Woman’s Attempt To Troll Liberals Backfires When Someone Notices This Disturbing Similarity

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: xuenchen
|:: The big difference is ::|

The American Conservative Girl wants to defend herself from an ultra-oppressive collectivist government.

The girl in the Muslim picture wants to establish an ultra-oppressive collectivist government.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I am sorry bit who's military is in who's country?

Gun toting bible thumpers don't want to oppress? Yeah ok...

ISIS is fighting to (successfully) establish a full Islamic State within other Muslim Nations.

ISIS are considered to be Quran thumpers yes?

Other Quran thumpers are fighting ISIS.

ISIS has killed thousands of other Muslims and local Christians.

The American Conservatives haven't killed anybody.

American Liberals do that.

I would be sorry too if I were you.

Yes American conservatives are gun toting bible thumpers as is ISIS. Both aim to oppress. We agree. Right?

Negative Ghostrider. There is a Huge difference between Group A that tells you they will pray for your soul, that god will forgive you even if you don't believe in him and who also provides countless Charitable services in it's home country, and (giving you the benefit of the doubt here), when they do want to make change go through established legal channels that allow for debate and have the possibility of being repealed and fought against LEGALLY and

Group B: That doesn't allow women to drive (oppressive), doesn't allow women out by themselves without a close male chaperone (oppressive), doesn't allow women the freedom of expression to wear what they want (oppressive) kills 10 year old girls who supposedly 'dishonored' the family after supposedly committing 'adultery" (oppressive), regularly marries/sells off prepubescent girls to 40 year old men as 'wives' (oppressive), right now who is burning down the entirety of the Middle East in a military conquest to create an Islamic Caliphate (oppressive), who crucifies non muslims they encounter (oppressive), who regularly beheads non believers (oppressive), sells women and children as sex slaves (oppressive), actively pursuing genocide for all religious minorities in the Middle East right now (oppressive), who sentence people who call out their own religion to be publicly whipped a thousand times and spend a decade in prison (oppressive, when was the last time you were publicly flogged in conservative america for calling out christianity?) who go to another part of the worlds largest city and execute 17 innocent people who drew a picture of their child rapists prophet (oppressive, when was the last time a person in conservative america was executed for creating an image of jesus christ?)

I'm sure I missed more than a couple, but if you can't see the difference between the above 2 groups, you are either deliberately trolling, or have serious perception issues. This is a conspiracy website, but those are just the OBVIOUS PUBLIC DIFFERENCES. You are comparing SUPPOSED slights the christians are committing in america to stuff the ENTIRE WORLD sees Islam inflicting on the entire world.

Wake up.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: Jamie1

Using information to prove a point is certainly one way we 'liberals' try to work with our counterparts.

Interesting point, because your posts are filled not with information, but with your views and opinions.

Information is two photos of women holding guns and religious books.

Everything else after is simply your opinion. Your belief that they are equivalent is your perception. You support your perceptions with other beliefs, having never actually met either woman in the photos.

Do you have any other information to provide the discussion?

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: Jamie1

Using information to prove a point is certainly one way we 'liberals' try to work with our counterparts. Influencing their 'thought' processing requires gross simplifications. Sometimes photos help transport these memes even though we await the crazier members of society to reject them offhand.

It is the problem with absolutists. I would say that 'liberals' are less absolutist, therefore saner than 'conservatives'.

You'll note that 'liberals' want to include people under their banner. (Easily discerned when we see conventions or policies.) Conservatives are relatively eager to discriminate. (Easily discerned when we see conventions or policies.)

So to compare the photos by weighing the relevant philosophies, both have nothing against killing each other.
They could try a dialog but WTH, it's easier firing bullets than to think.

Anything else I can help you with?
I'm a liberal and it's what we do.

You claim to not be an absolutist, but in the same breath tell me I'm wrong, bigoted, racist, etc. if I don't hold your exact views (pro life, anti religion, anti-gun, pro big brother, tree hugger, etc)

It's funny, Liberals claim they are open minded but cry when anyone does something different.

