Terror Attacks in Paris

[Domina Nostra]

Not sure Putin would ever take the fight seriously into Iraq to take on ISIS. He'd be happy enough to help Assad secure his border and leave it there.

Maybe, but that would still leave Syria neutralized, which seems better than what I expect right now.

 

[JughedJones]

This would all be hilarious if it wasn't so terribly tragic.

A few horrible people are making millions of good ones act like idiots. Just like they planned. The western world is once again declaring war on ideology.

Apparently we learned nothing from our mistakes.

 

[goldandblue]

This would all be hilarious if it wasn't so terribly tragic.

A few horrible people are making millions of good ones act like idiots. Just like they planned. The western world is once again declaring war on ideology.

Apparently we learned nothing from our mistakes.

What is your solution?

 

[IrishLax]

This is from about a year ago:
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7yGN8SlIEZ8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is in liberal California with a westernized, "logical" Muslim talking. She says that she supports rounding up all the Jews to kill them.

Contrast that to the Missouri scenario that played out the past couple weeks. Think of the "microaggressions" that people lost their shit over. And then imagine a white person saying they supported the hypothetical KKK mission of rounding up all the blacks to kill them.

The issue at hand is that political correctness makes people treat Islam with kid gloves. "Oh, it's just radicals that..." is bullshit. Islam is a violent, supremacist religion at its core and it has not been effectively tempered over time like other world religions. People who say it is a religion of peace are either deliberately spreading misinformation or are uninformed.

Obviously, being a Muslim does not make someone a bad person. But people need to stop being apologists for Islam, as the core tenets of that religion do not warrant tolerance or acceptance.

 

[MNIrishman]

This would all be hilarious if it wasn't so terribly tragic.

A few horrible people are making millions of good ones act like idiots. Just like they planned. The western world is once again declaring war on ideology.

Apparently we learned nothing from our mistakes.

Since theopolitical ideologies with a mission to implement theocracy constitute a threat to the concept of secular democracy, it's perfectly reasonable to stand opposed that ideology. Islam is somewhat different from most other religions in that it explicitly recommends that religious and governmental authority be inextricable, which is how we get the death penalty for apostasy and proselytization in the Middle East. That compares strongly with Jesus' admonition, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." However, I wouldn't advocate a military solution but a commitment to preventing religious ideology from informing secular governmental policy.

 

[MNIrishman]

This is from about a year ago:
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7yGN8SlIEZ8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is in liberal California with a westernized, "logical" Muslim talking. She says that she supports rounding up all the Jews to kill them.

Contrast that to the Missouri scenario that played out the past couple weeks. Think of the "microaggressions" that people lost their shit over. And then imagine a white person saying they supported the hypothetical KKK mission of rounding up all the blacks to kill them.

The issue at hand is that political correctness makes people treat Islam with kid gloves. "Oh, it's just radicals that..." is bullshit. Islam is a violent, supremacist religion at its core and it has not been effectively tempered over time like other world religions. People who say it is a religion of peace are either deliberately spreading misinformation or are uninformed.

Obviously, being a Muslim does not make someone a bad person. But people need to stop being apologists for Islam, as the core tenets of that religion do not warrant tolerance or acceptance.

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." --Hadith Book 041, Number 6983

 

[Irish#1]

if you think russia is gonna do anything but look after Assad then you are kidding yourself

I did say I was hoping, but if Russia experiences more of Isis crap, Putin might get a whole lot of pressure to do something.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Paris attacks: The West’s fatal misunderstanding of Islamic State

“It’s better than having them stay in our country,” one Western diplomat told me on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. “Statistically, a newly arrived jihadist to ISIS territory is killed within weeks, so good riddance.” He added that all the West had to worry about were the “lone-wolf attacks” inspired by Islamic State.

Unfortunately, the Paris attacks have disproved this theory, and it is time to shed other falsely comforting illusions as well.

SIAP

 

[irishnd31]

This is from about a year ago:
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7yGN8SlIEZ8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is in liberal California with a westernized, "logical" Muslim talking. She says that she supports rounding up all the Jews to kill them.

