doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Theodore Roosevelt on critics

craigd, I would be happy to explain to you how to grab quotes from other threads should you feel inclined. It's very easy. Shoot me a PM if you'd like to learn.

But be forewarned... Larry says he'd like you to directly quote him instead of accurately paraphrasing him... but don't you believe it. As soon as you do something as low-down rotten as reminding him what he said in his own words, he will get all butt-hurt and pretend to ignore you. Remember how pissed off he got when I posted a direct unedited quote of his "Lead = Toxic, Toxic = Bad" statement? Other guys will see you doing that as totally unacceptable behavior too. These will most likely be the same guys who see nothing wrong with Larry doing things like selectively editing the Audobon Society's position on hunting and lead ammo bans to prove his inaccurate assertions.

Selective indignation such as that passes for civility in some quarters. Sad, but true.

Larry, how can you lecture craigd on "intelligent discussions" when you post complete idiocy as you did this morning when you gave jOe your lecture on Muslim terrorists? Just in case you missed my earlier post on the matter, I'll bring it up again for your convenience. Oh, by the way, you sure are determined to veer as far off topic as possible in order to avoid apologizing to RWTF after mocking a bona-fide military veteran. Did you change your opinion about the special respect our veterans deserve... or do you have some special right to mock them? And you sure weren't a stand-up guy when you misquoted me either. You must have been trying to prove jOe was right when he said this:



Once again, did anyone happen to notice any glaring errors or omissions made by our brilliant bloviating ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst when he admonished jOe by claiming that the shooters at Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook schools have killed way more Americans since 1998 than all of the Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Europe combined?



Hang on to your seat old colonel. If I didn't point this out, people like you might actually think Larry Clown is smart:

26 people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

32 people were killed at Virginia Tech.

Now for the juicy parts that our brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst missed---

14 people were killed recently by Muslim terrorists in San Bernardino

13 U.S. Military soldiers were killed by Muslim Colonel Nidal Hasan, shouting "Allahu Akbar" at Ft. Hood.

A total of 90 Americans have been killed in 47 separate Muslim terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11. Here's a link to the attacks and numbers killed and wounded. Where I went to school, 90 was more than 58.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx

2977 people died in the 911 attacks, but somehow Larry Clown the brilliant ex CIA Intelligence Analyst thinks that 58 is greater than 2977.

We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting the threat, and real analysts with brains fear them launching a biological or dirty bomb attack that would dwarf 9-11. But it isn't just Americans who are getting killed:

150 people died in terrorist attacks in Western Europe in 2015.

196 people were killed in Muslim terror attacks in 2004 alone, including 191 deaths in the Madrid, Spain attacks.

56 were killed in London in an Al Qaeda suicide bombing in 2005.

35 were killed in March of this year in Brussels Belgium.

This is just some highlights, and does not include the total of many smaller attacks. It does not include many Islamic terror attacks on Israel, Russia, or the rest of the world. And for some odd reason that is very disrespectful to Veterans everywhere, Larry doesn't even mention the number of American soldiers who have been killed or wounded as a result of Muslim terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a link to a chart for terror deaths in the European Union alone showing that Larry is either misleading us... or he is a complete idiot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union

So, in my opinion, we would all be better off having Homer here analyzing the Muslim terror risks than Larry Clown:

Well Keith, you got me on the math. Muslims have killed more people in this country since 9/11 than the 2 school shootings to which I refer. Unlike you, I am willing to admit the occasional error.

But you're still one confused dude. And I don't think you'd be much help to Craig when it comes to pulling up quotes. Here are your problems:

1. Reference the body count, I take it you have not read Bin Laden's Feb 98 fatwa. He doesn't refer specifically to any nationality except Americans. Couple passing references to allies, but otherwise, only us. So those of other nationalities don't count. At least not in direct response to his fatwa.

2. The attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole, and 9/11 itself are not in response to his fatwa either. They're directly attributable to AQ and Bin Laden's OWN efforts. His fatwa--which you apparently have not read--was an obvious attempt to provoke attacks by Muslims EVERYWHERE WHO DO NOT BELONG TO AQ. You know . . . "lone wolf" attacks. Things like that. And given the number of Muslims just in this country, and given the number of potential victims, and given the 18 years that have passed since the fatwa . . . let's see. Using your total of 90, divide by 18 years. Wow. That's a total of 5 dead PER YEAR in this country. That's a real slow weekend in Chicago. Doesn't take a lot of analysis to see that very few American Muslims have responded.