A conservative doesn't care if you drive an Electric Prius while he drives his gas guzzling truck, you on the other hand think his truck should be scrapped because its not fuel efficient and despite astounding changes in emissions supposedly damages the environment, that is you being an absolutist.

A conservative doesn't care if you choose not to own a gun while he has a pistol for concealed carry out in public, a shotgun for home defense, and a rifle for hunting, you, on the other hand think he should not own any gun because of your complete unabashed ignorance on how safe a vast majority of guns are and how responsible 99.999999% of gun owners are, that is you being an absolutist

A conservative dislikes Obama because of the policies he has championed, and arguably illegally implemented, not because of his race, you on the other hand are fighting tooth and nail, holding nothing back in your dedication to Obama and accuse the conservative of being racist because he has different political ideals than you, that is you being an absolutist (he doesn't believe in the same public policy as me, racist, bigot, ignorant, uneducated!)

Conservatives would love to have more people under their banner, I don't know if you know this, but their actually ARE conservatives who are minorities, you Liberals just have a near strangle hold on them and paralyze them with fear and hatred to further your own agenda. You Liberals are better at Social Media, but Conservatives are finally catching up.

And as for these two photos and your statement "both have nothing against killing each other"

ARE YOU EFFING SERIOUS? You truly believe the American woman would kill the Muslim woman just because she is Muslim, this only proves your ignorance and has absolutely ZERO BASIS IN FACT, reality or even history. You are a complete tool.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
Killing the helpless is evil.
I think that you agree.
Terminating lives of folks who have offended your sensibilities (no matter how sensible) but who can NO LONGER harm you is murder.
These photographs are identical.
People being killed for no GOOD reason.

Nope. The execution of a torturous war criminal for his crimes are in no way the same as murdering a civilian for the "crime" of being Jewish. This is yet another example of the illogical liberal thought process known as "moral equivalency."

>>
Please, I beg you to show me where the Christian woman was a part of a group that executes people for drawing a cartoon. In fact, the only thing I'll bet that woman has shot is paper and maybe Animals if she hunts, and again
>>

Your preconceived opinion (if not to say "brainwashing") is noteworthy.

Since you IMPLY, without better knowing, that the woman on the right is a terrorist who doesn't want anything more than blowing up innocents or executing people for drawing a cartoon.

REALITY however is that the vast majority of those armed people, whether they are our people with a bible or them with a Quaran in their hands are 100% convinced they are fighting for a good and just cause.

Saying that particular lady "is from a group [blah blah]" is absolutely the same as if I were to claim that the lady on the left is "from a group" that like to picket funerals and wants to kill all homosexuals because I were to think that all Christians are like the WBC or whatever Christian extremist group (YES, THEY DO EXIST).

Whether you want to believe it or not, those two women and their motivation are 100% interchangeable, there is no "right side" and no "wrong side", it's purely subjective and influenced by culture and society. It's a sad thing people cannot see this hypocrisy and still play the "my god is better" game, the root of all insanity and craziness on this planet.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Since you IMPLY, without better knowing, that the woman on the right is a terrorist who doesn't want anything more than blowing up innocents or executing people for drawing a cartoon.

No, it was the Islamaphobic liberal tool who implied it when he published the original article cited in the OP.

"Hahaha look! White conservative woman looks just like an Islamic terrorist! Hahaha"

(NOTE: I'm referring to the author of the original article, not the ATS member who created the OP)

a reply to: NavyDoc
I said nothing about moral equivalency, nor would I.
I said this was identical.
Helpless people being killed.
In addition, since you have now entered into my bailiwick, let me illustrate a problem you have other than forcing my words into your shoddy conceptual framework.
The Nazis (EVIL? Well, Yeah!) had the force of their Government and Allies, legally arrayed, to support these murders. Their mistaken conception promoted by THEIR MSM, was that the Jews are ENEMIES OF THE STATE. Much like conservative doctrinaires made the populations of Iraq, Syria, Libya,etc. Absolutists can ALWAYS JUSTIFY THEIR INSANITY. They assigned grievous unlawful/immoral actions against a class of people who did not participate in those actions. They then attack without any compunctions toward fairness (rationality).
When they summarily executed Nazis, shown in this picture, OUR people decided that murder of POWs was righteous. No freaking legal backing even and lots of laws/treaties against it.
If anything I understand the bastards better in the killing of harmless civilians than the murdering of POWs.
Emotions are only excuses for this immoral behavior. Cold sanctioned ambush killing of wedding parties in Somewherestan because we want to kill somebody (anybody) is not justification for doing so. Killing someone not able to attack you because you think they need a 'good' killing, is always murder.

