Someone else asked this question:
Atheists who say "I lack belief in God": why don't you tell us of the other things you lack, such as your lack of original thoughts as well?
I wrote this answer:
"I lack belief in God"
I agree this is ridiculous. These are not real atheists. A real atheist is 100% certain magic-god-fairies and Easter Bunnies are not real. "Lack of belief" is the most idiotic thing ever invented. They're for atheist wimps. They disgrace atheism.
I have been looking at the other answers. Most of the atheists here are wimps. They don't understand what a real atheist is. "Lack of belief" is for wimpy wimps.
Wimpy atheist: "Duh, I have a lack of belief in Easter Bunnies, duh."
You disgusting wimps have my contempt.
Showing posts with label WIMPS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WIMPS. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Thursday, October 29, 2020
The wimpy Washington Post and the wimpy New York Times didn't mention this interesting fact: A woman's head was cut off, probably while she screamed. This is a political correctness problem. Liberal scum like to suck up to Muslim scum because it's politically correct to do that.
NICE, France (Reuters) - A knife-wielding attacker shouting “Allahu Akbar” beheaded a woman and killed two other people in a suspected terrorist act at a church in the French city of Nice on Thursday, while a man waving a gun was shot dead by police in a separate incident.
Saturday, May 9, 2020
Muslim fucktard: "What a beautiful day to blow myself up."
Lots of stuff about Muslim scum at The Religion of Peace.
The killing for Allah has been going on for thousands of years and it's getting boring. It will never end until every Muslim moron is wiped off this planet.
A lot of wimpy politically correct fucktards suck up to and defend the Muslim stupidity. You won't find any political correctness and you won't find any sucking up at this place.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Why do liberal fucktards suck up to Muslim assholes? I think it's a stupidity problem.
What I wrote at the New York Times:
"There is so much more to explore, both promising — like his new plan to address the cost and quality of college — and troubling — for instance, the widespread surveillance of Muslims by local law enforcement during his time as mayor."
This was after Muslims murdered 3,000 people in New York City in one day. So why complain if Bloomberg wanted to make his city safe?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UPDATE:
The politically correct New York Times did not publish my comment. Muslims make cowards cry.
"There is so much more to explore, both promising — like his new plan to address the cost and quality of college — and troubling — for instance, the widespread surveillance of Muslims by local law enforcement during his time as mayor."
This was after Muslims murdered 3,000 people in New York City in one day. So why complain if Bloomberg wanted to make his city safe?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UPDATE:
The politically correct New York Times did not publish my comment. Muslims make cowards cry.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Wimpy atheists are part of the religious stupidity problem. They have my contempt.
A wimpy atheist wrote: "Respect everyone no matter their beliefs."
This is what I wrote for the wimpy wimp:
These assholes for Jeebus brainwash children. This is child abuse. Do you think I should respect childish abuse? Muslims blow themselves up to kill women and children. Should I respect that? Grow up FFS.
This is what I wrote for the wimpy wimp:
These assholes for Jeebus brainwash children. This is child abuse. Do you think I should respect childish abuse? Muslims blow themselves up to kill women and children. Should I respect that? Grow up FFS.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
This is a comment someone else wrote at the New York Times. It's about wimpy liberals who suck up to terrorists.
Give it up NYTimes and progressives. Your hatred for Trump is understandable, but in this circumstance verges on treason! Most in Iran are happy Soliumani is dead; and most of the West is safer now than they were before his death. It was a calculated and reasonable move given his terrorist attacks as well as a recent attack on the US embassy. He's also responsible for the death of thousands, but his killing of a US citizen brought him down; as promised.
It's high time the NYTimes stop pretending that Iran terrorists are good guys and the Iranian people love their regime. They do not.
It's high time the NYTimes stop pretending that Iran terrorists are good guys and the Iranian people love their regime. They do not.
I wrote this comment at the New York Times for the wimpy liberal assholes who think it's wrong to kill terrorists.
Trump killed a terrorist who has a long history of killing Americans. How can that be a bad thing? How many Americans have to die because it's not politically correct to kill the terrorist who is killing them?
I noticed Israel is not complaining. Even some Iranians are not complaining.
New York Times - Seven Days in January: How Trump Pushed U.S. and Iran to the Brink of War
I noticed Israel is not complaining. Even some Iranians are not complaining.
New York Times - Seven Days in January: How Trump Pushed U.S. and Iran to the Brink of War
Sunday, November 10, 2019
I wrote this somewhere else. It's about Muslim morons and the wimps who suck up to them.
The ridiculous word "Islamophobia" was invented by assholes to suppress freedom of speech. The word means "Knows too much about Islam."
Muslims are scum. They should never be allowed to enter civilized countries.
Islam is the world's largest terrorist organization.
The only people worse than Muslim morons are the wimpy assholes who suck up to them.
Muslims are scum. They should never be allowed to enter civilized countries.