3. Lead is toxic, and toxic is bad. Obviously. That's the rather simplistic approach taken by those who don't want us to shoot lead. Now rather obviously, if I really believed that myself, then I would not shoot lead. But I do. So again, rather obviously, that's not a concept I either practice or preach myself. But I explained that to you in the past. Unfortunately, you sometimes show a remarkable capability for being unable grasp the obvious.

4. The Audubon Society is not anti-hunting. Their own statement makes that clear to anyone with minimal literacy. That does not mean that they support ALL hunting. It does mean that in some cases, they will work with pro-hunting groups, like the Ruffed Grouse Society, in activities that clearly support hunting. I was there. I worked with them. You have no personal experience. But then you like to bloviate about things concerning which you have no personal experience. Like the military. Like the intelligence community. You do have First Amendment rights to address those topics. So go ahead and make yourself look stupid. I won't stop you. But I will correct you when you go astray.

5. Re the apology you say I owe RWTF . . . interesting that I don't find either RWTF or anyone else here suggesting that I owe him an apology. Likely because they understand that you can't very well mock someone's ability in a foreign language that you do not speak. Once again, an area in which I have experience, with a graduate degree in French and significant teaching experience. You apparently have none, and don't get it even when it's explained to you by someone with credentials that you lack.

6. Helping Craig with quotes. Previously you complained that you couldn't quote me from a locked thread. Gosh, I guess you just don't know what to do if your computer won't do it for you. Here's how you quote someone from a locked thread, or anywhere else a computer won't do it for you: Take paper and pencil or pen. Copy down the quote in question on the paper. Then type the quote you just copied down into your post, surrounded by " " so people know it's a quote. Takes a little effort if it's more than a sentence or two, but it works just fine.

Trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with you . . . I get frustrated because I never taught students with learning disabilities. Anyone with issues so severe that they believe a guy who's stuck on "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" is going to go out and kill dozens of birds a year WITH LEAD SHOT, anyone who can't comprehend the impossibility of criticizing someone's foreign language ability when you don't speak that language, and anyone who can't figure out that paper and pencil and typing in a quote works just fine if the computer won't do it for you . . . gosh Keith, that's you. All rolled into one. Makes me wonder whether you have to stop and think before you draw a breath. Your village has been looking for a new idiot ever since you left. Keith, please phone home. Then return there. Promptly.

Craig, I'm confused by your first para. Please explain. What should "intel" pay for? And why should they pay?

Re Islamist terrorism, refer to your copy of the 9/11 Report, pp 361-363. Section entitled "Defining the Threat". "Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to ISLAMIST TERRORISM." (Emphasis mine.) Right there, in an official government publication. It's unfortunate that some of our current political leaders won't use that phrase. But the business of intelligence is to call a spade a spade, regardless of what politicians do. Speak truth to power. If you can't do that, you don't belong in the intelligence business. And I was in it for a long time. Politicians come and go. The Intelligence Community, like the military, is a permanent fixture.

Re support to terrorism, go to www.lawandsecurity.org. Check out their Terrorist Trial Report Card. They state that as of 2011, charges for material support to terrorism (which includes financial support) were on the rise. But depending on how terms are defined, the legal stuff can get pretty complex. However, from the report to which I refer, it doesn't sound like the material support charges immediately came to a halt after Obama took office. I like to blame him too . . . but preferably when he really does something bad. And there are plenty of those instances.

Re ducks . . . Craig, you're violating the rules. Again. "Revised stance that lead might come from elsewhere." BS. Where did I ever say that lead could only come from a single source, that single source being from bullets and/or shot? Quote please . . . if you can find one. The RAPTOR REHABILITATORS are focusing on fragments from bullets as being the source of lead poisoning in some eagles they've examined. But I'm sure even they are quite aware that there are more potential sources for lead than bullets. That's why it would be good to see some solid research on those sick and dead eagles to nail down the sources of the lead in question.

Okay Larry, thank you for packaging the points in one place.

Don't be too confused by the first para. You introduced the idea that some are racist against all muslims for the transgressions of a few, for comparison, you mentioned Catholics and pedophiles. I believe all Catholics are paying for the transgressions of a few, and I can't see where you dispute that. If you can not dispute that 'intel', regardless of the application, played a part in the decision to blow trillions. Then logic follows that like the Catholics, all members of the organization could cough up their fair share. Here's a thought, maybe the logic is flawed?

My only question is, why can't all muslims pay for the transgressions of a few, and we just pretend all muslims are not paying? If there're any complaints, can't we justify it by saying look at your brothers, the Catholics, we know there're only a few bad apples?

