Qanon Conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba said:
Race is not religion, Einstein.

They call him hussein maybe because they think his muslim school upbringing is a factor.***

You attempt to spin it up into a race factor in your failed race card ploy.


***



***



* Oh, also maybe because he bowed to the muslim king.

* Oh, also maybe because he said ""...my muslim faith" on ABC camera.."

* Oh, also maybe because he told the UN on camera "The future shall not belong to those who insult the prophet of islam"


"...the future shall not belong to those ..." ...? What does that mean ?

Are they to be killed ?
Click to expand...

Both worked against him in the White-Supremacist world.

And so what if he was Muslim? He killed more Islamic Terrorists than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr did. Almost like he felt the best way to end the war on terror was killing terrorists.

The same guy running around with a Santa hat this week handing out toys at children's hospitals while Trump is essentially surrendering to ISIL and the Taliban.
 
Bubba said:
Race is not religion, Einstein.

They call him hussein maybe because they think his muslim school upbringing is a factor.***

You attempt to spin it up into a race factor in your failed race card ploy.





* Oh, also maybe because he bowed to the muslim king.

* Oh, also maybe because he said ""...my muslim faith" on ABC camera.."

* Oh, also maybe because he told the UN on camera "The future shall not belong to those who insult the prophet of islam"


"...the future shall not belong to those ..." ...? What does that mean ?

Are they to be killed ?
Click to expand...

LOL. Do you watch a lot of Jack Van Impe?

LOL. "...my muslim faith" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/my-muslim-faith/

LOL. Why don't you read the whole speech and figure it out? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prophet-and-loss-statement/

Disingenuous as always, Bubba.
 
sts60 said:
In the Q fantasy world, Donald Trump is some sort of strategic genius. The same guy who praised Mattis when he resigned, but didn’t understand that Mattis’ resignation letter excoriated Trump’s blundering destruction of our international ties. The same guy who got mad and fired Mattis early after other people - mostly on TV - explained to him what the letter actually meant.

Yeah, he’s that ******* stupid. That’s the guy the Q halfwits are slobbering over.
Click to expand...

Trump also couldn’t face Mattis directly to do it, so he sent Pompeo instead. There’s the Q fans’ guy in “action”: what a craven little *********** he is, but these dolts keep lapping up this hero fantasy. Laughable.
 
Bubba said:
Race is not religion, Einstein.
Click to expand...

It’s absolutely precious that you’re basically denying racism was a factor in the opposition to Obama. And I say that as a white Christian man. But, sure, it wasn’t the only factor. Among the others was the lie that he is Muslim.

Bubba said:
* Oh, also maybe because he bowed to the muslim king.
Click to expand...

Would a curtsy be better?


Bubba said:
* Oh, also maybe because he said ""...my muslim faith" on ABC camera.."
Click to expand...

As part of pointing out that John McCain wasn’t repeating the lie that he was Muslim. He also said, “my Christian faith” a few words later.

Bubba said:
* Oh, also maybe because he told the UN on camera "The future shall not belong to those who insult the prophet of islam"
Click to expand...

Why aren’t you quoting the rest of what he said?

”...The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied...”

Bubba said:
"...the future shall not belong to those ..." ...? What does that mean ?

Are they to be killed ?
Click to expand...

Nope. Decent people everywhere will point and laugh at them, especially those silly enough to fall for the steaming pile of drivel that is “Q”.
 
It’s worth noting that the whole “Q” schtick is as much culture-war bleating as it is opportunistic crackpottery.

The Breitbartesque mixture of innuendo, cherry-picking, and outright lying about Obama (to pick one example) serves to deepen the emotional investment of the suckers, while also keeping them distracted from the endless failures of his predictions (such as they are) to ever, you know, actually happen. It also helps them avoid the cognitive dissonance engendered by the fantasy of Donald Trump as some sort of brilliant moral crusader running into the reality of Donald Trump the craven, incompetent failure.

Some people claim that Q is simply an extended troll for amusement and/or profit. I don’t know if this is true, but I find it very believable. As I said, it’s opportunistic; it leverages the extreme crackpot pension for calling their perceived enemies pedophiles - like two-year-olds constantly saying “poop” because it irritates grown-ups - into the larger shrill drumbeat of fear and anger that Trump and his enablers have been exploiting for personal and political gain.
 