Islam is the world's largest terrorist organization.
The only people worse than Muslim morons are the wimpy assholes who suck up to them.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
I wrote a comment at the Wall Street Journal which will probably be vaporized. At the wimpy New York Times it would definitely be vaporized.
The Iranian dictator with the disgusting beard and the ridiculous hat, how hard would it be to have a missile land on his head?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cowardly morons can't exist without their policial correctness bullshit.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
All Muslims are scum and they all need to be wiped off this planet. Same thing for the politically correct assholes who suck up to Muslim scum.
The Wall Street Journal had a book review of two books which I will probably buy, "The Only Plane in the Sky" and "Fall and Rise: The Story of 9/11".
Nothing in the book review and in the comments said anything about the Muslim scum that made this cowardly attack against America possible. Most likely the WSJ censored any comment with the word "Muslim" in it. This wimpy political correctness is ridiculous.
Who is worse, Muslim scum or the wimpy assholes who suck up to the scum? I wrote a comment for the Wall Street Journal wimps. It will probably be vaporized.
What I wrote: "Let's not talk about the religion that made this genocide possible because that would not be politically correct."
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Here is the whole thing:
BOOKS
BOOKSHELF
THE ONLY PLANE IN THE SKY
By Garrett M. Graff
Avid Reader, 483 pages, $30
FALL AND RISE: THE STORY OF 9/11
By Mitchell Zuckoff
Harper, 589 pages, $29.99
Two new journalistic accounts that strive to preserve the memory of September 11, 2001.
By Tunku Varadarajan
September 6, 2019
A remembrance of beauty persists alongside the horrors that mark Sept. 11, 2001. A storm had swept across the Northeast the day before, giving rise that morning to a rare meteorological phenomenon known as “severe clear.”
In “The Only Plane in the Sky,” an oral history of 9/11, Garrett Graff writes of the “cloudless skies that made an enduring impression on all who would witness what transpired in the hours ahead.” He quotes people who describe the sky high over New York and Washington. “A gorgeous blue,” says a Virginia police officer. “Deep blue,” says a Capitol Hill staffer. “Deep, deep blue,” says a chef in Manhattan. Others remember the hue overhead as “cobalt blue,” “cerulean blue” and “the bluest of blues,” and as one “that you wish you could put in a bottle.”
Over 64 fine-sliced chapters, Mr. Graff, a former editor at Politico, gives us “the stories of those who lived through and experienced 9/11—where they were, what they remember, and how their lives changed.” The result is remarkable, and Mr. Graff’s curation of these accounts—drawn from hundreds of his own interviews and from the reporting of other journalists and historians—is a priceless civic gift. After all, as he notes, the fall of 2019 “will mark the entrance of the first college class born after the attacks.”
This is a new generation that “barely remembers the day itself,” and it is Mr. Graff’s mission to offer these young, unscarred Americans a book that will teach them about what happened on 9/11. The book is refreshingly free from editorializing, ideology and ululation. It gives us instead poignant, often distressing, vignettes and impressions of the day and its aftermath.
On page after page, a reader will encounter words that startle, or make him angry, or heartbroken, or queasy. Mohamed Atta was running late at Portland International Jetport, in Maine, for his flight to Boston, where he would board American Airlines Flight 11, the plane he crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. Mike Tuohey, a ticket agent in Portland, recalls saying, with the usual professional courtesy: “Mr. Atta, if you don’t go now, you will miss your plane.” (Yes, everyone who reads this will ask himself what might have been had Atta missed his flight.) Pages later, we encounter the recorded words of Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant on AA 11, spoken on an Airfone to a manager on the ground. “Something is wrong. I don’t think the captain is in control. I see water. I see buildings. We’re flying low. We’re flying very, very low. Oh my God. We’re flying way too low.” Within seconds, the plane hit the tower.
There is much in this book about the bravery of the firefighters and security personnel who responded to the attacks. Father Mychal Judge was a chaplain with the Fire Department of New York, the only priest to enter the towers that day, administering last rites. He died in the North Tower. “The firemen took his body,” a friar says. “Because they respected and loved him so much, they didn’t want to leave it in the street. They quickly carried it into [nearby] St. Peter’s Church.” Rick Rescorla was a former British paratrooper who was vice president of security for Morgan Stanley in the South Tower: Ignoring the Port Authority’s assurance that the tower was safe, he said: “I’m getting my people the f— out of here.” He saved hundreds of lives in the process but lost his own.
Yet it is the goodness of ordinary people that leaves the deepest impression. We read, for instance, of the reaction of Heather Ordover, an English teacher at a high school three blocks south of the World Trade Center, just after the first plane hit the tower. “We all heard the scream of the engines,” Ms. Ordover says, “like a bomb in a war movie—then the flash.” As the kids in her class ran to the window, where they saw smoke and falling debris, her protective teacher’s instincts kicked in. “I ran back to the front of the room, yelling to the kids to sit down and write about what they’d just seen—anything to get them away from the windows.”