As to mentioning phrases, we've gone over that. It is a non pc linkage of words. My opinion is that there are some spades that are forbidden to be called spades.

Continuing, the link you provided is helpful. Under their trail report card, please note the topic I brought up, Terror Financing Through Charities. Your 'report card' ends in March of '08. I mentioned a time frame of Feb. '09 through today, roughly new policy implementation through two terms. Also note that your link has to do with a vague 'international' tally sheet, and not 'really bad' things that're happening in the homeland.

To wind it down with the ducks, the main thing I remember was being made fun of 'settled science', knock yourself out but it's a done deal, duck rebound numbers after lead shot was banned is proof that hunters caused the poisoning. There was other stuff like concentration where uplands are diverse and dispersed, and duck digestive anatomy, point being it was all related to hunting lead shot.

Back in the 'condor' thread, it was not bs that other lead sources were consistently ignored or brushed off, particularly the industrial release of lead. Please notice, I did not say you made any binding comment of fact, I only mention the repetitive point you stressed. I appreciate keith's offer to teach me how to quote from other comments, but I believe I summed it up to my satisfaction. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Craig, if you're referring to "the decision to blow trillions" in terms of the Iraq War, "intel" didn't make that decision. Congress and the President made it. Intelligence deals with a lot of information which cannot be gleaned from "open sources". Other nations and groups are trying to hide that information from us. So there's a certain element of guesswork involved. Intel concluded that Iraq did not have nukes and would not have them for several years (correct), but that they did have chemical and biological weapons, and missiles that violated the ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War. The missiles were actually found and destroyed before we invaded. Chemical weapons . . . the insurgents used chemical artillery rounds in some of their IED's. That fits the WMD category. The only miss they made, as far as I know, was in finding those mobile bio weapons labs. That was based on bad intelligence. So . . . the President and Congress decided, based in part on what intel told them about WMD's--most of which was correct--to take us to war. That's no more intel's fault than it is the weatherman's fault if he predicts a sunny day, you go on a picnic and get caught in the rain. Should the weatherman pay for being wrong? And in his case, nobody's trying to hide information from him.

I have no problem with individual Muslims paying for crimes they've committed. That's as it should be. Likewise anyone who actively supported acts of terrorism. Also as it should be. But why should all Muslims pay for acts committed by some of their fellow Muslims--acts they may well oppose? All Catholics aren't paying for the crimes of a few. The Catholic CHURCH is paying, because it's clear that the church, as an institution, knew about the pedophile priests and didn't stop them. There is no Muslim "church" structure similar to Catholic hierarchy. I assume you know what a fatwa is: It's a religious directive within Islam. Fatwas are issued regularly by various imams, pretty much whenever they feel like it. There is no higher authority to tell them they can't do that. In contrast, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy, from the pope through cardinals down to archbishops, bishops and priests. Your local priest can't do very much of anything strictly on his own authority. People often have trouble understanding that Islam does not work that way. Who told Bin Laden that he could issue a fatwa telling Muslims to kill Americans? No one. He just went ahead and did it. And the only authority that fatwa has is whatever support it receives from Muslims in general. It told Muslims that it was "an individual duty for every Muslim" to kill Americans. Obviously, not very many of the millions of American Muslims paid any attention, since we have a body count of 90 killed in this country by Muslims in the last 18 years. That's an average of 5 per year . . . or a quiet weekend in Chicago.

Check again on the end date of that report card, Craig. Continues into 2011, and shows the number of charges brought for material support of terrorism--which includes financial support--to be INCREASING. Those are charges filed IN THIS COUNTRY. Nothing international about them--other than where the money is going. But it has to be proven that the money is going to a terrorist cause. It can be hard to sort out, if someone donates to the Red Crescent (Muslim Red Cross) in Gaza . . . because maybe some of that money ends up in the hands of Hamas.

Re ducks, if small, round particles of lead are found in a duck's digestive system, it's pretty darned certain that's lead shot they've ingested. Can they, and do they, ingest lead from other sources? Sure. But there's also plenty of proof that they ingest lead shot and die from lead poisoning. Besides which, that train left the station 25 years ago. If flaws in the "science" are so obvious that you and maybe Keith spotted them, why didn't the biologists themselves spot them? Are we talking one huge conspiracy here--and no one to come forward in the 25 years since and admit it was a conspiracy? Or just a lot of stupid biologists, and you and Keith smarter than they are . . . without being biologists? Seems quite a stretch to me. If it were me and if I spotted "flaws" in the supporting evidence, I would get in touch with someone knowledgeable in the field and see if maybe the flaws I see really aren't flaws at all. Just stuff that doesn't make sense to me because I'm not a biologist. Kinda like Keith telling me I'm making fun of RWTF's Spanish, when I don't speak Spanish. Foreign language is my field of academic study, and I know darned well it's impossible to make fun of someone's ability in a language you don't speak. So every now and then, people get in over their heads . . . and in Keith's case, refuse to be pulled out.

