5 things you need to know about ... Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo' Guzman

ISIS has said they want to attack us. That's the biggest difference. And what happens in Syria does have global implications. And there's a humanitarian crisis.

ISIS has said they want to attack us. Iranians have been shouting "death to America" for decades. There's a big difference between shouting slogans and launching an attack on a country. I do believe ISIS can make limited attacks like 911 for instance, but not that they could take over the country.

I agree with the rest of what you said, I'm simply focusing on whether or not ISIS has the actual capability of destroying America.
 
There is something very wrong with you if you think that the DAILY World Wide Islamic Terrorism can somehow be exonerated with your cartel BS.

You're a very sick lib idiot. You need to see a psychiatrist.

There's daily terrorism throughout the world because humans are violent. Do you think the world's violence would end if Islamic terrorism was eliminated? That's Pollyanna thinking, Raps.
 
Christi, I just reread your OP after having our discussion here and I'm still somewhat confused over what you are looking for here.

In the OP you single out Muslim haters but then it seems you don't like that the President, Congress and prominent liberals don't mention Mexico more. The U.S. has paid money to help capture El Chapo but then you mention the U.S. should stay out of other countries business.

Now i'm projecting here and could be 100% wrong but this is what I see. I have difficulty believing a liberal U.S. woman is all that big a fan of Islam considering how they subjugate their women. However this is an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' type situation. As a liberal woman you don't care for right wing Christians and when you see them speak out against Muslims it makes you want to defend them. Thus the coming up with various scenarios to show we shouldn't spend so much time focusing on Muslim countries in the Middle East.
 
Christi, I just reread your OP after having our discussion here and I'm still somewhat confused over what you are looking for here.

In the OP you single out Muslim haters but then it seems you don't like that the President, Congress and prominent liberals don't mention Mexico more. The U.S. has paid money to help capture El Chapo but then you mention the U.S. should stay out of other countries business.

You haven't been on this forum regularly for a long time so you've missed the dozens and dozens of threads bashing 1.6 billion Muslims because of a tiny percentage's evil. My thread was to address the fact that posters here focus on Muslims and ignore the violence other groups are responsible for throughout the world. It doesn't make sense to me and I don't understand why others don't see it. I believe people are biased against Muslims because of 911 so they set up a premise that all Muslims are evil and look for stories to justify that premise. It's a dishonest way of looking at violence.

Now i'm projecting here and could be 100% wrong but this is what I see. I have difficulty believing a liberal U.S. woman is all that big a fan of Islam considering how they subjugate their women.

All Muslims don't subjugate their women and that's a fact. Subjugation has its roots in culture and paternalism and pre-dated Islam. I do agree that the harsher sects treat women very poorly, take the Saudis for example. Yet America has no problem ignoring any country's human rights records if dealing with them benefits us somehow. Why the double standard on our part?

However this is an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' type situation. As a liberal woman you don't care for right wing Christians and when you see them speak out against Muslims it makes you want to defend them. Thus the coming up with various scenarios to show we shouldn't spend so much time focusing on Muslim countries in the Middle East.

People here focus on violence according to their biases. You have the anti-Muslims, the anti-blacks, the anti-Hispanics etc. Yet nobody except people like me call out white violence. Can you explain why people focus on minority violence in a country that's almost 80% white? When white violence comes up it's seen as an aberration, whereas non-white violence is seen as people who have a "propensity" for criminal behaviour. Check for yourself. When Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were shot immediately they were called thugs and the killers were seen as potential victims. When white racists or homophobes kill it's written off as an aberration, not a propensity. Black people loot, white people find or rescue. Black people have illegal guns, white people don't. The BLM crowd are portrayed as out of control rioters, the Oregon protesters as protectors of the Constitution. And on and on and on.
 
You haven't been on this forum regularly for a long time so you've missed the dozens and dozens of threads bashing 1.6 billion Muslims because of a tiny percentage's evil. My thread was to address the fact that posters here focus on Muslims and ignore the violence other groups are responsible for throughout the world. It doesn't make sense to me and I don't understand why others don't see it. I believe people are biased against Muslims because of 911 so they set up a premise that all Muslims are evil and look for stories to justify that premise. It's a dishonest way of looking at violence.

Regarding why do we deal with countries like Saudi Arabia? In an ideal world we would only deal with countries who share our beliefs on human rights.
Unfortunately we don't live in (close to) a perfect world. So we have to talk to almost all countries and we work with those that are favorable to us, especially in a region such as the Middle East where so many don't like us.

And yes we all have our biases and look to stories that have confirmation biases.

All Muslims don't subjugate their women and that's a fact. Subjugation has its roots in culture and paternalism and pre-dated Islam. I do agree that the harsher sects treat women very poorly, take the Saudis for example. Yet America has no problem ignoring any country's human rights records if dealing with them benefits us somehow. Why the double standard on our part?