There are countless other stories of selflessness, of decency, of 911-operators telling people trapped on the topmost floors—who had called in to say, “I’m going to die, aren’t I?”—that help was on the way and that they weren’t going to die. Untruths, of course, but of the utmost kindness. In Mr. Graff’s book, the little details are allowed to speak for themselves, and the effect is one of notable eloquence.
“Fall and Rise: The Story of 9/11,” by Mitchell Zuckoff, is a monumental complement to Mr. Graff’s spare book. A former reporter at the Boston Globe, now a professor at Boston University, Mr. Zuckoff has sought to re-create in dramatic prose the very story that Mr. Graff sets out to assemble by oral jigsaw. He stresses that his narrative takes “no license with facts, quotes, characters, or chronologies.” His book’s avowed purpose is—like Mr. Graff’s—to preserve the memory of the day America was attacked, “to delay the descent of 9/11 into the well of history.”
Mr. Zuckoff’s descriptions of the hijacks—the turmoil on board the planes, the crashing of the aircraft, the destruction of the towers, the rescues, the death, the subsequent anguish—are superb in their tautness and tension. Particularly moving is the account of how Brian Clark and Stan Praimnath, two total strangers who worked on the 84th and 81st floors of the South Tower, respectively, encountered each other in the acrid ruins. When Brian first extended a hand to help a disoriented Stan to his feet, he was startled to be asked by the latter if he believed in Jesus Christ. In response, Mr. Zuckoff writes, “Brian stammered something about church on Sundays. He wondered if the man he was trying to save had lost his mind.” In the middle of the calamity, on the 81st floor, they shook hands, told each other their names, and swore to be brothers for life. Then Brian draped his arm around Stan’s shoulder and said, “Let’s go home.”
They made it out alive. Elsewhere, colleagues of Brian’s remained trapped and doomed. Among them, writes Mr. Zuckoff, was a broker named Randy Scott, “a fun-loving, motorcycle-riding, happily married father of three daughters. With no other way to seek help, he scribbled a plea: ‘84th floor / west office / 12 People trapped.’ ” He tossed his note out of a window, “to flutter among countless bits of paper blown from both towers.” But before he did, he “pressed a bloodied finger against the note,” leaving the DNA that would later identify him as the writer.
Mr. Zuckoff’s chapter on United Flight 93—which crashed to the ground near Shanksville, Pa.—is gripping. This was, sequentially, the fourth of four hijacked flights, and the passengers and crew on board were aware of the hijackers’ intentions, having been in touch with families and officials via the Airfones in the plane. “That knowledge,” writes Mr. Zuckoff, “became a powerful motivator. It transformed them from victimized hostages into resistance fighters.” He describes the passengers’ conversations with their spouses and parents on the ground as “a spoken tapestry of grace, warning, bravery, resolve, and love.”
There are times in which Mr. Zuckoff’s efforts to breathe life back into his characters can be florid or sentimental. John Ogonowski, the pilot of AA 11, is depicted as “country-boy handsome,” his smile etching “deep crinkles in the ruddy skin around his blue eyes.” CeeCee Lyles, a heroic flight attendant on board United Flight 93, “had flashing brown eyes and a love of fine clothes that complemented her athletic figure.”
But such passages do not mar the narrative righteousness of Mr. Zuckoff’s enterprise. Reliving the moment when the second plane hit the South Tower, he writes that “the off-center jolt caused the upper floors to rotate like a boxer’s torso twisted from an unexpected blow.” The image is astonishing, almost magical in its evocation of a heretofore inconceivable assault. Alongside the voices from Mr. Graff’s oral history—calling down from the upper floors for aid, for a rescue that would never come—words like these will keep memories alive.
—Mr. Varadarajan is executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
Nothing in the book review and in the comments said anything about the Muslim scum that made this cowardly attack against America possible. Most likely the WSJ censored any comment with the word "Muslim" in it. This wimpy political correctness is ridiculous.
Who is worse, Muslim scum or the wimpy assholes who suck up to the scum? I wrote a comment for the Wall Street Journal wimps. It will probably be vaporized.
What I wrote: "Let's not talk about the religion that made this genocide possible because that would not be politically correct."
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Here is the whole thing:
BOOKS
BOOKSHELF
THE ONLY PLANE IN THE SKY
By Garrett M. Graff
Avid Reader, 483 pages, $30
FALL AND RISE: THE STORY OF 9/11
By Mitchell Zuckoff
Harper, 589 pages, $29.99
Two new journalistic accounts that strive to preserve the memory of September 11, 2001.
By Tunku Varadarajan
September 6, 2019
A remembrance of beauty persists alongside the horrors that mark Sept. 11, 2001. A storm had swept across the Northeast the day before, giving rise that morning to a rare meteorological phenomenon known as “severe clear.”