Contrast that to the Missouri scenario that played out the past couple weeks. Think of the "microaggressions" that people lost their shit over. And then imagine a white person saying they supported the hypothetical KKK mission of rounding up all the blacks to kill them.

The issue at hand is that political correctness makes people treat Islam with kid gloves. "Oh, it's just radicals that..." is bullshit. Islam is a violent, supremacist religion at its core and it has not been effectively tempered over time like other world religions. People who say it is a religion of peace are either deliberately spreading misinformation or are uninformed.

Obviously, being a Muslim does not make someone a bad person. But people need to stop being apologists for Islam, as the core tenets of that religion do not warrant tolerance or acceptance.

That **** needs one between the eyes.

 

[MNIrishman]

That ****needs one between the eyes.

Wonder if she drove there? Not allowed in Mecca. Challenging a man? That's a no-no. And don't even think about going out of the house without a male guardian in the city sacred to Islam.

 

[gkIrish]

Let's watch the disparaging language folks. Don't want to start issuing warnings.

 

[irishnd31]

Let's watch the disparaging language folks. Don't want to start issuing warnings.

My bad. Apologies.

 

[Bishop2b5]

This is from about a year ago:
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7yGN8SlIEZ8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is in liberal California with a westernized, "logical" Muslim talking. She says that she supports rounding up all the Jews to kill them.

Contrast that to the Missouri scenario that played out the past couple weeks. Think of the "microaggressions" that people lost their shit over. And then imagine a white person saying they supported the hypothetical KKK mission of rounding up all the blacks to kill them.

The issue at hand is that political correctness makes people treat Islam with kid gloves. "Oh, it's just radicals that..." is bullshit. Islam is a violent, supremacist religion at its core and it has not been effectively tempered over time like other world religions. People who say it is a religion of peace are either deliberately spreading misinformation or are uninformed.

Obviously, being a Muslim does not make someone a bad person. But people need to stop being apologists for Islam, as the core tenets of that religion do not warrant tolerance or acceptance.

Absolutely appalling and disgusting. Why would any reasonable, sane person advocate continuing to let people like this and who hold those beliefs into our country?

 

[Cackalacky]

Absolutely appalling and disgusting. Why would any reasonable, sane person advocate continuing to let people like this and who hold those beliefs into our country?

Because this is "America" and any person has the right to hold these beliefs no matter how appalling and disgusting and apparently hypocritical and dangerous they may be.

 

[gkIrish]

Because this is "America" and any person has the right to hold these beliefs no matter how appalling and disgusting and apparently hypocritical and dangerous they may be.

Unless you are against gay marriage. Then you aren't allowed to speak

 

[IrishLax]

Because this is "America" and any person has the right to hold these beliefs no matter how appalling and disgusting and apparently hypocritical and dangerous they may be.

Everyone has the "right" but what I think is messed up is that there is no consequences in this country for Muslims being bigots/supremacists. Because they are "marginalized" there is a distinct lack of backlash/outrage towards bigoted statements, and anyone who tries to critique them is labeled "Islamaphobic."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Everyone has the "right" but what I think is messed up is that there is no consequences in this country for Muslims being bigots/supremacists. Because they are "marginalized" there is a distinct lack of backlash/outrage towards bigoted statements, and anyone who tries to critique them is labeled "Islamaphobic."

They're part of a Government-Approved Victim Class, so their grievances are presumed valid. Conversely, Caucasians and Christians are part of the Oppressor Class, so their grievances are presumed invalid.

A preference for the disenfranchised has undeniably Christian roots, but having been emptied of all principal, this is nothing more than the Will to Power.

 

[connor_in]

They're part of a Government-Approved Victim Class, so their grievances are presumed valid. Conversely, Caucasians and Christians are part of the Oppressor Class, so their grievances are presumed invalid.

A preference for the disenfranchised has undeniably Christian roots, but having been emptied of all principal, this is nothing more than the Will to Power.

 

[wizards8507]

Because this is "America" and any person has the right to hold these beliefs no matter how appalling and disgusting and apparently hypocritical and dangerous they may be.

That right extends only insofar as they shall not be imprisoned for their appalling beliefs. That doesn't mean they should be admitted into the country as immigrants, granted citizenship status, or tolerated by the media and/or private citizens. Freedom of conscience is a protection against a tyrannical government, not carte blanche to be an asshole.