BTW, NavyDoc, your own reasoning puts you into a perilous situation and that of those whose lives you are responsible for. Let's talk about IMmoral equivalency. As the POW/MIA co-ordinator for my state agency when I was a Service Officer, I declare you to have bogus medic ideals. Do you carry a gun when you are working the front?

a reply to: chuck258
Is it something in the water (or newsfeed) that makes self-avowed 'conservatives' mis-read/hear/perceive anything that contradicts their world view? To then attack the carrier of those contrary notions with moronic invective?
I assure you, I am a much larger tool than you can grasp.
I said, " I would say that 'liberals' are less absolutist, therefore saner than 'conservatives'." Certainly we are more objectively observant. I did not say anything about your views on race relations, nor did I ask you to confirm my (Fairly complex) thinking on the other issues you raise.

I NEVER SAID THAT I WAS AN ABSOLUTIST. I do not believe that it is viable for myself or for society. It's how I can handle folks, like yourself, who are eminently incapable of reasoning. I don't even hold that against YOU, just your expressed opinions. Since I have not walked in your shoes, I don't know how you arrive to your crazy opinions. Maybe you were raped by your baby-sitter? You went to the KKK school of interracial relations because your parents made you. Maybe you are self-educated and honestly believe that you think. If you STFU and don't insult me I don't care about your stances.

If you want to talk in a public venue, you should have something to say worth hearing and preferably assembled well.

Your rant is not only not entwined with the thread's subject but scattered-brained. I think you should be allowed guns. Maybe a 50 round clip is unneeded and back round checks (including sanity) should be mandated. Otherwise folks like yourself not only are armed but even more dangerous.

Your knee-jerk enthusiasm in trying to paint me into a corner is silly and reflects badly on you. You should be ashamed or this attempt to marginalize me and the carefully thought out replies I have made. By raising the issues you did you only disgrace the rest of your sect of believers.

Last, I am effing serious when I say that these chicks are murderers. One by proxy, a coward?, and one who will go to the wall. You also have somehow ascertained that this American would not kill a Muslim because??? You also think that the Muslim woman will kill just because it's in her DNA.
I would think that you are biased. Let's set them in a jungle and see if they come out.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
I said nothing about moral equivalency, nor would I.
I said this was identical.
Helpless people being killed.
In addition, since you have now entered into my bailiwick, let me illustrate a problem you have other than forcing my words into your shoddy conceptual framework.
The Nazis (EVIL? Well, Yeah!) had the force of their Government and Allies, legally arrayed, to support these murders. Their mistaken conception promoted by THEIR MSM, was that the Jews are ENEMIES OF THE STATE. Much like conservative doctrinaires made the populations of Iraq, Syria, Libya,etc. Absolutists can ALWAYS JUSTIFY THEIR INSANITY. They assigned grievous unlawful/immoral actions against a class of people who did not participate in those actions. They then attack without any compunctions toward fairness (rationality).
When they summarily executed Nazis, shown in this picture, OUR people decided that murder of POWs was righteous. No freaking legal backing even and lots of laws/treaties against it.
If anything I understand the bastards better in the killing of harmless civilians than the murdering of POWs.
Emotions are only excuses for this immoral behavior. Cold sanctioned ambush killing of wedding parties in Somewherestan because we want to kill somebody (anybody) is not justification for doing so. Killing someone not able to attack you because you think they need a 'good' killing, is always murder.

BTW, NavyDoc, your own reasoning puts you into a perilous situation and that of those whose lives you are responsible for. Let's talk about IMmoral equivalency. As the POW/MIA co-ordinator for my state agency when I was a Service Officer, I declare you to have bogus medic ideals. Do you carry a gun when you are working the front?

LOL. "POW/MI coordinater?" "Service Officer?" What service?