In “The Only Plane in the Sky,” an oral history of 9/11, Garrett Graff writes of the “cloudless skies that made an enduring impression on all who would witness what transpired in the hours ahead.” He quotes people who describe the sky high over New York and Washington. “A gorgeous blue,” says a Virginia police officer. “Deep blue,” says a Capitol Hill staffer. “Deep, deep blue,” says a chef in Manhattan. Others remember the hue overhead as “cobalt blue,” “cerulean blue” and “the bluest of blues,” and as one “that you wish you could put in a bottle.”
Over 64 fine-sliced chapters, Mr. Graff, a former editor at Politico, gives us “the stories of those who lived through and experienced 9/11—where they were, what they remember, and how their lives changed.” The result is remarkable, and Mr. Graff’s curation of these accounts—drawn from hundreds of his own interviews and from the reporting of other journalists and historians—is a priceless civic gift. After all, as he notes, the fall of 2019 “will mark the entrance of the first college class born after the attacks.”
This is a new generation that “barely remembers the day itself,” and it is Mr. Graff’s mission to offer these young, unscarred Americans a book that will teach them about what happened on 9/11. The book is refreshingly free from editorializing, ideology and ululation. It gives us instead poignant, often distressing, vignettes and impressions of the day and its aftermath.
On page after page, a reader will encounter words that startle, or make him angry, or heartbroken, or queasy. Mohamed Atta was running late at Portland International Jetport, in Maine, for his flight to Boston, where he would board American Airlines Flight 11, the plane he crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. Mike Tuohey, a ticket agent in Portland, recalls saying, with the usual professional courtesy: “Mr. Atta, if you don’t go now, you will miss your plane.” (Yes, everyone who reads this will ask himself what might have been had Atta missed his flight.) Pages later, we encounter the recorded words of Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant on AA 11, spoken on an Airfone to a manager on the ground. “Something is wrong. I don’t think the captain is in control. I see water. I see buildings. We’re flying low. We’re flying very, very low. Oh my God. We’re flying way too low.” Within seconds, the plane hit the tower.
There is much in this book about the bravery of the firefighters and security personnel who responded to the attacks. Father Mychal Judge was a chaplain with the Fire Department of New York, the only priest to enter the towers that day, administering last rites. He died in the North Tower. “The firemen took his body,” a friar says. “Because they respected and loved him so much, they didn’t want to leave it in the street. They quickly carried it into [nearby] St. Peter’s Church.” Rick Rescorla was a former British paratrooper who was vice president of security for Morgan Stanley in the South Tower: Ignoring the Port Authority’s assurance that the tower was safe, he said: “I’m getting my people the f— out of here.” He saved hundreds of lives in the process but lost his own.
Yet it is the goodness of ordinary people that leaves the deepest impression. We read, for instance, of the reaction of Heather Ordover, an English teacher at a high school three blocks south of the World Trade Center, just after the first plane hit the tower. “We all heard the scream of the engines,” Ms. Ordover says, “like a bomb in a war movie—then the flash.” As the kids in her class ran to the window, where they saw smoke and falling debris, her protective teacher’s instincts kicked in. “I ran back to the front of the room, yelling to the kids to sit down and write about what they’d just seen—anything to get them away from the windows.”
There are countless other stories of selflessness, of decency, of 911-operators telling people trapped on the topmost floors—who had called in to say, “I’m going to die, aren’t I?”—that help was on the way and that they weren’t going to die. Untruths, of course, but of the utmost kindness. In Mr. Graff’s book, the little details are allowed to speak for themselves, and the effect is one of notable eloquence.
“Fall and Rise: The Story of 9/11,” by Mitchell Zuckoff, is a monumental complement to Mr. Graff’s spare book. A former reporter at the Boston Globe, now a professor at Boston University, Mr. Zuckoff has sought to re-create in dramatic prose the very story that Mr. Graff sets out to assemble by oral jigsaw. He stresses that his narrative takes “no license with facts, quotes, characters, or chronologies.” His book’s avowed purpose is—like Mr. Graff’s—to preserve the memory of the day America was attacked, “to delay the descent of 9/11 into the well of history.”
Mr. Zuckoff’s descriptions of the hijacks—the turmoil on board the planes, the crashing of the aircraft, the destruction of the towers, the rescues, the death, the subsequent anguish—are superb in their tautness and tension. Particularly moving is the account of how Brian Clark and Stan Praimnath, two total strangers who worked on the 84th and 81st floors of the South Tower, respectively, encountered each other in the acrid ruins. When Brian first extended a hand to help a disoriented Stan to his feet, he was startled to be asked by the latter if he believed in Jesus Christ. In response, Mr. Zuckoff writes, “Brian stammered something about church on Sundays. He wondered if the man he was trying to save had lost his mind.” In the middle of the calamity, on the 81st floor, they shook hands, told each other their names, and swore to be brothers for life. Then Brian draped his arm around Stan’s shoulder and said, “Let’s go home.”
