Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SMH at this blowhard conk shithead.

The now-obvious truth is that King, known as Congress's iron-fisted champion of all things security in this frightening post-9/11 era is, in actuality, soft on terrorism -- at least where it counts. Since his tenure as chairman began in 2011, he has repeatedly refused to devote serious attention to the threats posed by white supremacist groups and right-wing extremism, opting instead to focus nearly all of his committee's time and resources to Muslim extremism, a statistically minimal threat by comparison.

Since 9/11, right-wing extremist groups have committed twice as many attacks in the United States as jihadist-affiliated groups, according to research conducted by the New America Foundation. Even more startling, 53 reported acts of violence, the majority comprised of assaults and murders, were carried out by white supremacists between January 2007 and November 2009 alone. In light of last Sunday's attack, it's clear that King's refusal to thoroughly examine the threat that these groups represent is, at best, an outright failure in his responsibilities as committee chairman. At worst, his inaction may have cost lives.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... o?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well I feel safer with him around.

This is what I love about Grizhalfwit...he doesn't bother to go deeper into the information he posts and he ends up looking like a blowhard donk shithead.

"...Muslim extremism, a statistically minimal threat by comparison" [to right wing terrorism].

From the articles' own source:

"Militants linked to al Qaeda or inspired by jihadist ideology have carried out four terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, which have resulted in 17 deaths. Thirteen of them were in a shooting incident at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. By contrast, right-wing extremists have committed at least eight lethal terrorist attacks in the United States that have resulted in the deaths of nine people since 9/11, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation."

And if, after investigation, Sunday's attack on the Sikh temple in Wisconsin is included in this count, the death toll from right-wing terrorism in the U.S. over the past decade rises to 15.

Statistically insignificant? So, 17 deaths versus 15 deaths. Four attacks versus nine attacks. Are you kidding me?

The article then blathers on about white violence against blacks...and says those attacks should be treated as terrorist attacks while not uttering a single word about including black violence against whites. No fudging of numbers there, eh?

In another source link, it goes on to describe acts of violence by anarchists, ecoterrorists (really, are they such a big threat), abortionists, and other nut jobs that were stopped...but, but, but, how could they have been stopped if all the King's men weren't paying attention?

Ecoterrorists... Look out for D1B on that list.

Grizhalfwit...nice try.

So what you are saying is white extremists are more efficient that Muslim extremist wrt domestic attacks?!?!

SDHornet wrote:So what you are saying is white extremists are more efficient that Muslim extremist wrt domestic attacks?!?!

Uhhh..17 deaths in 4 Muslin attacks...15 deaths in 9 white extremist attacks. Methinks the Muslins are more efficient.

Odd, they didn't list Hispanic violence either.





Wait, I forgot this...

SDHornet wrote:So what you are saying is white extremists are more efficient that Muslim extremist wrt domestic attacks?!?!

I think he's arguing that white extremists are less efficient killers, therefore it's okay.

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:

SDHornet wrote:So what you are saying is white extremists are more efficient that Muslim extremist wrt domestic attacks?!?!

I think he's arguing that white extremists are less efficient killers, therefore it's okay.

No just trying to point out how ridiculous this whole argument is regardless of which side of the aisle one falls on. I guess that was asking too much here.

I do not think we have to worry about domestic white supremacist groups doing something like detonating a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles.

What a ridiculous article.

I think he's arguing that white extremists are less efficient killers, therefore it's okay.

Not that it's Okay. It's just that it's much less of a threat. And it's not only as compared to the potential from Islamist activity. In terms of violent crime in the United States "white supremicism" is a very minor factor. To act as though that should be at the top of our priority list in terms of violence problems is ridiculous.

Whew. I thought this thread might be about the biggest dick.

CAA Flagship wrote:Whew. I thought this thread might be about the biggest dick.

Oh trust me...it is...in so many ways.

Cluck U wrote:This is what I love about Grizhalfwit...he doesn't bother to go deeper into the information he posts and he ends up looking like a blowhard donk shithead.

