The Religion of Peace Update

bystander said:
I've made this argument over and over; it makes absolutely no sense that the Left has spent so much time fighting Trump on the immigration vetting plan. .....
Click to expand...

You have to understand the lefty mindset and worldview for it to make sense.

Their worldview is egocentric.

This applies to all things. But applied to this specific issue, they think it is us, the West generally, who has made them this way. They give zero credit to the idea that these folks have their own culture and make their own choices in life. All lefty analysis and all lefty remedies for this problem are aimed at the same thing. We must adjust our behavior towards them, since we are causing it.

It's a young child's view of the world. Every child is narcissistic and thinks it is the center of all things -- that everything and everyone else revolves around it.

Thankfully most of us grow out of that. We had to. The real world is harsh. So we learn that lesson a long time ago. But lefties with this worldview never did. Or, if they did, they did what they had to do to avoid it. They create a false reality for themselves, and then they live in it.
 
Joe Fan said:
You have to understand the lefty mindset and worldview for it to make sense.

Their worldview is egocentric.

This applies to all things. But applied to this specific issue, they think it is us, the West generally, who has made them this way. They give zero credit to the idea that these folks have their own culture and make their own choices in life. All lefty analysis and all lefty remedies for this problem are aimed at the same thing. We must adjust our behavior towards them, since we are causing it.

It's a young child's view of the world. Every child is narcissistic and thinks it is the center of all things -- that everything and everyone else revolves around it.

Thankfully most of us grow out of that. We had to. The real world is harsh. So we learn that lesson a long time ago. But lefties with this worldview never did. Or, if they did, they did what they had to do to avoid it. They create a false reality for themselves, and then they live in it.
Click to expand...

Even if the theory of US historical provocations is true it still does not hold that we should not be vigilant. To me it is true that our unconditional support of Israel (tempered by Obama) is a provocation, rightly or wrongly. The shock and awe campaigns have served to radicalize those on the ground who saw their family members die. We can't dodge the reality of these things. There are reasons for our military campaigns and good faith arguments on both sides. In the end we must still protect our own citizens and the advent of ISIS and their clear mission to bring terror to the streets of Europe and the United States would seem to justify a more stringent immigration policy, even if it means singling out some ports of exit.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
Even if the theory of US historical provocations is true.......
Click to expand...

I reject that idea wholly. These people have their own lives and families and culture. They make their own decisions and choices. Many of them have only one book on their bookshelf. And they read that one book every day. That book is what guides them in their daily lives. None of them are living their lives in reaction to us.
 
Joe Fan said:
I reject that idea wholly. These people have their own lives and families and culture. They make their own decisions and choices. Many of them have only one book on their bookshelf. And they read that one book every day. That book is what guides them in their daily lives. None of them are living their lives in reaction to us.
Click to expand...

Well, I've been wholly rejected before and as I age I am adopting the philosophy of, "This is what I think but I'm not going to badger you about it."

Bottom-line, we are allowed to control our borders and I personally think the latest incarnation of the immigration vetting executive order pertaining to specific countries (not all Muslim) is Constitutional.
 
Last edited:
I seen this on Instagram below.

"After Vegas:
Liberals blamed guns AND white males.

After Manhattan:
Liberals did NOT blame trucks OR Muslims.

See the selective outrage?"
 
The liberals had put out a video (now pulled) against Ed Gillespie showing a truck chasing down illegal immigrate kids. It shows the kids run out of room and appears the truck would mow them over before the kid wakes up to having a nightmare about that. The reason they had to pull the ad is because in real life a Muslim terrorist ran over many people killing 8 in Manhattan. Libs need a reality check.
 
Especially funny/sad was the plethora of facebook/twitter/etc comments from the Left saying stuff like "Trump wants the New York killer thrown in Guantanamo, but he didn't say that about the Vegas killer! RACIST!" .... what's the point of imprisoning a corpse?
 
Statalyzer said:
Especially funny/sad was the plethora of facebook/twitter/etc comments from the Left saying stuff like "Trump wants the New York killer thrown in Guantanamo, but he didn't say that about the Vegas killer! RACIST!" .... what's the point of imprisoning a corpse?
Click to expand...

That's Liberal Logic.
 
Statalyzer said:
Especially funny/sad was the plethora of facebook/twitter/etc comments from the Left saying stuff like "Trump wants the New York killer thrown in Guantanamo, but he didn't say that about the Vegas killer! RACIST!" .... what's the point of imprisoning a corpse?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say what Trump was thinking. Technically I believe the law has changed so that we can't just throw someone into Gitmo and suspend the right to habeas corpus. I think the Supreme Court ruled on that here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

"On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5–4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the writ of habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains de factosovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees, rejecting petitioners' arguments, but the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well.[6][7]Invoking Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court concluded: "The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is'."

To me, the New York Terrorist was clearly in the category of an unlawful combatant which in my layman eyes is a soldier representing a nation-state or other clear and present danger that is waging war upon us such as Al Queda or ISIS. I believe what he did violates International Law and the Geneva Convention Protocols. I believe he should be held and tried by a military tribunal because he did not wear a uniform which I believe is one of the conditions of being eligible for safe harbor as a prisoner of war or "lawful combatant."

We don't know anything yet about the Las Vegas shooter (not to mention that he's dead). If it were true that he was a member of ISIS (declared) then his actions would be treasonous and subject to death. But would he be in the same category as an unlawful combatant? I would say so.
 