They made it out alive. Elsewhere, colleagues of Brian’s remained trapped and doomed. Among them, writes Mr. Zuckoff, was a broker named Randy Scott, “a fun-loving, motorcycle-riding, happily married father of three daughters. With no other way to seek help, he scribbled a plea: ‘84th floor / west office / 12 People trapped.’ ” He tossed his note out of a window, “to flutter among countless bits of paper blown from both towers.” But before he did, he “pressed a bloodied finger against the note,” leaving the DNA that would later identify him as the writer.
Mr. Zuckoff’s chapter on United Flight 93—which crashed to the ground near Shanksville, Pa.—is gripping. This was, sequentially, the fourth of four hijacked flights, and the passengers and crew on board were aware of the hijackers’ intentions, having been in touch with families and officials via the Airfones in the plane. “That knowledge,” writes Mr. Zuckoff, “became a powerful motivator. It transformed them from victimized hostages into resistance fighters.” He describes the passengers’ conversations with their spouses and parents on the ground as “a spoken tapestry of grace, warning, bravery, resolve, and love.”
There are times in which Mr. Zuckoff’s efforts to breathe life back into his characters can be florid or sentimental. John Ogonowski, the pilot of AA 11, is depicted as “country-boy handsome,” his smile etching “deep crinkles in the ruddy skin around his blue eyes.” CeeCee Lyles, a heroic flight attendant on board United Flight 93, “had flashing brown eyes and a love of fine clothes that complemented her athletic figure.”
But such passages do not mar the narrative righteousness of Mr. Zuckoff’s enterprise. Reliving the moment when the second plane hit the South Tower, he writes that “the off-center jolt caused the upper floors to rotate like a boxer’s torso twisted from an unexpected blow.” The image is astonishing, almost magical in its evocation of a heretofore inconceivable assault. Alongside the voices from Mr. Graff’s oral history—calling down from the upper floors for aid, for a rescue that would never come—words like these will keep memories alive.
—Mr. Varadarajan is executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
The Wall Street Journal wimps.
CBS NEWS - Taliban claims it's behind one of year's worst attacks in Kabul, with scores dead and wounded
Kabul, Afghanistan -- A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted a police station the Afghan capital on Wednesday, killing 14 people and wounding 145, most of them civilians, officials said in what was one of the worst attacks in Kabul this year.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••
Wall Street Journal - Afghan Blast Claimed by Taliban Kills at Least 14
Car bomb is detonated days after U.S. and insurgency say talks to end 18-year war are making progress.
KABUL—Taliban insurgents detonated a car bomb near the entrance to a police station in the Afghan capital on Wednesday, killing at least 14 people and wounding scores more, as peace talks aimed at ending the nearly 18-year war continued.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••
What's going on here? CBS NEWS used the words "suicide bomber" but the Wall Street Journal called it a car bomb that detonated. The WSJ didn't want to use the word "suicide" which means the bomb could have been detonated without anyone being in it.
The Wall Street Journal has a long history of sucking up to Muslim scum. For example, they don't allow comments that point out the obvious fact that Muslim morons blow themselves up every day. The editors at the WSJ are fucking wimps.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••
We have been wasting American lives for 18 years in one of the most worthless countries in the world. I was for getting out many years ago but the government has no problem with wasting money and American lives.
The way it is now we will make a deal with the insane terrorists and then finally get out. And that's when the Afganistan women will be forced to wear black tents and they will be treated like farm animals.
That's the way it is with Islam which is one of the most disgusting cults ever invented. Cowardly Muslims are afraid of women. These morons for Allah need to be wiped off this planet.
Kabul, Afghanistan -- A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted a police station the Afghan capital on Wednesday, killing 14 people and wounding 145, most of them civilians, officials said in what was one of the worst attacks in Kabul this year.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••
Wall Street Journal - Afghan Blast Claimed by Taliban Kills at Least 14
Car bomb is detonated days after U.S. and insurgency say talks to end 18-year war are making progress.
KABUL—Taliban insurgents detonated a car bomb near the entrance to a police station in the Afghan capital on Wednesday, killing at least 14 people and wounding scores more, as peace talks aimed at ending the nearly 18-year war continued.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••
What's going on here? CBS NEWS used the words "suicide bomber" but the Wall Street Journal called it a car bomb that detonated. The WSJ didn't want to use the word "suicide" which means the bomb could have been detonated without anyone being in it.
The Wall Street Journal has a long history of sucking up to Muslim scum. For example, they don't allow comments that point out the obvious fact that Muslim morons blow themselves up every day. The editors at the WSJ are fucking wimps.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••
We have been wasting American lives for 18 years in one of the most worthless countries in the world. I was for getting out many years ago but the government has no problem with wasting money and American lives.
