Here's the cartoon that got the Muslim fanatic's panties in a twist. It's a bit objectionable, but frankly, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I'm in no mood to cater to the sensitivities of these religious degenerates.
After the initial reaction of incredulity subsided, I decided to subject Mr. Obama’s assertion to pitiless, objective mathematical analysis. What exactly are the odds that 4 Jews could be randomly murdered in Paris by a single killer (as Mr. Obama would have us believe)?
The probability that a random murder in Paris will involve ONE Jew as the victim shall be defined as P1, and is determined by the following equation:
P1 = NJ / NT
Where NJ = Number of Jews living in metropolitan Paris NT = Total number of people living in metropolitan Paris
Given Mr. Obama’s claim that the murders were unrelated, independent events, the probability that 4 Jews were randomly murdered in succession by a single individual is given by the variable Pt:
Pt = 0.000000281 (reduced to 3 significant figures)
The result can be multiplied by 100 to arrive at a percentage:
Pt (%) = 0.0000281%
Thus, there is a 0.0000281% chance that the 4 Jews were randomly killed (and therefore, that the American president is telling the truth).
Or, in starker terms, the likelihood that Mr. Obama is lying through his teeth is 99.9999719%.
The science is settled.
Saying the Paris terrorists randomly picked a Kosher deli is like saying the KKK randomly picked black people to lynch.— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 10, 2015
UPDATE: Much hilarity ensues as clueless (and thoroughly incompetent) State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki is unaware that:
Jews (and not Buddhists!) preferentially patronize kosher supermarkets
UPDATE #2: Of course, there is also the possibility that President Obama is not an anti-Semitic liar, and he simply spoke without thinking.
Certainly, if he were willing to admit that the Muslim terrorist who murdered the 4 Jewish shoppers targeted them because of their religion (and not randomly), then the mathematical proof that Mr. Obama is an anti-Semitic liar would be rendered invalid.
What if a white racist with a submachine gun broke into a convenience store in South Central Los Angeles, grabbed seven or eight African Americans who were shopping (maybe there was one Korean) as hostages for the release of some other white racists and then, when attacked, started spewing the N-word while shooting up the place, killing three or four of the African Americans and wounding three or four others, one or two critically.
How would President Obama react?
I suspect he wouldn't say the victims were just "a bunch of folks" who were "randomly" targeted and killed.
"The individuals who were killed in that terrible, tragic incident, were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be!"
An interesting point in that last link: If the attacks in Paris were so random, why are French soldiers standing guard at synagogues and Jewish schools, instead of at random street corners?
Perhaps they just don't understand the nature of the problem as well as King Putt.
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also…Unless of course, someone insults thy mother: In which case, puncheth him mightily in the face." — The Updated King James / Pope Francis Bible (2015)
These fashionable improvements are proving quite popular with the terror-loving Islamofascist set, as a recent still from an anti-Charlie Hebdo rally in London amply illustrates:
UPDATE: In addition to popes and presidents, it is now au courant for judges too, to make excuses for barbarism: German judge rules a Muslim firebombing of a synagogue was mere arson, not terrorism. In Angela Merkel's Germany, burning down Jewish houses of worship is now considered a somewhat disreputable form of political protest, not savagery.
But only if you're a member of the Master Faith, that is. Neo-Nazis don't get away with that kind of horseshit.
“If the U.S. from the beginning had said to Denmark—without reservations—‘we 100 percent support your right of freedom of the press’—and in that way supported the American tradition of freedom of speech—things might have turned out differently. They could have put much more pressure on the Muslim countries. The Egyptians especially would have reconsidered their actions.” [emphasis added]
Danish imams were apparently flabbergasted to learn that the crisis which they orchestrated had unintended consequences:
It was only after the whole project backfired that the imams started working for a peaceful solution, finally recognizing that instead of creating more respect for the cause of Islam, they were creating contempt and anger. The Danish public (and large parts of the Western world) now saw the imams as two-faced villains, which, according to Akkari, was exactly what they were. As the spokesperson of the group, Akkari himself was probably the most hated man in Denmark during 2006. [emphasis added]
The definition of stupidity must surely be demanding enaction of blasphemy laws…in countries where you're a religious minority:
Your Honor, I don't know anything about religious theology. I'm just a caveman. Everyday when I drive to the office in my red Mercedes, I'm terrified. I see other cars and wonder, "Are these evil spirits from the netherworld? Are they going to hungrily feast upon my soul?" Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your modern world CONFUSES and FRIGHTENS me.
But I do know this: When a defendant (such this young Mohammedan gentleman) willfully and maliciously rejects the divinity of Our Lord And Saviour, Jesus Christ, then he displays contempt for the unerring pronouncements on the matter as stipulated by the Council Of Chalcedon.