Now Nazi tattoos are cool

[1032004]

Just now, Caveira said:

He’s saying New York should not elect a Muslim communist.  Which they should not. Where does he say terrorist ?  

I said he compared him to terrorists.  Which he did.

[1032004]

MAGA: criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic!

also MAGA: comparing Mamdani to 9/11 isn’t anti-Muslim.

laughable

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I said he compared him to terrorists.  Which he did.

I don’t see the t word in your quote 

[Scouts Honor]

jews run around killing people in peace time? 

[1032004]

11 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I don’t see the t word in your quote 

Oh you don’t think the 9/11 attackers were terrorists?  Interesting 

[jross]

Hey Grok.  is this true?

He’s not a terrorist, yet Charlie Kirk compared him to one.

——

No, this claim is not accurate.

1. “He’s not a terrorist”

True. Zohran Mamdani is a democratic socialist politician, New York State Assembly member, and (as of 2026) NYC mayor. There is no credible evidence that he is a terrorist, has planned violence, or supported terrorism. He was a child on 9/11 and has publicly condemned the attacks.

2. “Charlie Kirk compared him to one”

Not true in a direct sense. Kirk’s post was:

“24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.”

This is a rhetorical juxtaposition highlighting Mamdani’s Muslim faith in contrast to the 9/11 attackers (who were radical Islamists). It’s meant to signal concern about cultural/religious shifts, “insurgency against the West,” demographic change, and Mamdani’s far-left policies.

•  Kirk has called Mamdani names like a “parasite,” criticized his socialism, immigration views, Israel/Palestine stance (“globalize the intifada” rhetoric), and said things like “it doesn’t feel right” for NYC/London to have Muslim mayors. But he did not say “Mamdani is a terrorist” or directly equate him personally to the 9/11 hijackers.

Critics (often on the left) interpret the post as Islamophobic fearmongering or implying collective guilt. Supporters see it as a legitimate warning about patterns of Islamist extremism and incompatible ideologies. It’s strong rhetoric using association, but not a literal “he’s a terrorist” comparison.

Bottom line: Mamdani isn’t a terrorist — correct. Kirk did not compare him to one directly; he drew a provocative link via religion and politics. The statement oversimplifies Kirk’s actual post into a strawman.

[1032004]

6 hours ago, jross said:

Hey Grok.  is this true?

He’s not a terrorist, yet Charlie Kirk compared him to one.

——

No, this claim is not accurate.

1. “He’s not a terrorist”

True. Zohran Mamdani is a democratic socialist politician, New York State Assembly member, and (as of 2026) NYC mayor. There is no credible evidence that he is a terrorist, has planned violence, or supported terrorism. He was a child on 9/11 and has publicly condemned the attacks.

2. “Charlie Kirk compared him to one”

Not true in a direct sense. Kirk’s post was:

“24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.”

This is a rhetorical juxtaposition highlighting Mamdani’s Muslim faith in contrast to the 9/11 attackers (who were radical Islamists). It’s meant to signal concern about cultural/religious shifts, “insurgency against the West,” demographic change, and Mamdani’s far-left policies.

•  Kirk has called Mamdani names like a “parasite,” criticized his socialism, immigration views, Israel/Palestine stance (“globalize the intifada” rhetoric), and said things like “it doesn’t feel right” for NYC/London to have Muslim mayors. But he did not say “Mamdani is a terrorist” or directly equate him personally to the 9/11 hijackers.

Critics (often on the left) interpret the post as Islamophobic fearmongering or implying collective guilt. Supporters see it as a legitimate warning about patterns of Islamist extremism and incompatible ideologies. It’s strong rhetoric using association, but not a literal “he’s a terrorist” comparison.

Bottom line: Mamdani isn’t a terrorist — correct. Kirk did not compare him to one directly; he drew a provocative link via religion and politics. The statement oversimplifies Kirk’s actual post into a strawman.

Thanks for showing AI still needs a lot of work.

I never said he called him a terrorist, or even “equated” him to one.  I said he “compared him” to one.  Grok even says it’s a “juxtaposition.”  A juxtaposition is type of comparison.   So actually, thanks for proving me right.

[jross]

If you want a win in semantics, you can have it. Your posts made it sound like Kirk implied Mamdani is a terrorist… which is not true.