The way it is now we will make a deal with the insane terrorists and then finally get out. And that's when the Afganistan women will be forced to wear black tents and they will be treated like farm animals.
That's the way it is with Islam which is one of the most disgusting cults ever invented. Cowardly Muslims are afraid of women. These morons for Allah need to be wiped off this planet.
Monday, August 5, 2019
What I wrote for a wimpy wimp who sucks up to Muslim scum.
"Why do people confuse real Islam with the terrorist version of Islam?"
Islam is the world's largest terrorist organization. There is no excuse for belonging to it.
The only people worse than Muslim scum are people like you who suck up to it.
••••••••••••••••••••
A Muslim asshole wrote this:
"Allah will judge and will hold them responsible for their lies and malicious slandering of His truthful, pure, bright religion."
The world would be a much better place if Muslim scum were wiped off this planet.
Islam is the world's largest terrorist organization. There is no excuse for belonging to it.
The only people worse than Muslim scum are people like you who suck up to it.
••••••••••••••••••••
A Muslim asshole wrote this:
"Allah will judge and will hold them responsible for their lies and malicious slandering of His truthful, pure, bright religion."
The world would be a much better place if Muslim scum were wiped off this planet.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
What I wrote for a wimpy agnostic fucktard.
"I consider myself to be an agnostic, I don't know if God exists."
What's your problem? Are you too dense to be able to figure it out?
Answer this question: Is magic real or not? Can you figure that one out?
God is just another word for magic.
"I try to be respectful of others beliefs."
Then you have no problem with religious brainwashing (aka child abuse), religious violence, and a religious war against teaching evolution? All this stuff is OK with you?
What's your problem? Are you too dense to be able to figure it out?
Answer this question: Is magic real or not? Can you figure that one out?
God is just another word for magic.
"I try to be respectful of others beliefs."
Then you have no problem with religious brainwashing (aka child abuse), religious violence, and a religious war against teaching evolution? All this stuff is OK with you?
Friday, June 22, 2018
Jerry Coyne's website has been making Muslim morons cry. If you are a Muslim crybaby get off my planet you fucking retard.
WordPress completely blocked Jerry Coyne's website in Pakistan because he made Muslim crybabies cry.
"In lieu of above it is highlighted that few of the webpages hosted on your platform are extremely Blasphemous and are hurting the sentiments of many Muslims around Pakistan."
The poor wimpy wimps of Pakistan. When they're not blowing themselves up or attacking women because they're not wearing a black tent, they are crying like babies.
Hey Muslim fucktards, why can't your imaginary Allah defend itself?
I always knew Muslims were stupid fucking assholes. Now I know they cry like babies. Women make them cry. Evolution makes them cry. Education makes them cry. Reality makes them cry. Freedom of speech makes them cry. Biologists make them cry. Drawings of their pervert prophet makes them cry. Muslim crybabies never stop crying like babies.
"In lieu of above it is highlighted that few of the webpages hosted on your platform are extremely Blasphemous and are hurting the sentiments of many Muslims around Pakistan."
The poor wimpy wimps of Pakistan. When they're not blowing themselves up or attacking women because they're not wearing a black tent, they are crying like babies.
Hey Muslim fucktards, why can't your imaginary Allah defend itself?
I always knew Muslims were stupid fucking assholes. Now I know they cry like babies. Women make them cry. Evolution makes them cry. Education makes them cry. Reality makes them cry. Freedom of speech makes them cry. Biologists make them cry. Drawings of their pervert prophet makes them cry. Muslim crybabies never stop crying like babies.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
The wimps who suck up to Muslim scum are part of the religious violence problem. The wimpy morons have my contempt.
 |
| London police outside Parsons Green Underground station, following the Ahmed Hassan's terrorist bombing there on September 15, 2017. |
by Douglas Murray March 27, 2018
At Brooklands College in July 2017, Ahmed Hassan was awarded a prize as "student of the year". He used the £20 Amazon voucher he received to purchase the first of the ingredients he needed to build his bomb.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave seems almost to suggest that "violating" the law of the Quran and Islam is an offense in itself -- one worth noting alongside the crime of putting a bomb on a packed commuter train.
That the judge's pronouncement was superfluous is obvious. That it is incorrect is at least equally so. But worst is that it will further erode the belief of the citizenry in their lawmakers.
Last week, Ahmed Hassan was sentenced to a minimum term of 34 years in prison. The previous September, he had stepped onto the District line of the London Underground and left a homemade bomb on the train. At Parson's Green tube station, the device detonated. Fortunately for the commuters, which included many children on their way to school, only the detonator of the bomb went off. On its own, it created a fireball which ran along the roof of the carriage, singeing the hair of many passengers and causing an immediate stampede away from the blast and a number of injuries. The main explosive material the of bomb, however, which was packed with shrapnel, including bolts, nails and knives, failed to detonate. Had it done so, the United Kingdom would have seen -- for the fourth time in a few months -- dozens more dead victims, including school children, carried out in body bags.