We executed Nazis after trial too, the picture was just the first on a google search for "firing squads." You ahve a problem with SS getting hung or shot after trial too?

The only one irrational and ranting here is you. I don't think I insulted you once, but here you are going off he handle with irrational emotional and ludicrous "declarations." You behave just like you claim other do. I think that you project your own issues on others, 'cause bother, you got some.

a reply to: Jamie1
Let me help because I can see that the application of reason is insufficient when you are involved.

We know nothing about the personalities other than what is expressed in the context and content of the article. There is no definition of the allegiances which vary; holy book, gun, flag.

"Fisher, a self-described “Second Amendment supporting mother of three and wife of a military combat veteran” is an amazing reminder that had she been born in a different place in the world with a different religion she would proudly be standing up for Islam and not Christianity. Fundamentalism knows no national borders. See, we aren’t so different after all – even in our extremism."

Notice that the LIBERAL viewpoint is we are not so much different. That the loonies are on both sides. That they LOVE god, guns and symbols. As a Liberal, I think that these fools need to be set aside or allowed to directly confront each other to see whose 'god' is the GREATEST.
See, I'm not even against war. Get those advocates of mayhem together and let them ELIMINATE themselves from the gene pool.
I'll sleep better.

I think another big difference is:

"Holly Hobby Lobby" and the American "Conservatives" are *NOT* part of well funded military organizations like "Jihad Jabala" is.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I’m with you buddy. That is quite a comparison. And it says a bunch. This is your future. No kidding. Marry people to a cause and sanity goes out the window. suddenly life is no longer important. It’s the causes that is important.

Now the smart guys think that they want everybody obsessed with the cause and hope that no one notices as they slip out the back door with everything that’s really important, all the resources of the planet. But this plan just don’t make much sense to me. I just don’t see how they can keep the violence contained.

You gotta figure some ready population depletion can only be considered to a good thing, as increases in productivity has just created too many useless feeders. I don’t know,they must have a high degree of confidence in their security features.

But I forget this about conservatives bashing liberals

Nice catch on those photos.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Last time for you, NavyDoc.
In my career in the Florida Department of Veteran Affairs, I was asked to handle the delicate veterans who suffered from captivity. Since you have a determination to mock me, a guy who will not buy a German (actually dealt with our POWs reasonably) or Nipponese car (the Japanese were cruel) because of my dealings and residual feelings with POWs, go to hell.

The fact is your language is inferior, your constructions are of tissue and you think that murder isn't emotionally arousing or an issue when YOU think it's OK.

A full complement of the crazy conservative core expressed here.

Its a "joke" photo. She said she received complaints from people and the biggest among them were that there were no guns, bibles or flags in her photo for Hobby Lobby. There were some people complaining about the lack of guns, some about the lack of flags, and some about the lack of bibles, and probably some that were a combination of them.

So she put this up to "make everybody happy". Its not like she decided to do this all on her own in order to send a political, religious or other message. But even if she did, who cares? I just wanted to point out that it can be easy to assume an incorrect premise for the creation of this photo, which is in reality a very different reason for why the photo of the female terrorist was taken. (Somebody on page 1 has identified her as a suicide bomber.)

But the photo by itself is no big deal anyway. Like another on page 1 said, she is not likely to go out and kill a bunch of people.

I did not see any trolling of liberals, either, btw...

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: Jamie1
Let me help because I can see that the application of reason is insufficient when you are involved.

We know nothing about the personalities other than what is expressed in the context and content of the article. There is no definition of the allegiances which vary; holy book, gun, flag.

"Fisher, a self-described “Second Amendment supporting mother of three and wife of a military combat veteran” is an amazing reminder that had she been born in a different place in the world with a different religion she would proudly be standing up for Islam and not Christianity. Fundamentalism knows no national borders. See, we aren’t so different after all – even in our extremism."

Notice that the LIBERAL viewpoint is we are not so much different. That the loonies are on both sides.

There's no need to repeat yourself. I got it the first time.

The liberal who posted the original photos comparing two women is an Islamaphobic bigot. He sees an Islamic woman with a gun an labels her a terrorist in an attempt to discredit a conservative white women.

