Attempted Islamic car bombing in New York (3 Viewers)

[banco55]

Just remember not all muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists are muslims.

 

[Garygaz]

I'd like you to consider the context of the time before pointing fingers.
This video sums it up quite well.
[youtube]Gt7vS7kxc50&[/youtube]

ROFL. I actually watched this absolute shit.

He manages to epicly fail in defending anything. He keeps on referring to 'consent' and 'old enough'. He knows himself if he says married at 6 and a child at 9 his argument goes to the shitter. A 6/9 year old girl giving consent to marriage/pregnancy. Rofl kk thx cy@ at high security prison.

His argument about social norms is stupid as well. It was social norm to kill jews in germany in WWII, but im sure that made it okay too amirite?

 

[ibbi00]

ROFL. I actually watched this absolute shit.

He manages to epicly fail in defending anything. He keeps on referring to 'consent' and 'old enough'. He knows himself if he says married at 6 and a child at 9 his argument goes to the shitter. A 6/9 year old girl giving consent to marriage/pregnancy. Rofl kk thx cy@ at high security prison.

His argument about social norms is stupid as well. It was social norm to kill jews in germany in WWII, but im sure that made it okay too amirite?

"In any case, they did not have any marriage until she gave consent. And she had to be old enough or they couldn't have done it." Was what he said.

i.e, at that time it was conventional that a 9 year old was mature enough to give consent. How can you compare the level of maturity of females these days to 1400 years ago? That would be such a scientifically flawed experiment. A further indication of the difference in maturity is that a 50 year old back then was considered an old man and that 60 was a normal age to die at which, is evidently not so normal nowadays.

 

[pman]

Guys, just going to point something out. if the guy was a Muslim, why haven't the media jumped on the fact?

 

[jarkler]

He is an islamic: BBC News - NY bomb-plot suspect charged with terrorism

The media didn't jump on it because it's Islamophobic to state the obvious and point out reality. Here are some apologetics though:

Times Square bomb plot: Don't rush to judgment


News lady upset he was a Muslim:
[youtube]yRmPTN07Iz4[/youtube]


The mayor said it was probably someone from the Tea Party (lol): Bloomberg Believes Times Sq. Suspect Acted Alone - wcbstv.com

 

[Garygaz]

"In any case, they did not have any marriage until she gave consent. And she had to be old enough or they couldn't have done it." Was what he said.

i.e, at that time it was conventional that a 9 year old was mature enough to give consent. How can you compare the level of maturity of females these days to 1400 years ago? That would be such a scientifically flawed experiment. A further indication of the difference in maturity is that a 50 year old back then was considered an old man and that 60 was a normal age to die at which, is evidently not so normal nowadays.

Well if that is your logic then there is obviously nothing that is going to get that propoganda out of your head.

I don't care if it's 5000 years in the future or the past, an epicly old pensioner sleeping with a girl who hasn't hit puberty yet is fucking retarded. Ps kids can't give consent. I don't care about conventions, read my post above, it was convention for Nazis to kill Jews, does that make it okay? No, it doesn't. It was convention to fuck little preteen girls 1000s of years ago, is that okay? No, it's not.

 

[ibbi00]

Well if that is your logic then there is obviously nothing that is going to get that propoganda out of your head.

I don't care if it's 5000 years in the future or the past, an epicly old pensioner sleeping with a girl who hasn't hit puberty yet is fucking retarded. Ps kids can't give consent. I don't care about conventions, read my post above, it was convention for Nazis to kill Jews, does that make it okay? No, it doesn't. It was convention to fuck little preteen girls 1000s of years ago, is that okay? No, it's not.

My point stands... How do you know that the age at which females reached puberty wasn't nine back then? How do you know that a nine year old was classified as a kid back then?

Your whole Nazi vs Jew argument is seriously flawed.
Nazis killing Jews was NOT a conventional act.

A convention is a set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.

Many Germans and surrounding countries at the time opposed such an act and it was not "agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria", therefore you cannot classify it as conventional.

 

[Garygaz]

My point stands... How do you know that the age at which females reached puberty wasn't nine back then? How do you know that a nine year old was classified as a kid back then?

Your whole Nazi vs Jew argument is seriously flawed.
Nazis killing Jews was NOT a conventional act.

A convention is a set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.

Many Germans and surrounding countries at the time opposed such an act and it was not "agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria", therefore you cannot classify it as conventional.

You're arguing that 2000 years ago girls had puberty at 9? With absolutely no evidence to back it up?

Most germans agreed with the nazi party and hence it was convention. a small percentage of people disagreeing doesn't stop that. I'm sure there were people back then who thought sleeping with little girls was sick too.

ps go outside, walk past a school, look at a year 1 girl. picture her next to a pensioner getting married. step 2, look at a year 4 girl, picture her getting raped by a pensioner. step 3, realize mohammed was from a pedophelic culture which raped children.

Many Germans and surrounding countries Many germans is a complete exaggeration, do you want to look at the nazi parties support base? do you want to see how many german soldiers had no problem killing jews? you fail. a convention can be for a particular society, it doesn't have to extend past national border. you fail again.

i can see how someone using your flawed logic would be persuaded by such a load of garbage religion (not to say all other religions aren't garbage as well).