Edited May 9 by jross

[1032004]

16 minutes ago, jross said:

If you want a win in semantics, you can have it. Your posts made it sound like Kirk implied Mamdani is a terrorist… which is not true.

No, I repeatedly said he compared them.   “Semantics” would be your copy pasting of AI which implies I said words I never said in order to call my statement “incorrect.”  There is absolutely zero reason to include a reference to Mamdani and 9/11 in the same thought that doesn’t involve anti-Muslim sentiment.  This is indisputable.

There have however been people with a lot of influence that have directly called Mamdani a terrorist though.  Laura Loomer for one.

Edited May 9 by 1032004

[jross]

You also called him definitely an Islamaphobe… which is not true.  You called me brainwashed… which respectfully we all are… but you keep using incorrect left leaning language on Kirk while referring to yourself as centrist.  It befuddles…

[jross]

I am like Kirk in that I know and like individual muslims while also believing the religion impact on culture and polices is fundamentally incompatible with the USA.  There is a difference between criticizing ideology and people.

[1032004]

9 minutes ago, jross said:

You also called him definitely an Islamaphobe… which is not true.  You called me brainwashed… which respectfully we all are… but you keep using incorrect left leaning language on Kirk while referring to yourself as centrist.  It befuddles…

1) I never said he directly called him a terrorist.

2) I said he compared him to terrorists - that still makes him definitely an Islamaphobe.

hope this helps

[1032004]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

the religion impact on culture and polices is fundamentally incompatible with the USA…  criticizing ideology

This is pretty much the definition of Islamaphobia 

Edited May 9 by 1032004

[jross]

Rational criticism of the religion is not it.

[jross]

You are using islamophobia like others use bigot.  A very incorrect and leftist behavior.  

[1032004]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

You are using islamophobia like others use bigot.  A very incorrect and leftist behavior.  

Saying an entire religion is not compatible with the USA is Islamaphobic 

[1032004]

11 hours ago, Caveira said:

Cause I don’t need to.  
 

Your the guy who thinks a guy who had a Nazi tattoo for 18 years who was just a drunken chronic meth head was a silly accident…. Cause he said it was an accident in a campaign speech.  
 

and even if he did get it on accident because he was a black out drunk chronic meth head…. That he should be elected.  

Do you acknowledge you fell for fake news about him using the n word?

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Do you acknowledge you fell for fake news about him using the n word?

No.   Alcoholic meth head nazis use the n word 

Edited May 9 by Caveira

[1032004]

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

No.   Alcoholic meth head nazis use the n word 

You sound like a liberal lol

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

You sound like a liberal lol

You think Alcoholic meth heads should be in the senate ?

[jross]

20 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Saying an entire religion is not compatible with the USA is Islamophobic 

What is the distinction between criticism and phobia to you?

Can a Muslim be Islamophobic?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-hyPLasRw&t=320s

 

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

You think Alcoholic meth heads should be in the senate ?

Link to him admitting to being a methhead?  Earlier you mentioned a Reddit user named “oystervet” who was the one that used the n word, but that wasn’t Platner.   Is that the same user that talked about meth?   I see one post where Platner said he took psychadelics, but meth isn’t a psychadelic, and if we disqualified all politicians who had used drugs in the past there probably wouldn’t be many left (including the President I’d bet).  

Are you believing everything you read on right wing Twitter again?

[1032004]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

What is the distinction between criticism and phobia to you?

Can a Muslim be Islamophobic?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-hyPLasRw&t=320s

 

The title of the video says he isn’t currently a Muslim

[jross]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The title of the video says he isn’t currently a Muslim

What is the distinction between criticism and phobia to you?  

Can an "Ex" Muslim with much deeper Islam insight become Islamophobic?  How can someone like that develop an irrational hatred of Muslims?  I mean its not impossible.. but don't be willfully ignorant.

Edited May 9 by jross

[1032004]

13 minutes ago, jross said:

What is the distinction between criticism and phobia to you?  

Can an "Ex" Muslim with much deeper Islam insight become Islamophobic? 

Yes.  Islamaphobia doesn’t necessarily mean hatred.   This is an interesting convo though as many within pro-Israel MAGA will accuse even current Jews of being anti-Semitic.