What industrial sources of lead look like lead shot? Pretty much nothing I know of . . . except lead shot. If we're talking about lead poisoning without the presence of lead shot in the digestive system, then said poisoning may have come from other sources. But if there's lead shot, then there's pretty good reason to think lead shot is the culprit. Right? Similarly, down at the Tall Timbers Research Station, with much heavier shot fall than we typically find in upland hunting, they checked the gizzards of 241 healthy quail harvested by hunters. Only 3 contained lead shot. Just over 1%. So they reached the logical conclusion that the ingestion of lead shot is a very unlikely cause for significant mortality among upland birds.

Larry, you know we're look'in like a couple of loons?

Just some quick thoughts. Read your link, under the category of CHARITIES, the date cuts off in '08. Who cares, well it's not '11, and the folks convicted were not done so under the CHARITIES category.

Catholics, muslims hey, aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law. I know we can split hair about technical differences, but can we just agree to call Catholics, deer hunters, and muslims, upland bird hunters? Try to note that I was making a point about flawed logic, and how pervasive it is.

Duck-n-the sort. That's the Larry that I remember! Don't forget, I found you a study, done on English shooting estates, that found extremely high systemic lead levels without the presence of shot in the digestive tract, but attributed to lead shot....in upland birds.

As to making fun of someone that doesn't speak the same language, what are all the illegals doing when they refuse to assimilate? Striving for civility, common ground and the American way?

I got you on more than the math Larry, but even after getting you on the math, you once again demonstrate your poor Intelligence Analyst skills by doubling down on your flawed arithmetic. Were talking simple subtraction at perhaps a second or third grade level Larry. This is 2016. Your Muslim terrorist death numbers for Americans is based upon stats for the last 18 years. You have repeated the 18 year or 18+ year span since bin Ladin's fatwa at least three times now. 2016 minus 18 equals 1998. The 9-11 attacks happened in 2001, so the body count from the 9-11 attacks has to be included in your 18 year time span where you erroneously claim that more were killed in just two mass school shootings. Or are you telling us that bin Laden's worldwide fatwa specifically excluded card carrying al Qaeda members?

With flawed Intelligence Analysis like you provide, one might ascertain that the terror threat is quite small and not worth the cost of funding a TSA or Homeland Security. How do you exclude a massive 2001 al Qaeda attack on the WTC and Pentagon from a fatwa made by the spiritual leader of al Qaeda in 1998? You yourself said bin Laden's fatwa exhorted Muslim's everywhere to kill Americans (with passing reference to some others--- so we won't count them--- HOW STUPID IS THAT???) So Larry, since when does "Muslims everywhere" not include those radical Muslims within al Queda, including the 19 hijackers and even Osama bin Laden himself? How do we separate "Muslims everywhere" from actual al Qaeda members Larry? Do they carry membership cards Larry? Did the 19 hijackers in the 9-11 attacks have al Qaeda dog tags around their necks? Were they wearing al Qaeda uniforms with al Qaeda insignia? Are you trying to tell us that al Qaeda members aren't really Muslims? What is the difference between your idea of a card-carrying al Qaeda member, and the so-called lone wolf terrorists like Maj. Nidal Hasan or the San Bernardino terrorists who either get inspiration, training and marching orders via the internet or radical Mosques, or actually spend time in terrorist training camps in the Middle East or Afghanistan?

And just where did jOe say he was only concerned about the threat from Muslims who are only specifically responding to bin Laden's fatwa, and who are not dues paying , card carrying, official al Qaeda members? Your explanations and excuses sound a lot like the words of Hillary Clinton.

I still think that it is very ignorant and disrespectful for you to attempt to minimize the actual radical Islamic terror threat by excluding the thousands of U.S. soldiers who have died or been wounded outside of the U.S. as a direct result of the rise of Islamic extremism. It didn't happen within the U.S or Europe, so they don't count, huh?

That's even more stupid than this seriously stupid statement you made:
"He doesn't refer specifically to any nationality except Americans. Couple passing references to allies, but otherwise, only us. So those of other nationalities don't count. At least not in direct response to his fatwa." Oh, cute... since bin Laden only made passing references to our allies, deaths and injuries there don't count.

Hey look Larry... I put some of your stupid words in quotation marks... just as I have done many times before. I even put them in color and bold type. I said we couldn't pull quotes from the now locked (because you cried to Dave) Lead and Condors thread, meaning we can't use the QUOTE function in a locked thread. I already explained that once, and you already knew that I have also quoted you the traditional way, as I did above, so it's pretty obvious to anyone except an idiot like you that you are full of shit... as usual.

In Re "Lead is Toxic, Toxic = Bad", You said what you said. Your words are still there, and you can't even edit them because you cried to Dave and got the thread locked. Your later explanations of what you said in that complete statement do not mesh with your actual words. So you ask, how can you be against lead if you shoot it at birds? That's an easy one Larry. Who is the most extreme anti-lead goofball to ever post on this forum? Answer: and I don't think you'll disagree... GrouseGuy Ben Deeble. Yet we all know that Ben has told us he still uses lead shot for target shooting. And he wishes to ban it for all else. You spent a hell of a lot of time in the Lead and Condors thread throwing deer hunters and their lead bullets under the bus. Oh sorry, I forgot your childish argument that you don't even own a bus.



OK, you blamed deer hunters for leaving this massive food supply of heavily lead tainted deer carcasses and gut piles containing allegedly hundreds of particles of lead bullet shrapnel. You also spent a lot of time defending the 1991 Federal ban on lead shot as the absolute cause of most earlier duck and goose mortality. And you ridiculed other possible sources of lead in the environment as a factor. Once again, craigd and I were not the only ones who noticed your anti-lead biases. You excuse lead for your pheasant hunting, but have spent a lot of time lately being critical of lead ammo in other places... even though you admit to some crippling losses that may get eaten by a poor eagle. But I am surprised to hear that someone as perfect as you ever misses or loses a bird.

You want us to believe your degree in French means something, even as you contend my degree in Biology gives me no credence to critically analyze obvious junk science that led up to the 1991 ban. I don't know what craigd's science background is, but you ridiculed every intelligent argument or source he provided to refute your foregone anti-lead bullet conclusions. He effectively shredded your arguments on multiple occasions. You also repeatedly advised not even questioning or fighting past lead ammo bans. Done deal! Losing battle! If you had failed to get concealed carry passed in Iowa, would you advise citizens to just surrender?

Speaking of your French Larry ... I think you speak French like a bloviating douche bag cow. There you go Larry. Now you see it. Even though I don't speak French, I have just demonstrated how it is not impossible to mock you. You were clearly mocking RWTF Larry. Nobody ever said RWTF asked you for an apology for mocking a military veteran. He has more class than that, and clearly more than you. This statement by you came directly after Foxy made a post in Spanish, and after Drew and Last Dollar made comments about his Spanish.



Up to that point, there was no other Spanish within this thread. But at this point, I don't really expect you to admit to something that is obvious. That would take a certain degree of integrity.

Audobon Society... I never said they were totally anti-hunting. There you go again, either dishonestly putting words in my mouth, or once again demonstrating that you simply cannot read. Which is it? Please provide a quote where I ever said that Larry. Put up or apologize, as you demanded from craigd. I said that you selectively edited the words in their statement on hunting to prove your assertion that they were not in favor of lead ammo bans. I proved to you from their own website that they had been instrumental in the California lead ammo ban. craigd caught you conveniently leaving out the juicy part in your selective editing job. It's all still there Larry. You can't change it because you cried to Dave to have the thread locked. Cut the crap already. Your past explanation was weak and looked like a cat trying to cover up shit on a marble floor. Pathetic! Now show us the quote or apologize.

I see from the Ithaca 20 ga, Flues thread that you are IGNORING me. Where have we heard that one before? I know... it was months ago, and again shortly before your last several responses. And it was before your promise to reply to me if I started another thread to debate you. Debate a total idiot who puts words in my mouth and cannot be honest about the very things he said? No thanks. Debate an idiot who lacks basic reading comprehension, and who promises to ignore me just before he promises to respond to me??? No thanks.

Here's another quote you made Larry:



It's still not working Larry. If you try real hard, maybe you can raise your I.Q. and Intelligence Analyst skills, to be equal to dirt. But I won't hold my breath waiting to see that.

The defense you offer is total crap.

Muslims won't publicly applaud the terrorists actions until they a are majority or gain more control in a country....only a brain washed insane person would defend the Muslim religion.

Ever here the saying if the shOe fits...

Only thing I'm suggesting is get them out of our country.