Iran Still Not Working on "Nookyaler" Weapons

[ResearchMonkey]

There was no tantrum and the premise was proven. Could you point out exactly what you trying to make a point about?

The point your attempting to frame is that Christians are murdering Americans just the same as the Muslim Jihad movement is, that the national threat is the same. This is not true.

Targeting single and very specific individuals doesn't equate to targeting large volumes of random people which is a national threat.

You have not proven anything to anyone.

 

[spike]

All terrorism is a threat. It doesn't matter if christian or muslim terrorists target specific or random Americans to kill. It's still a threat to Americans.

Do you support the christian terrorists?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Do you support the christian terrorists?

No, I do not support terrorism.

All terrorism is a threat. It doesn't matter if christian or muslim terrorists target specific or random Americans to kill. It's still a threat to Americans.

Yes terrorism is a threat by it nature. By your model all domestic violence would be included, thus every American that has the potential to commit domestic violence is a threat to America.

Exactly how stupid are you?

If a target is clearly identifiable with exact precision, as an abortion doctor who practices the art of abortion in a medical clinic. This is not a threat to 99.99999% of the population of the United States. Whereas someone who targets anyone, anywhere, seeking only to kill as many Americans as possible constitutes a national threat.

You, myself, Gonz,and other Americans on this forum -- none of us are abortion doctors, therefore our potential for being targeted by a pro-life nut-job is statically zero.

You, myself, Gonz,and other Americans on this forum -- all 100% of us are being targeted by pro-jihad Muslims, its random luck. This constitutes a national threat.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Oh bullshit....Statistically zero? Who is the moron here?

Scenario for you since your brain ain't working too good. You are getting say an MRI in a medical building you are unfamiliar with (since I KNOW YOU would never patronize a doctor that murders multicellular bits of potential). BOOM, the building goes down to a bomb because they do abortions next door, or perhaps a hospital where one of the staff doctors performs abortions somewhere else. What about getting caught up in mob violence at an abortion rally?

Your definition of terrorism is faulty. I know you want to sweep the actions of good "christian" soldiers under the rug but....

ter⋅ror⋅ism
  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ism

 

[spike]

Yes terrorism is a threat by it nature. By your model all domestic violence would be included, thus every American that has the potential to commit domestic violence is a threat to America.

No. once again:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Exactly how stupid are you?

'

There's the trolling.

If a target is clearly identifiable with exact precision, as an abortion doctor who practices the art of abortion in a medical clinic. This is not a threat to 99.99999% of the population of the United States. Whereas someone who targets anyone, anywhere, seeking only to kill as many Americans as possible constitutes a national threat.

Anyone who chooses to have an abortion is affected. That is a national threat.

By your logic a terrorist that only targeted white people would not be a national threat because they are not targeting the entire population.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Oh bullshit....Statistically zero? Who is the moron here?

Scenario for you since your brain ain't working too good. You are getting say an MRI in a medical building you are unfamiliar with (since I KNOW YOU would never patronize a doctor that murders multicellular bits of potential). BOOM, the building goes down to a bomb because they do abortions next door, or perhaps a hospital where one of the staff doctors performs abortions somewhere else. What about getting caught up in mob violence at an abortion rally?

Your definition of terrorism is faulty. I know you want to sweep the actions of good "christian" soldiers under the rug but....

You got me. When will I ever learn to not challenge you.

 

[randomJACKASS]

You got me. When will I ever learn to not challenge you.

Alas, probably never....

 

[ResearchMonkey]

No. once again:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

* Common couple violence (CCV) is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other. Intimate terrorism is one element in a general pattern of control by one partner over the other. Intimate terrorism is more common than common couple violence, more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury.
* Intimate terrorism (IT) may also involve emotional and psychological abuse.
* Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as "self-defense", is violence perpetrated usually by women against their abusive partners.
* Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurs when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.

Another type is situational couple violence, which arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence. It is not connected to a general pattern of control. Although it occurs less frequently in relationships and is less serious than intimate terrorism, in some cases it can be frequent and/or quite serious, even life-threatening. This is probably the most common type of intimate partner violence and dominates general surveys, student samples, and even marriage counseling samples.

Types of male batterers identified by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) include "family-only", which primarily fall into the CCV type, who are generally less violent and less likely to perpetrate psychological and sexual abuse. IT batterers include two types: "Generally-violent-antisocial" and "dysphoric-borderline". The first type includes men with general psychopathic and violent tendencies. The second type are men who are emotionally dependent on the relationship. Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.

Others, such as the US Centers for Disease Control, divide domestic violence into two types: reciprocal violence, in which both partners are violent, and non-reciprocal violence, in which one partner is violent.

There's the trolling.

Theres your endometrium hypermenorrha.

Anyone who chooses to have an abortion is affected. That is a national threat.

I guess I missed that warning issued by Homeland Security.

By your logic a terrorist that only targeted white people would not be a national threat because they are not targeting the entire population.

Quit...Gonz