Sure, but the point is this: it's idiotic to suggest that a person is racist on the basis that said person called for a punishment for the New York killer (still alive) but not for the Vegas killer (dead). How do you punish a dead guy?
 
Joe Fan said:
Click to expand...


It'll probably be a while before details come out. But based on prior events, some of the key leads will have come from people who interacted with the potential terrorists on a daily basis. We should all be thankful that the Brits have gone to such lengths to avoid antagonizing the Muslim community.
 
It isn't sarcasm at all. The best way to prevent terrorism is to maintain good relations between law enforcement and the Muslim community. I know many on this board would rather take the war to all Muslims, but thankfully neither the British government nor the American government has headed in that direction.
 
The vast majority of these plots are foiled by intelligence officers posing online as radicals. Net stings that attempt to progress to in-person meetings.

I'm sure in a small amount of cases public relations has helped, but it's certainly not the norm or majority method of locating/collecting evidence in these cases.

One would be naive to believe it's common for those in their community to rat radical actors out. Wishful thinking. Sting operations posing as radicals are the vast majority.
 
NJlonghorn said:
It isn't sarcasm at all. The best way to prevent terrorism is to maintain good relations between law enforcement and the Muslim community. I know many on this board would rather take the war to all Muslims, but thankfully neither the British government nor the American government has headed in that direction.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church tried to play nice with the Muslims at one point in time, but even the Pope gave up on that failed strategy. Why would you think a failed strategy would work at this point in time?
 
NJlonghorn said:
It isn't sarcasm at all. The best way to prevent terrorism is to maintain good relations between law enforcement and the Muslim community. I know many on this board would rather take the war to all Muslims, but thankfully neither the British government nor the American government has headed in that direction.
Click to expand...
You actually believe trying to maintain good relations with radical Muslims will deter their terrorist activities?

Please send me all your $$, I guarantee you I have some great investment strategies that will make you a fortune. :lmao:
 
Run Pincher said:
You actually believe trying to maintain good relations with radical Muslims will deter their terrorist activities?
Click to expand...

That’s not what I said. We all agree that radical Muslims are the enemy and there is no reason to think they will ever be deterred. We all agree that they have to be stopped — ideally by guile but by force if necessary.

Where I disagree with most on this board is In believing that one important tool in thwarting terrorism by radical Muslims is maintaining good relations with non-radical Muslims.
 
There are some Muslims, and a particular leader in the Middle East, that have finally initiated the process necessary to stop the madness.

- Hope for the best and plan for the worst
 
I'm not a fan of needlessly antagonizing anybody, and where possible we should maintain good relations with moderate Muslims. For example, I'm not a fan of smack talking people (Trump's 2016 talk), moving the embassy to Jerusalem, etc. However, that mentality is often used to blunt meaningful security and enforcement measures, and that's when it becomes a problem.

And there is something to consider. At least here in Europe, Eastern Europe (especially Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary) is frequently accused of being hostile to the Islamic community. They don't accept Muslim migrants or even refugees and are openly nationalistic. They engage in ethnic and religious profiling and tend to lump Muslims together and seldom try to distinguish between hardliners and moderates. (Trump's rhetoric on Islam is considered outrageous in Western Europe. It's considered common sense and fairly moderate in Eastern Europe.) If anyone should have bad relations with Muslims of all kinds, it's Eastern Europe.

The EU and the Western European countries that dominate the EU (Germany, France, Belgium, and to a lesser extent, the UK) look down on Eastern European countries as racist and retrograde and sometimes sue them in EU courts over their policies. They largely adopt a "let them in now and ask questions later" approach to migrants and refugees. They avoid profiling (at least publicly), provide generous welfare, give them legal and labor protections, etc. They even tolerate anti-Semitism and bigotry from Muslims. Their clerics can get away with saying things that a Christian or Jewish cleric could never get away with saying. If anyone should have good relations with moderate and even extremist Muslims, it's Western Europe.

Between these two groups of countries, which ones gets attacked? Do Warsaw, Prague, Krakow, and Budapest get attacked, or do Berlin, London, Brussels, and Paris get attacked? Obviously the latter cities get attacked.

The question everybody should ask is why. Why do terrorists attack these countries that mollycoddle them but avoid the countries that are openly hostile to them? It isn't because they physically can't do it. Eastern Europe is within the Schengen Agreement. Terrorists could drive across the borders and attack those countries. Why not do so?

I think it's because of the reactions they'd get. When a terror attack occurs in Western Europe, governments spend more money on law enforcement within those countries, and they go after the bad apples associated with the attacks. However, ethnic guilt over colonialism or Nazism is pretty much going to prevent any sort of major political changes. The overwhelming majority of the people in these countries basically accept their guilt for the acts of their great-great grandparents (if you're German) and their colonial ancestors (if you're British or French), hold their candlelit vigils for the victims, and hold hands proclaiming that they "won't let hate win" and post graphics indicating that on Facebook. In other words, terrorists can pretty much hit them again and again and again without serious repercussions.

If a major terror attack occurred in Eastern Europe, it would be a Pearl Harbor moment. Major security, legal, and political changes would take place. They'd wipe their asses with the Schengen Agreement, even if it meant telling the EU to f--- off. Borders would be closed indefinitely and guarded with thousands of armed troops. Any non-citizen of a Muslim or Middle Eastern background would get deported. Many mosques would be shutdown, and all would be under constant surveillance. Basically, terrorists might pull off an attack once but never again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top