Who Finances the Terrorists?
+5
Stephenmarra
Original Quill
Lone Wolf
eddie
scrat
9 posters
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who Finances the Terrorists?
First topic message reminder :
Reports of deadly terrorist attacks are a regular feature of each day’s news -- just like the weather report. Who bears the responsibility for these grisly murders? The obvious culprits are those who plan and carry out the attacks. Also guilty are the countries that allow the terrorists to operate in their midst. The Western press is also guilty of whitewashing the enormity of this evil. When a man kills his wife during an argument, the newspapers refer to him a murderer. Yet, those who carry out heinous terrorist atrocities are typically described by such terms as “extremists” or "militants", thereby connoting less condemnation....
The repeated use of politically correct words that downplay the enormity of these atrocities creates a measure of acceptance that quiets the public outrage over terrorist murder. This, in turn, makes it somewhat easier for the killings to continue unopposed. Morally speaking, those behind these distortion have the blood of the terrorist victims on their hands.
In addition to the people who actually kill innocents, those who train and dispatch them, the countries that host them and the press, there is yet one other major contributor to terrorism – those who finance the terrorists. They are the elephant in the room that people do not see.
The bombs the terrorists use to kill innocent civilians are sophisticated and expensive, and up-to-date military weaponry sells for untold millions. Yet, today’s Islamists do not suffer from a lack of funding. Has anyone ever heard of a terrorist who didn’t blow up a supermarket because he couldn’t afford the bomb? Also consider that these people have had the wherewithal to wage war for years on end, first against the army and air force of Libya, later against that of Syria, and now too, against Iraq.
Hamas and Hizb’allah are Shiite groups are funded by petrodollars from Shiite Iran. However, the recent wars against the armies of Libya, Syria, and Iraq were mainly fought by Sunnis. Who gave the Sunnis the tens of billions of dollars needed to conduct these protracted military campaigns?
Ancient Jewish Wisdom teaches: “A man does not sin unless there is something in it for him” (Talmud, Kiddushin 63b). This is saying that people might volunteer to help the poor, despite not receiving recognition or personal gain. However, they will not help others rob a bank unless they too will benefit from the crime...
http://americanthinker.com/2014/06/who_finances_the_terrorists.html
Reports of deadly terrorist attacks are a regular feature of each day’s news -- just like the weather report. Who bears the responsibility for these grisly murders? The obvious culprits are those who plan and carry out the attacks. Also guilty are the countries that allow the terrorists to operate in their midst. The Western press is also guilty of whitewashing the enormity of this evil. When a man kills his wife during an argument, the newspapers refer to him a murderer. Yet, those who carry out heinous terrorist atrocities are typically described by such terms as “extremists” or "militants", thereby connoting less condemnation....
The repeated use of politically correct words that downplay the enormity of these atrocities creates a measure of acceptance that quiets the public outrage over terrorist murder. This, in turn, makes it somewhat easier for the killings to continue unopposed. Morally speaking, those behind these distortion have the blood of the terrorist victims on their hands.
In addition to the people who actually kill innocents, those who train and dispatch them, the countries that host them and the press, there is yet one other major contributor to terrorism – those who finance the terrorists. They are the elephant in the room that people do not see.
The bombs the terrorists use to kill innocent civilians are sophisticated and expensive, and up-to-date military weaponry sells for untold millions. Yet, today’s Islamists do not suffer from a lack of funding. Has anyone ever heard of a terrorist who didn’t blow up a supermarket because he couldn’t afford the bomb? Also consider that these people have had the wherewithal to wage war for years on end, first against the army and air force of Libya, later against that of Syria, and now too, against Iraq.
Hamas and Hizb’allah are Shiite groups are funded by petrodollars from Shiite Iran. However, the recent wars against the armies of Libya, Syria, and Iraq were mainly fought by Sunnis. Who gave the Sunnis the tens of billions of dollars needed to conduct these protracted military campaigns?