"...Muslim extremism, a statistically minimal threat by comparison" [to right wing terrorism].

From the articles' own source:

"Militants linked to al Qaeda or inspired by jihadist ideology have carried out four terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, which have resulted in 17 deaths. Thirteen of them were in a shooting incident at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. By contrast, right-wing extremists have committed at least eight lethal terrorist attacks in the United States that have resulted in the deaths of nine people since 9/11, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation."

And if, after investigation, Sunday's attack on the Sikh temple in Wisconsin is included in this count, the death toll from right-wing terrorism in the U.S. over the past decade rises to 15.

Statistically insignificant? So, 17 deaths versus 15 deaths. Four attacks versus nine attacks. Are you kidding me?

The article then blathers on about white violence against blacks...and says those attacks should be treated as terrorist attacks while not uttering a single word about including black violence against whites. No fudging of numbers there, eh?

In another source link, it goes on to describe acts of violence by anarchists, ecoterrorists (really, are they such a big threat), abortionists, and other nut jobs that were stopped...but, but, but, how could they have been stopped if all the King's men weren't paying attention?

Ecoterrorists... Look out for D1B on that list.

Grizhalfwit...nice try.

Baldy Jr. wins the emoticon battle! Another shit stain conk defending his skinheads and nazis.

Cluck U wrote:This is what I love about Grizhalfwit...he doesn't bother to go deeper into the information he posts and he ends up looking like a blowhard donk shithead.

"...Muslim extremism, a statistically minimal threat by comparison" [to right wing terrorism].

From the articles' own source:

"Militants linked to al Qaeda or inspired by jihadist ideology have carried out four terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, which have resulted in 17 deaths. Thirteen of them were in a shooting incident at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. By contrast, right-wing extremists have committed at least eight lethal terrorist attacks in the United States that have resulted in the deaths of nine people since 9/11, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation."

And if, after investigation, Sunday's attack on the Sikh temple in Wisconsin is included in this count, the death toll from right-wing terrorism in the U.S. over the past decade rises to 15.

Statistically insignificant? So, 17 deaths versus 15 deaths. Four attacks versus nine attacks. Are you kidding me?

The article then blathers on about white violence against blacks...and says those attacks should be treated as terrorist attacks while not uttering a single word about including black violence against whites. No fudging of numbers there, eh?

In another source link, it goes on to describe acts of violence by anarchists, ecoterrorists (really, are they such a big threat), abortionists, and other nut jobs that were stopped...but, but, but, how could they have been stopped if all the King's men weren't paying attention?

Ecoterrorists... Look out for D1B on that list.

Grizhalfwit...nice try.

Shove it you fuckin' twerp. The point is that King turns a blind eye to home-grown terrror carried out by white males, even though it's clearly a threat. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he internally sympathizes with them, could it? You know, like when he openly supported the IRA?

Grizalltheway wrote:
Shove it you fuckin' twerp. The point is that King turns a blind eye to home-grown terrror carried out by white males, even though it's clearly a threat. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he internally sympathizes with them, could it? You know, like when he openly supported the IRA?

You didn't bother to read the article and the sources of that article, did you?

And suddenly, it's been downgraded to only "clearly a threat" instead of the biggest threat in relation to the "statistically insignificant" threat of Muslins. Keep going, we'll have you back into reality any day now.

Again, if he's been sleeping on the job and playing favorites, explain the recent arrests of such homegrown terrorists. Your own article's sources refute what you are claiming.

And wait, he openly supported the IRA? You mean those IRA folks who want to remove the British occupiers, bigots, and oppressors of their homeland...as in, Ireland's freedom fighters? You know, the same type of freedom fighters that Obama is openly supporting in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Uganda, Bahrain....wait!

Yeah, damned if someone wants to help a white freedom fighter...Grizhalfwit's model of a freedom fighter is only one of color...and all the while he says everyone else is a racist.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:This is what I love about Grizhalfwit...he doesn't bother to go deeper into the information he posts and he ends up looking like a blowhard donk shithead.