 

[ibbi00]

Again, my little walk would be a scientifically flawed experiment. How? Let me run you down through it.

Aim: Determine whether marrying a nine year old fourteen centuries ago is the same as marrying a 21st century female.
Method (As per your suggestion):

walk past a school, look at a year 1 girl. picture her next to a pensioner getting married. step 2, look at a year 4 girl, picture her getting raped by a pensioner.

Dependent variable: How normal you perceive such an act.
Controlled variable: Subject (i.e nine year old female) that is identical to a 6th century female..... STOP, we cannot obtain suitable subject. i.e we cannot keep that variable constant.

Conclusion: You fail.

 

[Garygaz]

Two words for you: Ethics and morals.

Second point. Let's say 3000 years ago it was the social norm to kill females after they gave birth and then cannibalize their corpses. But hey, killing and eating someone is different today right, so we probably shouldn't judge them on those heinous acts.

Your argument is broken. Some things have changed over time. Raping a kid who wants to just be playing with toys and doing childish things is disgusting. I'm pretty sure it's a universal ethic that 'hey should i stick my penis in this kid' is a bad idea no matter what age you lived in. Your country or culture having generally accepted standards does not validate you doing something which is intrinsically pedophilic.

 

[ibbi00]

Marrying a kid is wrong at any time given, whether it may be 20 centuries ago or 200 centuries ago. What I'm saying is that a nine year old 14 centuries ago would NOT fall under the category of what we perceive as a kid in the 21st century... Rendering your whole argument extraneous.

 

[Garygaz]

In Islamic legal terminology, Baligh or Bulugh (Arabic: بالغ or بُلوغ‎) refers to a person who has reached maturity or puberty and has full responsibility under Islamic law. Children become responsible for their actions at the age of 15 for males and 9 for females (lunar years).

A culture classifying a 9 year old as an adult speaks for itself. Men in power make the laws so they can rape kids as young as possible. Everyone knows that when this bullshit baligh law was made, it was made with the idea of sticking their dicks in as young girls as possible.

Again universal ethics mate, oneof those is to not stick their dick in a pre-pubescent girl. (to be honest even if she had just hit puberty, that doesn't exonerate the retardedness of what happened)

 

[ibbi00]

In Islamic legal terminology, Baligh or Bulugh (Arabic: بالغ or بُلوغ‎) refers to a person who has reached maturity or puberty and has full responsibility under Islamic law. Children become responsible for their actions at the age of 15 for males and 9 for females (lunar years).

Someone that sources his information from Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously in an argument but nonetheless, according to my SOURCE which is a trusted website for Fatwa or Islamic ruling.

The age of puberty for a boy is when he becomes sexually mature and when the girl starts menstruation.
Allah Almighty says: “Prove orphans till they reach the marriageable age; then, if you find them of sound judgment, deliver over unto them their fortune…” (An-Nisa’: 6)

So Allah combines puberty and capability to bear responsibility. The average of age according to these juristic studies is 15 years for both genders, which is the age of puberty and maturity.

​

 

[Garygaz]

Don't change the topic you follow the religion of a preteen kiddy fucker.

 

[Garygaz]

But seriously, here's some food for thought.

You say

Marrying a kid is wrong at any time given, whether it may be 20 centuries ago or 200 centuries ago. What I'm saying is that a nine year old 14 centuries ago would NOT fall under the category of what we perceive as a kid in the 21st century... Rendering your whole argument extraneous.

This is hypothetical, but highly fucking relevant to the discussion. If mohommed decided he wanted to stick his dick in a 10 minute year old toddler, according to your logic, you'd say 14 centuries ago that would not fall under the category of a child. Does that sound wrong to you? I sure fucking hope it does, it's because that tiny bit of logic/ethical sense left in your head tells you a 10 minute year old toddler is a child. It's a pity you/pedophilic arabs from 2 millenniums ago don't seem to recognise that a 6 year old girl is a child.


In conclusion, wtf.

 

[ibbi00]

Let's not dwell on with the hypothetical dimension... Seriously though, your use of crude language disgusts me... So much for your character.

p.s FYI: The age was nine not six.. Your pathetic attempt of vindicating your point by twisting the facts is monotonous.

 

[Lolsmith]

Seriously though, your use of ellipses disgusts me.

So much for your character.

EDIT:

RE: your edit:
For fuck's sake you're a total waste of life, ibbi00.

 

[Garygaz]

Let's not dwell on with the hypothetical dimension... Seriously though, your use of crude language disgusts me... So much for your character.

p.s FYI: The age was nine not six.. Your pathetic attempt of vindicating your point by twisting the facts is monotonous.

I'm sorry he raped a nine year old girl not a 6 year old. I've diluted the facts, shredded the evidence, ruined my case! NOOOO MY CASE IS BUST!

Yeah typical, lets not dwell on possibly the most intrinsic value of your whole belief that he wasn't raping a child.


OKAY HYPOCRITE

 

[ibbi00]

Do we really have to go through this again? I've only addressed that point like ten times already...* care to try again?

*Ellipses specifically employed in an attempt to aggravate twits like Lolsmith.

 

[Garygaz]

a wild retard appears