Ancient Jewish Wisdom teaches: “A man does not sin unless there is something in it for him” (Talmud, Kiddushin 63b). This is saying that people might volunteer to help the poor, despite not receiving recognition or personal gain. However, they will not help others rob a bank unless they too will benefit from the crime...
http://americanthinker.com/2014/06/who_finances_the_terrorists.html
Guest- Guest
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
BigAndy9 wrote:Joy Division wrote:
Long term?..I started smoking it three years back, and stopped months ago...it was never a favourite of mine when I was younger..
What I've just written is exactly the truth Tess...I only do truth .
You started three years ago?
But i remember you being a druggie 5 or 6 years ago on Sky News Forums JD.
And you've stopped? lol
That's impossible Andy...I didn't joined sky in 2010, what you remember is me saying back then who i used to enjoy the magic mushrooms as a teenager
I had tried smoking pot a teenager too, but never done so regularly until 2011 and yes, now I have given it the boot Andy.
Guest- Guest
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
Didge wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:dont try turn the tables on me sunshine
youre the sicko actively making an effort to post pictures of underage children online not me.
do they look sexual to me?? no
but who knows what sick thoughts are running through your head
i think ben should be informed of your inappropriate behavior
jimmy
Well clearly you must do because most people do not look at babies in a sexual way, let alone a picture of them , which here is clearly meant as a piss take based on the fact you are always confused over everything and that you have the mental capacity of a child.
Irony not one of your string points it sees
I guess this is all lost on you but now we also know you perceive pictures of dressed babies in a sexual light.
So not only are you a Neo Nazi, you are also a pedophile, no wonder you run away from SA, now we know.
Best I do not post any further pictures as clearly you get so sexually ecited over them, where most people don;t.
Man are you one sick puppy .
didge youre the one posting images of underage children online
that type of behavior is very questionable
i wonder what the police would make of your posts??
Guest- Guest
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
The Supreme Court just handed down the Hobby Lobby decision.
News Channel wrote:OKLAHOMA CITY – A controversial case between the federal government and Oklahoma retailer Hobby Lobby has been decided upon.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling over whether the Christian-based company is required to provide contraception to their employees under the new healthcare law, even if it violates their religious beliefs.
The justices voted 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.
To read the complete ruling, click here.
The justices decided “closely held corporations with religious owners” can be exempt from the act’s requirements.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
anyone surprised that JD is a crackhead??
obviously he aint the only one
obviously he aint the only one
Guest- Guest
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE SUPREME COURT'S HOBBY LOBBY DECISION:
Newsweek wrote:Are corporations people? Can they hold religious beliefs? If so, can they refuse to offer contraception coverage because of those beliefs? And if that is the case, what other federal laws can corporations ignore?
We’ll find out Monday at 10 a.m., when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the most momentous case of the year so far.
Known as Hobby Lobby, the case arose when the religiously inclined owners of two companies objected to the requirement in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act that insurance plans must cover a full suite of contraception coverage. The Greens, a Southern Baptist family that owns the Hobby Lobby craft stores chain, and the Mennonite Hahn family, which owns the Conestoga Wood Specialties cabinet-making business in Pennsylvania, argue that being forced to cover contraceptives they object to on religious grounds violates their religious liberty.
The two families argue that their businesses should be entitled to protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which until now has applied only to individuals. If the court finds that RFRA does indeed protect even some businesses, it would be another step down the contentious road toward “corporate personhood” that the court has increasingly embraced in recent years. This legal formulation often argued by conservatives caused GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to seem overly allied to big business when he declared “Corporations are people, my friend” during the 2012 election.
It’s like corporate personhood “on steroids,” constitutional law expert Adam Winkler explained to Newsweek last year. “Not only are corporations people, but they are devout people who pray and have their own religious beliefs.”
If the court decides that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are protected under RFRA, it must then decide whether the government is imposing a "substantial burden" on the companies. If the court decides there is a significant burden, it must then decide whether the government has a "compelling interest" to impose that burden.
The federal government has defended the so-called “contraception mandate” by emphasizing the rights of women employees to medical care. My opponents "leave third-party employees entirely out of the equation," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said during oral arguments in March.
