that date. Why you think that somebody ascribes that attack to Bush/Cheney is a mystery to me. Maybe you just re-copied some crazy boilerplate ‘conspiracy theory’ nonsense and posted it yet again.
” There are also many people that believe 9/11 attacks were a partnership between both of these terrorist tendencies.”
Name a few. I need a laugh today.
There’s a lot of disagreement over who really perpetrated those 9/11 attacks. But even if you believe it was the Muslims, clearly it was an atypical event, where the attack from right wing terrorists are constant and increasing. And if you are among the many who believe the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the right wing fascists in the Bush-Cheney junta, that makes the equation even more lopsided. There are also many people that believe 9/11 attacks were a partnership between both of these terrorist tendencies.
The article quoted:
‘ Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.”’
An odd time period, “over the past 13 and a half years”. Then I realized that last June corresponded to somewhat over 13.5 years after September 11, 2001.
Ever hear the phrase, “Lying with statistics”? This is clearly an example of that.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/30/3725562/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extemist-than-by-muslim-terrorists/
Excerpt:
Friday afternoon, one week after elected officials all over the country tried to block Syrian refugees from entering their states in an apparent effort to fight terrorism, a white man in Colorado committed what appears to be an act of terrorism in a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Though the details of Robert Lewis Dear’s motives for killing three people in the clinic and injuring nine others are still being revealed, Dear reportedly told law enforcement “no more baby parts,” an apparent reference to heavily edited videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress, which numerous politicians have cited to falsely claim that Planned Parenthood sells “aborted baby parts.” Dear’s actions, in other words, appear to be an act of politically motivated terrorism directed against an institution widely reviled by conservatives.
Though terrorism perpetrated by Muslims receives a disproportionate amount of attention from politicians and reporters, the reality is that right-wing extremists pose a much greater threat to people in the United States than terrorists connected to ISIS or similar organizations. As UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer explained last June in the New York Times, Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.” Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.”
jim is reminiscent of at least one of these guys:
https://www.instagram.com/p/-nI9rPirgW/
The rise of liberal intolerance in America.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/095c7a8e-96a5-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz3sxiRwTTn
Chicken: Did I “make excuses” for that nutcase? Go back and re-read what I wrote.
I notice your list didn’t include any left-wing lowlifes.
Biased much?
Caudillo Cruz is clearly pulling some cum covered horseshit from deep in his ass. Marking the wrong gender box – possibly by mistake – and not checking a party box on a voter registration does not make someone a “transgendered leftist activist” … but shooting up a Planned Parenthood clinic is strong prima facie evidence of right wing terrorism of the sort Cruz himself is closely associated with. See, for starters:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/20/troy-newman-anti-choice-extremist-with-a-histor/207011
Capsule summary:
“Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is touting the endorsement of Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue and a board member for The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Newman is one of the country’s most notorious anti-choice activists. He was a “driving force” behind CMP’s series of misleading videos smearing Planned Parenthood and has a long history of incendiary remarks that include “praising the killing of abortion doctors and calling women who have abortions ‘murderers.'””
“Transgendered lefist activist”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-planned-parenthood-shooter-transgender_565ba648e4b072e9d1c23a85?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
This is funny! You are all going to get a laugh about this!
Hey, “right-wing-extremist” is the same exact thing as extreme…NUTCASE, in case you didn’t know. Stop making excuses for homicidal neo-nazis, mentally ill white supremacists, brutal and murderous racist cops, off their meds neo-confederates, doped up right wing terrorists, anti-choice extremists, gay bashing homophobes, far right fascists, swastikaed stormtrooper scum, Republican brownshirts, Tea Party klansmen, conservative Aryan bootboys, and the rest of their vomit inducing ilk.
The article said:
“Dear’s motives were not initially known; however, this armed attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic takes place in the context of a larger right-wing, assault on the family planning and women’s health care provider. According to Party for Socialism and Liberation Presidential candidate Gloria La Riva, “This extreme right-wing campaign against Planned Parenthood, a major provider of health care for women, was sparked by a dishonest and manipulative video attack on the reproductive rights organization…”
And continues onto a screed against the right in regards to abortion, etc. (Full disclosure: I am pro-choice..)
How soon they forget that when Jared Leigh Loughner shot Gabby Giffords and some others in Phoenix, the left virtually instantly tried to turn that incident into a “right-wing-extremist” case as well. Before they discovered that Loughner was an extreme…NUTCASE, not even able to be put on trial.
Alternatively, see http://www.prisonplanet.com/liberal-smear-machine-backfires-after-gunman-found-to-be-occultist-pot-smoking-left-winger.html
Does every nut shooting become a justification for yet another article…