 

[Cackalacky]

Everyone has the "right" but what I think is messed up is that there is no consequences in this country for Muslims being bigots/supremacists. Because they are "marginalized" there is a distinct lack of backlash/outrage towards bigoted statements, and anyone who tries to critique them is labeled "Islamaphobic."

They're part of a Government-Approved Victim Class, so their grievances are presumed valid. Conversely, Caucasians and Christians are part of the Oppressor Class, so their grievances are presumed invalid.

A preference for the disenfranchised has undeniably Christian roots, but having been emptied of all principal, this is nothing more than the Will to Power.

To me what both of you are describing is the opposing status of majority versus minority perspectives that dominate most any country.

Minority rights are protected here ( justifiable by several arguments though with unintended consequences) but not elsewhere in other countries. Elsewhere minorites are killed or subjugated by force or other heinous actions.

 

[Cackalacky]

That right extends only insofar as they shall not be imprisoned for their appalling beliefs. That doesn't mean they should be admitted into the country as immigrants, granted citizenship status, or tolerated by the media and/or private citizens. Freedom of conscience is a protection against a tyrannical government, not carte blanche to be an asshole.

American history is littered with assholes. Its made this country great.


There are no barriers to the extent of those beliefs. Obviously acting on those beliefs may cross into legal troubles so there is that but there is no extent to anyone thinking or saying what they believe here in this country.

Why should an immigrant not be allowed because of what they think? I don't think there are any stipulations for thought crimes in this country?

 

[gkIrish]

American history is littered with assholes. Its made this country great.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/sallykohn">@sallykohn</a> If we don't let the terrorists win, then the terrorists will have won
<a href="https://t.co/n3Q2FvZB4Y">https://t.co/n3Q2FvZB4Y</a></p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/666323290852560897">November 16, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MNIrishman]

American history is littered with assholes. Its made this country great.


There are no barriers to the extent of those beliefs. Obviously acting on those beliefs may cross into legal troubles so there is that but there is no extent to anyone thinking or saying what they believe here in this country.

Why should an immigrant not be allowed because of what they think? I don't think there are any stipulations for thought crimes in this country?

Support of violence, especially against political officials, is often curbed. This falls under the "threat" category and can be interpreted loosely by the Secret Service in order to prosecute. I believe there was someone recently who suggested on Twitter that "someone" should kill the president. That person was convicted of threatening the POTUS, even though advocating violence on the part of someone else, especially an ill-defined someone else, seems a little more gray than threatening to do it yourself.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

To me what both of you are describing is the opposing status of majority versus minority perspectives that dominate most any country.

Minority rights are protected here ( justifiable by several arguments though with unintended consequences) but not elsewhere in other countries. Elsewhere minorites are killed or subjugated by force or other heinous actions.

There's a big difference between minority protections that apply equally to all groups, and legal privileges that apply only to Government-Approved Victim Classes. See the Obama administration's decision to exclude Christians from an upcoming government declaration of ISIS genocide.

All of this has deep theological roots in Mainline Protestantism, of which the average American Progressive is profoundly ignorant. Don't want to turn this thread into another religious debate, but suffice it to say that the identity politics/ culture war you see being waged on college campuses nation-wide is a far cry from the minority protections envisioned by the Founders. It's neither rational nor just; sadly effective though, as it exploits the post-Christian moral sympathies of the West.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Minority rights are protected here ( justifiable by several arguments though with unintended consequences) but not elsewhere in other countries. Elsewhere minorites are killed or subjugated by force or other heinous actions.

The people of this country have the right to hold any beliefs they choose, but those rights don't extend to trampling on the rights of others, advocating the abuse and extermination of another group, nor the planning and execution of violence towards people in this country. It also doesn't mean we are obligated to welcome with open arms a group of people who advocate our own annihilation or the murder of any group of people in our country.

If a group of people fleeing a disaster showed up at your door asking for shelter, would you take them in? Most of us, if our circumstances allowed, would do our best to help out and do so. However, what if you knew with a reasonable certainty that at least 1 or 2 of those people were a serial killer, a rapist, or a child molester? Would you still let them into your home and put your wife & children at such a risk? Of course not. Most of us are willing to help when we can and sympathize with those in a tough situation, but we don't put our family in harm's way to that extent. Protecting them is our number 1 priority and we'd never knowingly allow a rapist, child molester or murderer into our home.