There’s also the chance that the Supreme Court could duck some of the tougher questions by deciding that the “contraception mandate” is actually a tax -- the exact out the majority used two years ago when the court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate. It’s an argument that the liberal justices pushed at oral arguments. We’ll know Monday if either Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice John Roberts -- considered the two persuadable conservatives on the Hobby Lobby case -- took the bait.
But courtwatchers are putting their money on a win for Hobby Lobby. During oral arguments, the question of whether a law could require abortion coverage came up, and Kennedy and Roberts both seemed worried by the idea. In defending the mandate, the government also struggled during oral arguments to prove that the contraception mandate is the best way to ensure women have access to birth control -- couldn’t they find a way to provide coverage that doesn’t interfere with religious liberty, they asked?
If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga win, the scope of the ruling will determine the fallout. Can any corporation claim a religious objection to covering contraception? What about a religious objection to vaccines? Or minimum-wage laws? Can only family-held corporations like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga obtain religious exemptions from the law?
That’s why liberals are worried about more than the future of the contraception mandate. As liberal Justice Elena Kagan put it during oral arguments, courts' "hands would be bound" in future challenges to federal laws on religious grounds.
Finally, amidst all the coverage of Hobby Lobby, the press is likely to miss another expected Monday ruling in Harris v. Quinn. Despite its low profile, this case could be momentous, with the future of public-sector unions hanging in the balance.
At issue is the longstanding practice of public-sector unions collecting dues from non-union members, since even non-union employees benefit from union negotiations. These dues go only to the union's bargaining efforts and are not used for political activities. Still, home care providers in Illinois are challenging the rule as a violation of their First Amendment speech rights. A loss for unions could cut their funding to crippling levels, and the Supreme Court is not exactly union-friendly these days.
If the union wins, it will likely be the doing of an unlikely ally in conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who in a 1991 case argued that workers who benefit from union negotiations should not be "free riders." The unions are likely praying that he hasn't changed his mind.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.hoe le feck your kidding!!!!! Your country's justice system is bloody ridiculous QOriginal Quill wrote:The Supreme Court just handed down the Hobby Lobby decision.News Channel wrote:OKLAHOMA CITY – A controversial case between the federal government and Oklahoma retailer Hobby Lobby has been decided upon.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling over whether the Christian-based company is required to provide contraception to their employees under the new healthcare law, even if it violates their religious beliefs.
The justices voted 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.
To read the complete ruling, click here.
The justices decided “closely held corporations with religious owners” can be exempt from the act’s requirements.
Guest- Guest
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
And on reflection corporations are people ?
And have religious rights ?
........1984 anybody
And have religious rights ?
........1984 anybody
Guest- Guest
Re: Who Finances the Terrorists?
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.
Guest- Guest
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics
» Look After The Terrorists.
» It seems the terrorists have won
» Why we talk to those classed as Terrorists.
» "Excuses" for Terrorists
» Terrorists Are NOT Victims
» It seems the terrorists have won
» Why we talk to those classed as Terrorists.
» "Excuses" for Terrorists
» Terrorists Are NOT Victims
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:28 pm by Ben Reilly
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:14 pm by Tommy Monk
» Interesting COVID figures
Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:00 am by Tommy Monk
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:33 pm by Tommy Monk
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:59 pm by Tommy Monk
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
Mon Dec 12, 2022 1:21 am by 'Wolfie
» Quill
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:28 pm by Tommy Monk
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:04 pm by Tommy Monk
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:19 am by Ben Reilly
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:02 pm by Maddog
» PHEW.
Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:33 pm by Syl
» And here's some more enrichment...
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:46 pm by Ben Reilly
» John F Kennedy Assassination
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:40 pm by Ben Reilly
» Where is everyone lately...?
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:33 pm by Ben Reilly
» London violence over the weekend...
Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:19 pm by Tommy Monk
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:44 am by Tommy Monk
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:11 pm by Tommy Monk
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:58 am by Tommy Monk
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:50 pm by Tommy Monk
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...
Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:31 pm by Original Quill