"...Muslim extremism, a statistically minimal threat by comparison" [to right wing terrorism].

From the articles' own source:

"Militants linked to al Qaeda or inspired by jihadist ideology have carried out four terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, which have resulted in 17 deaths. Thirteen of them were in a shooting incident at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. By contrast, right-wing extremists have committed at least eight lethal terrorist attacks in the United States that have resulted in the deaths of nine people since 9/11, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation."

And if, after investigation, Sunday's attack on the Sikh temple in Wisconsin is included in this count, the death toll from right-wing terrorism in the U.S. over the past decade rises to 15.

Statistically insignificant? So, 17 deaths versus 15 deaths. Four attacks versus nine attacks. Are you kidding me?

The article then blathers on about white violence against blacks...and says those attacks should be treated as terrorist attacks while not uttering a single word about including black violence against whites. No fudging of numbers there, eh?

In another source link, it goes on to describe acts of violence by anarchists, ecoterrorists (really, are they such a big threat), abortionists, and other nut jobs that were stopped...but, but, but, how could they have been stopped if all the King's men weren't paying attention?

Ecoterrorists... Look out for D1B on that list.

Grizhalfwit...nice try.

Shove it you fuckin' twerp. The point is that King turns a blind eye to home-grown terrror carried out by white males, even though it's clearly a threat. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he internally sympathizes with them, could it? You know, like when he openly supported the IRA?

I put that retard troll on ignore, much better board these days, much better!

Wedgebuster wrote:

I put that retard troll on ignore, much better board these days, much better!

Wedgie: "Hey, Cluck, I wanted you and everyone to know that I'm ignoring you!

Wait, Clucker, I SAID, I'm ignoring you! Yoo-hoo!, I'm ignoring you! Look over here...I'm ignoring you!"

Case in point-


This post was made by Cluck U who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.


You know the post is a POS, so save yourself the irritation of having to even scroll by it!

Grizalltheway wrote: Shove it you fuckin' twerp. The point is that King turns a blind eye to home-grown terrror carried out by white males, even though it's clearly a threat. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he internally sympathizes with them, could it? You know, like when he openly supported the IRA?

I don't know much about the guy, but his motivation may be that he's from NY and is more concerned about another 9/11 type attack on NYC.

We are too big of a country to be able to defend against every threat. While we shouldn't ignore any threats I think Islamic radicals, who might be supported by an enemy state, are more of a worry than white supremecists.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Shove it you fuckin' twerp. The point is that King turns a blind eye to home-grown terrror carried out by white males, even though it's clearly a threat. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he internally sympathizes with them, could it? You know, like when he openly supported the IRA?

I don't know much about the guy, but his motivation may be that he's from NY and is more concerned about another 9/11 type attack on NYC.

We are too big of a country to be able to defend against every threat. While we shouldn't ignore any threats I think Islamic radicals, who might be supported by an enemy state, are more of a worry than white supremecists.

Agreed, and I'm not gonna go re-read the details and link to them but let's just say that King is a grade A douchebag in how he operates.

Wedgebuster wrote:Case in point-


This post was made by Cluck U who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.


You know the post is a POS, so save yourself the irritation of having to even scroll by it!

I'm still ignoring you, Clucker! Yes, I am! I'm not even gonna' give you a second thought. Nope, ignore you I will.

Don't listen to Cluck, everyone! Yoo-hoo...if we all ignore him he won't exist...I saw that in a movie once. C'mon, girls, let's show Cluck how we can ignore him...join me in my cause...you know, the one that ignores Cluck. Why, just the other day I pretended the economy didn't exist because I didn't agree with it...and Poof!...the economy wasn't there anymore!

What a relief! My head explodes every time I read something smart...a girl's gotta'' have her peace, I tell you!

Singed,
Wedgie

PS - I almost forgot...I'm ignoring Gannonfan, too, cause he's just way too smart for his own good (and your's, too).

Kisses,
Wedgie - again