He then tries to claim some sort of moral equivalency, coming up with a false conclusion just like you did.

You have ZERO idea if the white woman would be a jihadist if she was raised as a Muslim. Another bigoted statement against Muslim women. What? All Muslim females grow up to be terrorists?

And the best part? You sleep better at night because you believe your stereotypes and bigotry are somehow intelligent and just... just because you thought of them.

No.

Stereotyping Islamic women as terrorists is bigoted.

Stereotyping women raised as Muslim automatically becoming terrorists is even more bigoted.

Epic fail on all counts.

Instead of "backfiring" on the conservative women, it just exposed the bigotry of those using Islamaphobic stereotypes when it's convenient to further their own agenda. You apparently self-identify this as being "a liberal."

a reply to: Jamie1

Yes it does appear you are correct that the op, at the time they posted this thread, was not aware of the identity of the woman who was carrying a Koran/Q'uran.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
Last time for you, NavyDoc.
In my career in the Florida Department of Veteran Affairs, I was asked to handle the delicate veterans who suffered from captivity. Since you have a determination to mock me, a guy who will not buy a German (actually dealt with our POWs reasonably) or Nipponese car (the Japanese were cruel) because of my dealings and residual feelings with POWs, go to hell.

The fact is your language is inferior, your constructions are of tissue and you think that murder isn't emotionally arousing or an issue when YOU think it's OK.

A full complement of the crazy conservative core expressed here.

All of that emotional ranting and you call conservatives crazy? Ironic post is ironic. You seriously use the term "Nipponese" in the year 2015? Like I said, you have some issues buddy. I recommend some counseling for yourself. You will feel much, much, better.

All I did was find similar pictures that had different situations if you looked into the back story as an illustration of the point that something may look similar but not actually be similar. That's it. You are the one who extrapolated all of this irrational insanity from a rather simple point in a rather insane manner.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I'll just leave this here..

Clap... Clap... Clap..

the future of the world ladies and gentlemen. (provided there are enough left after people like those two on the left are finished)

Our debates over fictional characters will end in angry batman fans maybe, but not the end of the world.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
Last time for you, NavyDoc.
In my career in the Florida Department of Veteran Affairs, I was asked to handle the delicate veterans who suffered from captivity. Since you have a determination to mock me, a guy who will not buy a German (actually dealt with our POWs reasonably) or Nipponese car (the Japanese were cruel) because of my dealings and residual feelings with POWs, go to hell.

The fact is your language is inferior, your constructions are of tissue and you think that murder isn't emotionally arousing or an issue when YOU think it's OK.

A full complement of the crazy conservative core expressed here.

Quick everyone, this guy is good at using big words and making complex sentences, everyone LISTEN TO HIS OPINION.

You seem to have an elitist complex going on here. Despite your big words and long sentences, you are going to have dumb it down for me.

First of all, I never called you an absolutist, I was calling out your glaring hypocrisy that everyone but you seems to be able to see.

You call my response 'scatter brained', but maybe I just don't write intelligently enough for you to grasp, that is your problem. The scenario's I put forth are common clashes between Conservatives and Liberals, and they are all true. Again, despite your pre-conceived notions and your elitist attitude, I know many conservatives, as my first example, not one of them gives a damn about people who choose to drive Prius's, however, when videos like this pop up, and through personal conversation and interaction, tree huggers (sorry, environmentalists), complain and whine that people drive vehicles that AREN'T fuel efficient and start complaining about the environment, wanting people to change to more green and fuel efficient vehicles.

I challenge you to find me a similar video where the roles are reversed, or to find real movements that seek the opposite, to require everyone to drive non hybrid vehicles, or a movement to ban or phase out fuel efficient vehicles. This is just one example. But I already know it's going to be impossible to dissuade you because you are an arrogant elitist with an entitlement complex that probably went to some fancy pants college, so I'm done.

It's amazing how these mentally deranged imbeciles, who think just like that basket case Nancy Pelosi, are allowed to label anyone, any way that they choose.

They will desperately do anything it takes to lure their dwindling supporters back into their depressing failure of a movement. ~$heopleNation