People here focus on violence according to their biases. You have the anti-Muslims, the anti-blacks, the anti-Hispanics etc. Yet nobody except people like me call out white violence. Can you explain why people focus on minority violence in a country that's almost 80% white? When white violence comes up it's seen as an aberration, whereas non-white violence is seen as people who have a "propensity" for criminal behaviour. Check for yourself. When Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were shot immediately they were called thugs and the killers were seen as potential victims. When white racists or homophobes kill it's written off as an aberration, not a propensity. Black people loot, white people find or rescue. Black people have illegal guns, white people don't. The BLM crowd are portrayed as out of control rioters, the Oregon protesters as protectors of the Constitution. And on and on and on.

Regarding your first comment I would go back to the fact that these extremist Muslim groups have essentially declared war on the west and westerners. That's the difference. Mexican drug cartels for instance haven't said they are targeting innocent Americans. It's possible innocent Americans can be collateral damage in the drug war but they aren't the direct target.
 
Regarding your first comment I would go back to the fact that these extremist Muslim groups have essentially declared war on the west and westerners. That's the difference. Mexican drug cartels for instance haven't said they are targeting innocent Americans. It's possible innocent Americans can be collateral damage in the drug war but they aren't the direct target.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...ican-drugcartelsunitedstatesislamophobia.html

The stats are staggering!
 
The difference, in my mind, is that terrorism can affect anyone. Drug cartels only target poor drug users, not us well to do types (this is the mindset of people who feel this way, not my own personal one). Since I don't go to the ghetto, I won't deal with the cartels. But a terrorist....they might blow up my country club.

An American terrorist can blow up or shoot up your country club.... or your workplace. All of these attacks were carried out by terrorists but soft-pedaled as disgruntled employees "going postal."

Edmond, Oklahoma in 1986


On August 20, 1986, 14 employees were shot and killed and six wounded at the Edmond, Oklahoma, post office by Patrick Sherrill, a postman who then committed suicide with a shot to the forehead.[SUP][3][/SUP]

Ridgewood, New Jersey in 1991


A former United States postal worker, Joseph M. Harris, killed his former supervisor, Carol Ott, and killed her boyfriend, Cornelius Kasten Jr., at their home. The following morning, on October 10, 1991, Harris shot and killed two mail handlers, Joseph M. VanderPaauw, 59, of Prospect Park, N.J., and Donald McNaught, 63, of Pompton Lakes, N.J. at the Ridgewood, New Jersey Post Office.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]

Royal Oak, Michigan in 1991


On November 14, 1991 in Royal Oak, Michigan, Thomas McIlvane killed five people, including himself, with a Ruger 10/22 rifle in Royal Oak's post office, after being fired from the Postal Service for "insubordination." He had been previously suspended for getting into altercations with postal customers on his route.[SUP][6]

[/SUP]Double event in 1993

Two shootings took place on the same day, May 6, 1993, a few hours apart. At a post office in Dearborn, Michigan, Lawrence Jasion wounded three and killed one, and subsequently killed himself.

In Dana Point, California, Mark Richard Hilbun killed his mother, then shot two postal workers dead.[7]As a result of these two shootings, in 1993 the Postal Service created 85 Workplace Environment Analysts for domicile at its 85 postal districts. These new positions were created to help with violence prevention and workplace improvement. In February 2009, the Postal Service unilaterally eliminated these positions as part of its downsizing efforts.[8]

Goleta, California, in 2006


Jennifer San Marco, a former postal employee, killed six postal employees before committing suicide with a handgun, on the evening of January 30, 2006, at a large postal processing facility in Goleta, California.Police later also identified a seventh victim dead in a condominium complex in Goleta where San Marco once lived.[SUP][10][/SUP]

Baker City, Oregon, in 2006


Grant Gallaher, a letter carrier in Baker City, Oregon, pleaded guilty to the April 4, 2006 murder of his supervisor.[13] He reportedly brought his .357 Magnum revolver to the city post office with the intention of killing his postmaster. Arriving at the parking lot, he reportedly ran over his supervisor several times. Subsequently he went into the post office looking for his postmaster. Not finding the postmaster, he went back out to the parking lot and shot his supervisor several times at close range, ostensibly to make sure she was dead. He then reportedly fired several more bullets into the supervisor's car.
 
On November 14, 1991 in Royal Oak, Michigan, Thomas McIlvane killed five people, including himself, with a Ruger 10/22 rifle in Royal Oak's post office, after being fired from the Postal Service for "insubordination." He had been previously suspended for getting into altercations with postal customers on his route.[SUP][6]


My main hunting rifle is a Ruger 10/22. If you click the link you will see modifications to the gun that can easily be made transforming it into .... gasp .... an "assault" rifle. This is exactly why I stand against such bans on certain weapons of a particular look and make up.
 
My main hunting rifle is a Ruger 10/22. If you click the link you will see modifications to the gun that can easily be made transforming it into .... gasp .... an "assault" rifle. This is exactly why I stand against such bans on certain weapons of a particular look and make up.

I've got an AR-7 and some of the after market items that can be used on it, would probably make a liberal wet their pants in fear; but after everything is said and done, it's still just an AR-7.
 
Back
Top