patrick.net

curious2 says

Although Islam prohibits insurance

Maybe these idiots think life insurance will prevent their targets from dying.

thunderlips11 says

By the way, if Mateen and his wife cased Disney, that shows his primary motive was Jihad, not Anti-gay.

Excellent analysis. Thanks. :)

thunderlips11 says

By the way, if Mateen and his wife cased Disney, that shows his primary motive was Jihad, not Anti-gay.

A religious self-hating gay is the fault of the religious upbringing, not the Gay.

She has got to do time, unless the caught in a quandary liberal hypocrites regard her as a defenseless weaker sex.

thunderlips11 says

Mateen and his wife cased Disney,

"Investigators believe the Orlando nightclub gunman made surveillance trips to the club and a Disney shopping complex earlier this month -- the same week Disney and other sites were hosting Gay Days 2016."

thunderlips11 says

A religious self-hating gay is the fault of the religious upbringing, not the Gay.

True always, and especially where the dad supports the Taliban.

Ironman says

First and foremost, kids are a victim in the environment they grow up in and....

[many]

Ironman says

will follow the teaching/enabling of the parents...

except for some who commit suicide or otherwise escape. At least the New Testament does not command believers to kill apostates, in fact it prohbits that by reiterating "thou shalt do no murder." In contrast, Islam commands it.

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

FortWayne says

Obligatory:

just because you are a dumbass, doesn't mean you are a dumbass.

Strategist says

Lets follow the facts. Drones are highly effective in taking out terrorists. Otherwise we would not do it. It is impossible to always expect no collateral damage.

So far, I'm the only one who's provided any, showing overwhelmingly that drones don't work. I think what you meant to say is "Let redefine reality to match my bullshit, genocidal viewpoint". By your logic, nuclear bombs are highly effective at taking out terrorists. If you accept collateral damage of hundreds of civilian deaths, why not millions!?

Hey Chairman Mao agrees with you. The Great Leap was super successful, because "collateral damage" is just the way life goes.

NuttBoxer says

Strategist says

Lets follow the facts. Drones are highly effective in taking out terrorists. Otherwise we would not do it. It is impossible to always expect no collateral damage.

So far, I'm the only one who's provided any, showing overwhelmingly that drones don't work. I think what you meant to say is "Let redefine reality to match my bullshit, genocidal viewpoint". By your logic, nuclear bombs are highly effective at taking out terrorists. If you accept collateral damage of hundreds of civilian deaths, why not millions!?

I accept collateral damage as long as it's minimized. Never heard of a war where innocent people don't die.

Strategist says

I accept collateral damage as long as it's minimized. Never heard of a war where innocent people don't die.

Now that's a somewhat less homicidal statement. You might want to re-evaluate drones based on above sentiment. Also the definition of war, especially in relation to eternal war as illustrated by Orwell. I doubt the innocent people who have been killed and driven from their homes would define the US campaign as war...