All this happened because of a young man of Iraqi origin, who should never have been in the UK in the first place. Hassan moved into Europe among the migrant flows of 2015. He ended up at the "Jungle" migrant camp in Calais -- a place to which celebrities in the UK consistently go in order to implore the British people to take in the people who are living there. A particular cry of these celebrities (figures such as the actress Juliet Stevenson) is that the "child migrants" in particular should be taken in by the UK. The call is flawed, not least, in that it suggests that anybody who breaks the existing asylum procedures of the European Union and simply pushes their way to the front of the queue is somebody who will be rewarded for this act.
At the Calais camp, Hassan did not bother to wait for the British government to invite him. Most likely aided by the anti-borders NGOs who work in the camp, Hassan found out how to get around the system. In 2015, smuggled in the back of a lorry, Hassan arrived in the UK. If he had been a genuine asylum seeker, he could have -- and should have (under the terms of the Dublin Treaty) -- applied for asylum in the first European country where he set foot. Certainly, if there had been any legitimate reason for him to gain asylum, there was no reason why he should not have applied for asylum in France.
Once he arrived in the UK, it took some time for the British authorities to catch up with him. When they eventually did, and he was questioned by Home Office officials, he told them he had been a member of ISIS and had been trained by the group to kill.
He claimed to be 16 years old, although the authorities believed he was probably older. The open-borders NGOs are able to advise people in Calais and elsewhere that claiming to be a "child migrant" increases the likelihood of being able to stay.
A week later, housed at a Barnado's children's home, he was seen by a member of the staff looking up ISIS videos on his phone, and later, to be listening to extremist songs (nasheed).
Nevertheless, the British authorities helped him find a school. At Brooklands College, a teacher observed him reading a WhatsApp message which said "IS has accepted your donation." He told a teacher that it was his "duty to hate Britain". The state also placed him with a foster family, whom they failed to inform about his ISIS past.
Every effort continued to be made for this young man who had broken into the country. At Brooklands College in July 2017, he was even awarded a prize as "student of the year". Hassan used the £20 Amazon voucher he received to purchase the first of the ingredients he needed to build his bomb.
At every stage, the British state helped Hassan in every way it could. It took in a person who had no right to be in the country -- who indeed had entered the country illegally. It housed him, fed him, educated him and encouraged him. He repaid this by building a bomb at the home of his foster parents and trying to bring carnage to the rush-hour commuters on the London Underground.
Now that Hassan has been tried, convicted and sentenced for his crime, the British people may be surprised at the priorities of the authorities who are meant to keep them safe. But at the final stage of that process, the state produced one final insult against the people of the country.
This is how The Honourable Mr Justice Haddon-Cave concluded his sentencingon March 23:
Finally, Ahmed Hassan, let me say this to you. You will have plenty of time to study the Qur'an in prison in the years to come. You should understand that the Qur'an is a book of peace; Islam is a religion of peace. The Qur'an and Islam forbid anything extreme, including extremism in religion. Islam forbids breaking the "law of the land" where one is living or is a guest. Islam forbids terrorism (hiraba). The Qur'an and the Sunna provide that the crime of perpetrating terror to "cause corruption in the land" is one of the most severe crimes in Islam. So it is in the law of the United Kingdom. You have, therefore, received the most severe of sentences under the law of this land. You have violated the Qur'an and Islam by your actions, as well as the law of all civilized people. It is to be hoped that you will come to realise this one day. Please go with the officers.
First, what business is it of a judge to make such a statement? Why should Mr Justice Haddon-Cave think that being a judge in a British court also permits him to expound on Islamic theology? And what if he is wrong in his theological pronouncements? What if it is not the case that Islam "forbids anything extreme"? What if a lot of British subjects who are not Muslims discover that this judge is telling an untruth? What if he is wrong, and that the cure for a jihadist like Ahmed Hassan is not in fact confinement with the Quran and Sunna?
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave seems almost to suggest that "violating" the law of the Quran and Islam is an offense in itself -- one worth noting alongside the crime of putting a bomb on a packed commuter train. That his pronouncement was superfluous is obvious. That it is incorrect is at least equally so. But worst is that it will further erode the belief of the citizenry in their lawmakers.
In his sorry and violent life, Ahmed Hassan had already proven the incompetency of Britain's border-police and the ignorance or naivety of its Home Office officials. His final gift to the state that allowed him in was to bring about the over-reach -- and presumption and lack of awareness -- of its judiciary.
Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England. His latest book, an international best-seller, is "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam."
Follow Douglas Murray on Twitter
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
This idea is difficult for wimpy wimps to understand: If you're a Muslim moron you can't enter this country. No exceptions.