Last edited:
In Pakistan the future wont belong to those insulting the prophet of islam.

295-C: use of derogatory remarks etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: – who ever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation innuendo, or insinuation, directly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.


Facebook VP travels to Pakistan to assure government it will remove “anti-Islam” material

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/...government-it-will-remove-anti-islam-material
 
Bubba said:
In Pakistan the future wont belong to those insulting the prophet of islam.

295-C: use of derogatory remarks etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: – who ever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation innuendo, or insinuation, directly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.


Facebook VP travels to Pakistan to assure government it will remove “anti-Islam” material

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/...government-it-will-remove-anti-islam-material
Click to expand...

Still ignoring the fact that you don't vet the information at the links you post.
 
sts60 said:
It’s worth noting that the whole “Q” schtick is as much culture-war bleating as it is opportunistic crackpottery.

The Breitbartesque mixture of innuendo, cherry-picking, and outright lying about Obama (to pick one example) serves to deepen the emotional investment of the suckers, while also keeping them distracted from the endless failures of his predictions (such as they are) to ever, you know, actually happen. It also helps them avoid the cognitive dissonance engendered by the fantasy of Donald Trump as some sort of brilliant moral crusader running into the reality of Donald Trump the craven, incompetent failure.
Click to expand...

Bubba said:
In Pakistan...
Click to expand...

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
Last edited:
by Bubba

https://web.archive.org/web/20141213213041/http://www.pakistanblasphemylaw.com/?page_id=15

295-C: use of derogatory remarks etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: – who ever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation innuendo, or insinuation, directly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.
Click to expand...






as if there'd be a need to embellish


Your on, but lets make it 50 cents...





carlitos said:
I'll bet you a quarter that someone embellished text of 295-C before it was copypasted here.

https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/46816797.pdf

295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, et
c., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by
words, either spoken or wri
tten, or by visible represent
ation or by any imputation,
innuendo, or insinuation,
directly or indirectly, defiles t
he sacred name of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished
with death, or imprisonment for life,
and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 295-C ins. by the Criminal
Law (amendment) Act, 111 of 1986, S. 2
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




What was the significance of alleging embellishhment anyway? Uncomfy with the true wording?

You must be one of those pesky islamophobes masquerading as a defender of the prophet of islam.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

OK but more importantly, what part struck you as embellished, and why?

Did that death penalty part come as a surprise ? It does to many who are not familiar with islam and sharia law. I was pretty surprised when I learned some of it.


They kill people for drawing pics of their prophet.

People are being labeled islamophobic for the crime of calling attention to whats going on in places like London.

Here's a good one....Canadian gun permits require a photo on the permit, unless you are a fully veiled person. Then you can walk into Cabela's, show your faceless permit along with your fully veiled face, and buy a gun. Canadian citizens are labeled "islamophobic" for objecting to this.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
OK but more importantly, what part struck you as embellished, and why?

Did that death penalty part come as a surprise ? It does to many who are not familiar with islam and sharia law. I was pretty surprised when I learned some of it.


They kill people for drawing pics of their prophet.

People are being labeled islamophobic for the crime of calling attention to whats going on in places like London.

Here's a good one....Canadian gun permits require a photo on the permit, unless you are a fully veiled person. Then you can walk into Cabela's, show your faceless permit along with your fully veiled face, and buy a gun. Canadian citizens are labeled "islamophobic" for objecting to this.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Q?

But since you've gone this direction, here's what happens when Muslims move into your neighborhood: crime drops, and the local high school soccer team gets better.
 
I presume, Bubba, that you have a reliable reference to the gun permit statement above. I confess I have not bothered to look very far, but note that veils must be removed for drivers' licenses and passports, and probably still for citizenship ceremonies. Looking forward to a nice, sane, drool free reference here.

It is true that there is a religious exemption whereby a person can get a gun permit with no photo at all. It's an old law applying to members of ultra-conservative sects such as the Hutterites, who forbid graven images. It requires a document from a religious leader. It is not a Muslim thing, and it is not new. p.s. It also requires a personal appearance with the RCMP I think. It is definitely not something one can do by mail, as one otherwise could with a picture, the rules for which are very specific and definitely require a full view of the face.