So why would we as a nation knowingly allow a group of people into our country when it's been shown over & over that many of them hate & despise us, have no intention of assimilating and contributing to our country, advocate the murder and extermination of a segment of our population, and almost certainly contain a significant number of people who have sworn to kill as many of us as they can and destroy our nation?

 

[ginman]

Why should an immigrant not be allowed because of what they think? I don't think there are any stipulations for thought crimes in this country?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Cackalacky; Today at 03:25 PM..


And why not have someone who "thinks" child molestation is ok, babysit the kids?

 

[Cackalacky]

There's a big difference between minority protections that apply equally to all groups, and legal privileges that apply only to Government-Approved Victim Classes. See the Obama administration's decision to exclude Christians from an upcoming government declaration of ISIS genocide.

All of this has deep theological roots in Mainline Protestantism, of which the average American Progressive is profoundly ignorant. Don't want to turn this thread into another religious debate, but suffice it to say that the identity politics/ culture war you see being waged on college campuses nation-wide is a far cry from the minority protections envisioned by the Founders. It's neither rational nor just; sadly effective though, as it exploits the post-Christian moral sympathies of the West.

I don't disagree at all with this, I was thinking more along the lines of the recent civil rights and suffrage acts than anything else. To me it also has the behavioral characteristics of Moscovici's Minority Influence

Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. Having a consistent and unwavering opinion will increase the appeal to the majority, leading to a higher chance of adaption to the minority view. However, any wavering opinions from the minority group could lead the majority to dismiss the minority's claims and opinions.[12] Serge Moscovici and Nemeth (1974) argued that minority influence is effective as long as there is consistency over time and agreement among the members of the minority.[8] If this consistency were lost, then the minority would lose its credibility. This can be the case if a member of the minority deserts and joins the majority, as this damages the consistency and unity of the minority. After this occurrence, members of the majority are less likely to shift their position to that of the minority. The key to minority influence being successful is not just consistency, but how the majority interprets consistency. If the consistent minority are seen as too inflexible, rigid, and unwilling to change, they are unlikely to influence the majority. However, if they appear flexible and compromising, they will be seen as less extreme and more reasonable, having a better chance of changing majority views.[13]

 

[Cackalacky]

Why should an immigrant not be allowed because of what they think? I don't think there are any stipulations for thought crimes in this country?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Cackalacky; Today at 03:25 PM..


And why not have someone who "thinks" child molestation is ok, babysit the kids?

Again, ... there are obviously reasons to keep molestors away from kids. The fact that a molestor "thinks" it is one thing. Acting on it is another.

 

[Cackalacky]

The people of this country have the right to hold any beliefs they choose, but those rights don't extend to trampling on the rights of others, advocating the abuse and extermination of another group, nor the planning and execution of violence towards people in this country. It also doesn't mean we are obligated to welcome with open arms a group of people who advocate our own annihilation or the murder of any group of people in our country.

If a group of people fleeing a disaster showed up at your door asking for shelter, would you take them in? Most of us, if our circumstances allowed, would do our best to help out and do so. However, what if you knew with a reasonable certainty that at least 1 or 2 of those people were a serial killer, a rapist, or a child molester? Would you still let them into your home and put your wife & children at such a risk? Of course not. Most of us are willing to help when we can and sympathize with those in a tough situation, but we don't put our family in harm's way to that extent. Protecting them is our number 1 priority and we'd never knowingly allow a rapist, child molester or murderer into our home.

So why would we as a nation knowingly allow a group of people into our country when it's been shown over & over that many of them hate & despise us, have no intention of assimilating and contributing to our country, advocate the murder and extermination of a segment of our population, and almost certainly contain a significant number of people who have sworn to kill as many of us as they can and destroy our nation?

I don't know where to start with this so I won't go any further than... its not illegal to think or say anything in this country (with VERY few exceptions). End of story. The rest of your post is about acting on said thoughts. Legally very different. #Merica DealWithIt