Gatestone Institute - Political Islam and Sharia Should Be Outlawed in Europe
The roots of the radical Muslim behavior that is now sweeping Europe can be traced to elements of Islamic law and doctrine created in the 7th century that are being maintained today. These include polygamy for men; allowing men to buy and sell women as sex slaves or concubines; divorce rights [for men that] discriminate against women; insistence on a dress code for women that includes hiding their faces; and discriminatory inheritance laws.
The roots of the radical Muslim behavior that is now sweeping Europe can be traced to elements of Islamic law and doctrine created in the 7th century that are being maintained today. These include polygamy for men; allowing men to buy and sell women as sex slaves or concubines; divorce rights [for men that] discriminate against women; insistence on a dress code for women that includes hiding their faces; and discriminatory inheritance laws.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Stupid fucking assholes who suck up to Muslim scum use the ridiculous word "Islamophobia" to suppress freedom of speech. My definition of Islamophobia: "Knows too much about Islam." Urban Dictionary definition of Islamophobia:
This term started popping up a lot in 2013 when being progressive was becoming popular, which was three years after the first Draw Mohammed day. Draw Mohammed day was a response to Comedy Central censoring a depiction of Islamic prophet Mohammed in South Park after they received threats of violence from Islamists for showing it.
When Islamists learned they couldn't scare people out of criticizing Islam by killing those that do so, they decided to paint Islam as progressive, and paint criticism of Islam as hateful bigotry. Progressives picked up on the term fast and would use it against anyone who criticized Islam or Islamic law as a means of deflecting such criticism. The progressives that do such a thing are often described as SJW's.
When Islamists learned they couldn't scare people out of criticizing Islam by killing those that do so, they decided to paint Islam as progressive, and paint criticism of Islam as hateful bigotry. Progressives picked up on the term fast and would use it against anyone who criticized Islam or Islamic law as a means of deflecting such criticism. The progressives that do such a thing are often described as SJW's.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
A comment I wrote at the New York Times about why Islam is the most disgusting religious cult ever invented.
"When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation."
Apparently liberals don't care about female genital mutilation and those other disgusting things. Then they wonder why nobody votes for them.
Liberals who love Muslims need to read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Then maybe they will understand why Muslims do not belong in this country unless they throw their religion in the garbage where it belongs.
Also, the New York Times should publish comments that tell the truth about Islam instead of vaporizing those comments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html?emc=edit_th_20170622 Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us. By AYAAN HIRSI ALI and ASRA Q. NOMANI - JUNE 22, 2017
Last week, Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California, made headlines when Republican senators interrupted her at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee while she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The clip of the exchange went viral; journalists, politicians and everyday Americans debated what the shushing signified about our still sexist culture.
The very next day, Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.
Both of us were on edge. Earlier that day, across the Potomac River, a man had shot a Republican lawmaker and others on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Va. And just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.
But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.
This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.
Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.
How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.
Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.
In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.
That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.
There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?
This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.
The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.5COMMENTS
Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.
We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@ayaan) is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and founder of the AHA Foundation. Asra Q. Nomani (@asranomani), an author and former Wall Street Journal reporter, is a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.
Apparently liberals don't care about female genital mutilation and those other disgusting things. Then they wonder why nobody votes for them.
Liberals who love Muslims need to read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Then maybe they will understand why Muslims do not belong in this country unless they throw their religion in the garbage where it belongs.
Also, the New York Times should publish comments that tell the truth about Islam instead of vaporizing those comments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html?emc=edit_th_20170622 Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us. By AYAAN HIRSI ALI and ASRA Q. NOMANI - JUNE 22, 2017
Last week, Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California, made headlines when Republican senators interrupted her at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee while she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The clip of the exchange went viral; journalists, politicians and everyday Americans debated what the shushing signified about our still sexist culture.
The very next day, Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.
Both of us were on edge. Earlier that day, across the Potomac River, a man had shot a Republican lawmaker and others on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Va. And just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.
But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.
This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.
Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.
How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.
Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.
In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.
That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.
There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?
This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.
The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.5COMMENTS
Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.
We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@ayaan) is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and founder of the AHA Foundation. Asra Q. Nomani (@asranomani), an author and former Wall Street Journal reporter, is a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
At Yahoo answers I answered a question. My answer made the crybabies at Yahoo cry, so they vaporized the whole thing.
Question:
Why can't science and religion co-exist?
Deleted Answer:
Science equals reality. Religion equals fantasy.
Reality and fantasy can not co-exist. One of these two things needs to be thrown out. I suggest throw out the ridiculous childish disgusting religious fantasies.
One more thing. Every religious cult including the two death cults, Islam and Christianity, are anti-science. For example the childish cowardly magical heaven fantasy is a denial of all reality. This is one of many reasons why all religions must be completely eradicated. The world would be much better off without anti-science lunatics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)