Since no such exemption exists for anyone who has provided a graven image anywhere, and since there is no such exemption for either passports or drivers' licenses (including for Hutterites and Mennonites who might otherwise qualify as long as they never drive or travel), the likelihood of this causing any rush of anonymous Muslim gun carriers seems pretty slim. But of course if you have better evidence, by all means let's see it.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I presume, Bubba, that you have a reliable reference to the gun permit statement above. I confess I have not bothered to look very far, but note that veils must be removed for drivers' licenses and passports, and probably still for citizenship ceremonies. Looking forward to a nice, sane, drool free reference here.

It is true that there is a religious exemption whereby a person can get a gun permit with no photo at all. It's an old law applying to members of ultra-conservative sects such as the Hutterites, who forbid graven images. It requires a document from a religious leader. It is not a Muslim thing, and it is not new. p.s. It also requires a personal appearance with the RCMP I think. It is definitely not something one can do by mail, as one otherwise could with a picture, the rules for which are very specific and definitely require a full view of the face.

Since no such exemption exists for anyone who has provided a graven image anywhere, and since there is no such exemption for either passports or drivers' licenses (including for Hutterites and Mennonites who might otherwise qualify as long as they never drive or travel), the likelihood of this causing any rush of anonymous Muslim gun carriers seems pretty slim. But of course if you have better evidence, by all means let's see it.
Click to expand...



Well, nothing to see here then. Except where its about the principle.

Seems legit nonetheless. Apparently the canadian permit exception doesn't specify as for muslims. Maybe muslims are not the only people who might be fully veiled.


The more I learn of the handling of immigration by some govts, the more I see it is causing problems.


Faith Goldy: Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn2Hn85zMag
 
Bubba said:
Well, nothing to see here then. Except where its about the principle.

Seems legit nonetheless. Apparently the canadian permit exception doesn't specify as for muslims. Maybe muslims are not the only people who might be fully veiled.


The more I learn of the handling of immigration by some govts, the more I see it is causing problems.


Faith Goldy: Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn2Hn85zMag
Click to expand...

You really don't get it, do you? A picture fully veiled does not meet the religious requirement for exemption, and anyone who has had any picture taken for any other requirement, including a license or a passport, cannot meet the requirement either. The exemption is for people who will not have any photograph at all taken.

In Canada, veils are expressly not allowed for photographs in passports and driver's licenses, and I have yet to see any evidence that any gun permit photographs are of persons who are veiled, and no evidence that Muslims have availed themselves of the overall exemption. If there are, as there might be, I suspect that the number is very very small, as the number of such exemptions nationwide, including those for whom the rule was devised is very small.

If it is "about the principle," as you say, then the principle is explicitly aimed at conservative Christians.
 
Bubba said:
Miscellaneous flotsam jettisoned

Here's a good one....Canadian gun permits require a photo on the permit, unless you are a fully veiled person. Then you can walk into Cabela's, show your faceless permit along with your fully veiled face, and buy a gun. Canadian citizens are labeled "islamophobic" for objecting to this.
Click to expand...

For folks interested in facts:

https://thegunblog.ca/2017/05/25/rcmp-says-1182-gun-licences-dont-have-photos-ccfr-reports/

The RCMP said 1,182 people in Canada have gun licences without photos because of a religious exemption, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights reported, citing the national police.

The shooters’ rights group had asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the number following a video last month by The Rebel, Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!, that suggested the photo exemption was a loophole for Muslims.

Canada requires a licence for private individuals to buy or own firearms legally, and a permit generally requires a photo. Section 14, Paragraph 2 of the Firearms Licences Regulations allows licence applications from people whose religion prohibits them being photographed. A similar exemption has existed for decades for other permits, partly to accommodate Hutterites, a Christian group.

As of April 22, 2,076,339 people in Canada had firearm licences and of those, “1,182 have been issued with a valid photo exemption,” the RCMP told the CCFR, which published the correspondence today. That represents less than 0.06 percent of all licence holders.

I wonder if there is a concurrent level of concern for xtians remaining veiled while purchasing firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom