# Paris



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Help me with this one.

God knows, I don't feel proud about feeling this way, but right now this is how I feel. For all intents and purposes, the radical Muslim elements have effectively waged a global crusade-like war against secular Arab, as well as non-Arab countries.

What's happened in Paris suddenly makes me feel that we should not be attempting surgical solutions to fight these radical elements, avoiding civilian casualties. We should be attacking any country, with full force, where these elements are harbored or based, with absolute intent on widespread destruction. If the indigenous populations are not self-determined to rid themselves of these radical elements on their own, they cannot expect that foreign armies would or should protect civilian populations in these countries, when the radical elements are allowed to live among these same civilian populations.

U.S. GIs irrationally wiped out whole Vietnamese villages because of paranoia over the Cong.

Is what I'm saying the same thing?


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Yes, what you are saying is the same thing. No, we should not be wiping out villages, towns, and cities because the thousands of innocent people of other faiths captured by the muslims do not deserve such a fate.

Muslims have been fighting non-muslims since islam was founded in the seventh century. Nice to see a few people are waking up to face reality.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Duvel said:


> We should be attacking any country, with full force, where these elements are harbored or based, with absolute intent on widespread destruction.


Wouldn't proper border control be much easier? 
Also, this is their mindset against y'all, don't you know?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It's a religion born of warfare, spread by warfare. Warfare has been central to it's doctrine since inception. Why should that change. 

We don't need to bomb villages or drop nukes. What we need to do is realize that democracy is not something that is rational to this religion. 

We should support dictators and strongmen in the region who can speak the same language, literally and figuratively, can keep this type of thing suppressed. 

Yup! I'm suggesting we go back to the same thing we did in the cold war and stop worrying about whether there is freedom of the press, whether women can drive or some of the other freedoms that we cherish. 

These are things that are not part of middle eastern culture; never have been and never will be. A perfect example is what happened in Egypt. We stood by while a friendly government was toppled, an Islamist government came in and you started seeing Christians driven out in droves and Coptic churches bombed.

These countries are going to be ruled by dictators. Period. The question is whether those dictators are friendly to us or antagonistic.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Thoughts and prayers to France.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Duvel said:


> Help me with this one.
> 
> God knows, I don't feel proud about feeling this way, but right now this is how I feel. For all intents and purposes, the radical Muslim elements have effectively waged a global crusade-like war against secular Arab, as well as non-Arab countries.
> 
> ...


Yes, you are. There is a serious danger that the reaction to this terrorism will be worse than the terrorism. Just to clarify, the Islamic terrorists in France are French. They're not Syrians or Iraqis, but native born French citizens. In every single case of Islamic terrorism in France the terrorists have been French. That being the case, attacking countries in the Middle East will not only not solve the problem, but will exacerbate it by achieving the terrorists' aims. These terrorist attacks are designed to provoke maximum response and retaliation in order to further their particular form of Jihad, so a massive military response is just what they want. Then their rhetoric of crusader oppression will be "proven" to be true.
The problem is probably insoluble, unless we could turn back time and not attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, which is what created Daesh.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ to them it's not rhetoric. It's reality.

They believe it's a crusade. They are involved in a holy war and they believe God is on their side. They believe in their crusade. They believe they will eventually conquer, even if not in this lifetime.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Just to clarify, the Islamic terrorists in France are French. They're not Syrians or Iraqis, but native born French citizens. In every single case of Islamic terrorism in France the terrorists have been French.


Actually some initial reports are saying that Syrian and Egyptian passports have been found on or near the terrorists.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> Actually some initial reports are saying that Syrian and Egyptian passports have been found on or near the terrorists.


It's all speculation at the moment; every Islamist terrorist attack in France, so far, has been carried out by French citizens.


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> We should support dictators and strongmen in the region who can speak the same language, literally and figuratively, can keep this type of thing suppressed.


Can they actually? Given the events of recent years I've got some doubts about middle eastern governments' abilities to keep the proverbial lid on the situation. And one could argue that dictatorships might well increase the pull of political Islam, since the mosque is the one potential focal point of opposition a middle eastern dictator can't totally crack down on. (I seem to recall that the late Samuel Huntingdon once made that argument.)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Veblen said:


> Can they actually? Given the events of recent years I've got some doubts about middle eastern governments' abilities to keep the proverbial lid on the situation. And one could argue that dictatorships might well increase the pull of political Islam, since the mosque is the one potential focal point of opposition a middle eastern dictator can't totally crack down on. (I seem to recall that the late Samuel Huntingdon once made that argument.)


The late Saddam Hussein certainly kept the Islamist fanatics in Iraq under control.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The late Saddam Hussein certainly kept the Islamist fanatics in Iraq under control.


Yep, cause terrorism didn't happen until he was deposed.....


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

There is no point in dropping bombs in the middle east. The problem is that Europe has left the door open to any terrorists who want to enter, and there are already millions of muslims in Europe. 

I see only two options, and neither of them will be pretty: either deport all muslims or face a civil war in Europe. Politicians love to kick the can down the road rather than making the right choices, so I'm expecting the second option.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> It's all speculation at the moment; every Islamist terrorist attack in France, so far, has been carried out by French citizens.


That's not true. For example, one of the Paris attackers had a Syrian passport and came in through Greece as a "refugee".


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Joseph Peter said:


> Thoughts and prayers to France.


+1 and Amen to that!

As to the OP, while I cannot embrace the idea of indiscriminately striking back at the Islamic extremists, local populations be damned, I do strongly believe it is well past the time that we should visit upon those merciless miscreants that comprise ISIS with the most virulent military shock and awe campaign this Globe of ours has ever or ever will witness!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Even the 'good' Muslims subscribe to a creed which I consider enormously distasteful, subjugation of females and so forth.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> It's all speculation at the moment; every Islamist terrorist attack in France, so far, has been carried out by French citizens.


El Khazzani is from Morocco.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Even the 'good' Muslims subscribe to a creed which I consider enormously distasteful, subjugation of females and so forth.


As opposed to which undiluted scriptural religion? It's the alcohol prohibition and the beards that bug you, right?


----------



## Ensiferous (Mar 5, 2012)

Interdiction/elimination of these terrorists on foreign soil is one (obviously necessary) issue.

But the idea of intentionally importing these people who have been infiltrated with this terror group is either:

a) Stupid and dangerous
b) Nefarious and subversive

Neither of these will satisfy the first and only real job entrusted to these government factotums of internationalists, which is the safety of our CITIZENS.

The fact that some are trying to rush them into the country is an outrage.


B Hussein Obama - "Are you a terrorist who wants to kill infidels here in the United States?"

Unknown, unverifiable "refugee" - "No." 

B Hussein Obama - "Good enough for me. Welcome to America. I feel so multicultural. Apply here for your free stuff. Vote democrat!"


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Tempest said:


> As opposed to which undiluted scriptural religion? It's the alcohol prohibition and the beards that bug you, right?


Let's stick to the facts. Here are the top 10 worst countries in the world for women's rights, according to the World Economic Forum. All Islamic Countries! Yay for Islam!!

1. Yemen
2. Pakistan
3. Chad
4. Syria
5. Mali
6. Iran
7. Cote d'Ivoire
8. Lebanon
9. Jordan 
10. Morocco


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

There were fools claiming that Iraq needed invading because female circumcision. It should not matter to the first world, unless they are utterly devoid of their own problems. A nation has a right to exclude whomever they wish without resorting to frivolous and disingenuous excuses.

Of course patriarchy is natural and women are happiest in it. Does anyone believe that most western women really want to work, commute, be judged on their beauty, etc? We deprive them of their domestic bliss, a worse crime by far. 

Note that these nations do not have compulsory military service for women. Guess who does. Great, women are equal to be cannon fodder.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> There were fools claiming that Iraq needed invading because female circumcision. It should not matter to the first world, unless they are utterly devoid of their own problems. A nation has a right to exclude whomever they wish without resorting to frivolous and disingenuous excuses.
> 
> Of course patriarchy is natural and women are happiest in it. Does anyone believe that most western women really want to work, commute, be judged on their beauty, etc? We deprive them of their domestic bliss, a worse crime by far.
> 
> Note that these nations do not have compulsory military service for women. Guess who does. Great, women are equal to be cannon fodder.


How old were you when you realised that you despised females?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> El Khazzani is from Morocco.


Yes, you're right.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> That's not true. For example, one of the Paris attackers had a Syrian passport and came in through Greece as a "refugee".


It was a fake passport, designed to convince the gullible that he was a refugee from Syria, thus tainting all refugees as potential terrorists.
More about it here. The article shows that an Egyptian passport thought to belong to another of the terrorists actually belonged to one of the victims.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...is-attacks-fakes-made-turkey-police-520642631


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

How would you imagine that your suggestion could be achieved? And, more importantly, how do you imagine that your suggestion would solve the problem of homegrown terrorism?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> +1 and Amen to that!
> 
> As to the OP, while I cannot embrace the idea of indiscriminately striking back at the Islamic extremists, local populations be damned, I do strongly believe it is well past the time that we should visit upon those merciless miscreants that comprise ISIS with the most virulent military shock and awe campaign this Globe of ours has ever or ever will witness!


All well and good, and of course attacks on ISIL in Syria and elsewhere must be followed through with the utmost severity. However, the real danger lies within the ranks of those Islamists who are already here - in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Birmingham, in fact just about everywhere:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...o-die-before-we-stop-appeasing-Islamists.html

It would be quite wrong to blame the French authorities for what has happened, and the same applies elsewhere, - certainly the UK - but there has been a persistent inability to integrate these muslim immigrant communities within Western society, many of whom seem quite impervious to our social values.

My father studied in Paris in the 1950s and witnessed on various occasions the abrasive approach of the French police to Algerians who even then had formed ghetto communities in parts of Paris. As the situation in Algeria worsened, becoming an all-out civil war by the early 1960s, with bombings and other outrages being committed on the French mainland, this treatment of the 'enemy within' became increasingly no-nonsense, with round-ups, internment, violent interrogation and extrajudicial disappearances:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

This background, I would say, is not the cause of the inability to integrate Muslims within French society, but more a symptom of their refusal to accommodate the values of the society within which they have chosen to live.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> All well and good, and of course attacks on ISIL in Syria and elsewhere must be followed through with the utmost severity. However, the real danger lies within the ranks of those Islamists who are already here - in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Birmingham, in fact just about everywhere:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...o-die-before-we-stop-appeasing-Islamists.html
> 
> ...


Well put. It is very hard for a person to assimilate and integrate into a society which fears, hates and despises them. The racism displayed in the 1960's to the surviving Harkis is typical of that attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki It is easy to see why muslims in France are disaffected, and depressed, alienated, underemployed and hopeless people are the most vulnerable to the influences of extremism.

There was an interesting series of programmes on BBC radio 4 over the summer about the experience of immigrants from the sub continent into Britain post war. It suggested that most assimilated reasonably well up until the late 60's/early 70's when right wing racist groups became active, or more active, during the recession of that period, and began to actively target those perceived as immigrants. The racism led to a reaction against assimilation, with the result that many second and third generation immigrants began to deliberately reject the British values (whatever they might be) of their parents and grandparents and de-assimilate.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Well put. It is very hard for a person to assimilate and integrate into a society which fears, hates and despises them. The racism displayed in the 1960's to the surviving Harkis is typical of that attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki It is easy to see why muslims in France are disaffected, and depressed, alienated, underemployed and hopeless people are the most vulnerable to the influences of extremism.
> 
> There was an interesting series of programmes on BBC radio 4 over the summer about the experience of immigrants from the sub continent into Britain post war. It suggested that most assimilated reasonably well up until the late 60's/early 70's when right wing racist groups became active, or more active, during the recession of that period, and began to actively target those perceived as immigrants. The racism led to a reaction against assimilation, with the result that many second and third generation immigrants began to deliberately reject the British values (whatever they might be) of their parents and grandparents and de-assimilate.


I wonder if it is reasonable to expect societies to be unconditionally welcoming to immigrants? Possibly not, if there is already over-population, unemployment, housing problems etc. The native populations are seldom consulted beforehand, yet when they complain afterwards they are seen as xenophobes and worse.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I wonder if it is reasonable to expect societies to be unconditionally welcoming to immigrants? Possibly not, if there is already over-population, unemployment, housing problems etc. The native populations are seldom consulted beforehand, yet when they complain afterwards they are seen as xenophobes and worse.


Indeed, however, it is a reality. The migrants, whether from the W.Indies, the Indies, the Middle East or Eastern Europe are here to stay. We either accept this and make the best of it, or face generations of conflict. 
We welcomed, indeed encouraged, people from the W.Indies to Britain in the 1940's and 50's, because we needed more workers. We'd already told them repeatedly that they were British, and they fought for us in two world wars, being assured that it was their war. The British people weren't consulted in this, but had to accept the new immigrants.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> How old were you when you realised that you despised females?


Are you taking the piss here? Your debate is usually well above amateur "when did you stop beating your wife" ploys. 
I honestly would like to know how one familiar with the Bible can condemn Islam for their value of women in society. You never struck me as a liberal feminist type.
Trying to cloak rational arguments in a manner that will appease the modern PC ninnies is a lost cause.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Are you taking the p*ss here? Your debate is usually well above amateur "when did you stop beating your wife" ploys.
> I honestly would like to know how one familiar with the Bible can condemn Islam for their value of women in society. You never struck me as a liberal feminist type.
> Trying to cloak rational arguments in a manner that will appease the modern PC ninnies is a lost cause.


Ridiculousness will necessarily attract ridicule.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ...
> We welcomed, indeed encouraged, people from the W.Indies to Britain in the 1940's and 50's ... The British people weren't consulted in this, but had to accept the new immigrants.


'We' in this case being the governments of the time - not the British people. Trade unions and others were strongly opposed to immigration in the 50s and 60s.

Regardless of whatever good intentions there may have been, unrestricted immigration does seem to have brought along its fair share of problems.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Ridiculousness will necessarily attract ridicule.


You have yet to provide anything of substance in this thread. I can understand your reluctance to dig yourself in deeper with the goofy anti-religious radical feminist sophistry, but I'm puzzled as to why an otherwise clear thinker would espouse it in the first place.

How much publicity is this getting: 
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Concert-review-The-Eagles-of-Death-Metal-408838


> 'I would never boycott a place like this," pronounced lead singer Jesse Hughes of The Eagles of Death Metal during his band's performance at Tel Aviv's Barby Club Sunday evening. Prior to Sunday's Israel debut by the band, Hughes had received a letter from Roger Waters, the former frontman of Pink Floyd and an outspoken supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, asking him to reconsider performing in Israel.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> You have yet to provide anything of substance in this thread. I can understand your reluctance to dig yourself in deeper with the goofy anti-religious radical feminist sophistry, but I'm puzzled as to why an otherwise clear thinker would espouse it in the first place.
> 
> How much publicity is this getting:
> https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Concert-review-The-Eagles-of-Death-Metal-408838


And your point is?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> 'We' in this case being the governments of the time - not the British people. Trade unions and others were strongly opposed to immigration in the 50s and 60s.
> 
> Regardless of whatever good intentions there may have been, unrestricted immigration does seem to have brought along its fair share of problems.


Indeed it has, although it has always been restricted and controlled, at least officially. Unfortunately one can't go back in time and change things, we're stuck with the situation as it is and we can either accept it and seek a positive outcome, or we can be hostile to the immigrants that are here to stay. I know which is the only peaceful and positive solution.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> Actually some initial reports are saying that Syrian and Egyptian passports have been found on or near the terrorists.


Yes. The Syrian one is a fake and the Egyptian one was a victim's.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> You have yet to provide anything of substance in this thread. I can understand your reluctance to dig yourself in deeper with the goofy anti-religious radical feminist sophistry, but I'm puzzled as to why an otherwise clear thinker would espouse it in the first place.
> 
> How much publicity is this getting:
> https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Concert-review-The-Eagles-of-Death-Metal-408838


I had not realised that it was incumbent upon me to provide substance. I have made my position clear, however much you desire to distort it with the agenda which possesses you.

Your attempts at provocation become increasingly juvenile, perhaps you did not take the opportunity to reflect during your recent exclusion?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Thoughts and prayers to those in Paris.

The gloves need to come off, but smartly. Ten years ago political leaders understood the existential threat posed by this breed of terrorism. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that truth has been forgotten.

Thanks to unrestricted immigration in Europe, the threat is as much one within as it is without. In the UK, the security services need to be massively enhanced in numbers and budget. The surveillance package needs to be enacted. 

The solution isn't to bomb indiscriminately foreign nations. But there is much to be said for the Bush Doctrine here. 

The suggestion that deposing Hussein created this form of terrorism is utterly laughable.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Hussein the secular leader did a fantastic job of suppressing religious extremism. The wrongheaded invasion led to the religious extremists becoming the government. I'm not sure how this can be unseen.

I was hoping to examine the thought behind this "muslins hatez wimminz" supposition, but there seems to be none.


Chouan said:


> And your point is?


I don't understand the question.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> ....
> I was hoping to examine the thought behind this "muslins hatez wimminz" supposition, but there seems to be none..


I'm not sure how this can be unseen.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Yes. The Syrian one is a fake and the Egyptian one was a victim's.


And your point is....?

Half the invaders stomping their way through the Balkans were carrying fake Syrian passports and throwing their own passports into the undergrowth. The Syrian passport office was looted and thousands of passports made their way out to whatever forgers were about. Just today, another man was stopped by Serbian police with a duplicate of the one found.
So the fact that the passport was fake is a red herring. The killers still walked into Europe at the behest of Merkel.
There are plenty of examples of men who are on the one hand pictured holding a severed head in Syria, and then some months later, standing on a street in Finland or Germany.

Farage warned of this way back on April 29th, (and on several other occasions) and was roundly condemned by the establishment, but has of course been proved correct.





He's been giving a speech this evening in Basingstoke, and starts with reference to the Paris attacks, and, something no other British politicians would dare, he questions the current position of UK based Muslims. 
It can be watched here...


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Hussein the secular leader did a fantastic job of suppressing religious extremism. The wrongheaded invasion led to the religious extremists becoming the government. I'm not sure how this can be unseen.
> 
> ...


Hold on now. Wasnt a longstanding complaint about US foreign policy that the US supported dictators who suppressed people yearning for the freedom to remake their own county? I concede that Bush's misadventure wasnt about the suppressed people of Iraq but now that the dictator is gone, are you seriously suggesting you wish he was still there? Moreover, how do we place multiple attacks on France and Russian airplanes on Bush's lap? Lastly, why dont they take out Assad at a soccer/football game? This outfit is in Syria, right? All day on CNN there's been an endless list of Euro talking heads/intelligentsia (Amanpour essentially called him delusional) bashing Obama because he refuses to put US boots on the ground. Lastly, now that the French president has declared war on the outfit, are any attacks in response now in his lap or are we going to stick with the specious root cause argument that it is all the US' fault?

What matters most, however, is that a large group of people are dead and wounded for no good reason.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

moltoelegante said:


> I see only two options, and neither of them will be pretty: either deport all muslims or face a civil war in Europe. Politicians love to kick the can down the road rather than making the right choices, so I'm expecting the second option.


So, would this be a kind of side-project you'd manage while you're reducing the global population down to under a billion people, per a previous discussion?

And how will you remove the "millions of Muslims" from Europe - cattle cars, maybe? Uber? Will you store them in special "holding camps" (ahem) while they wait for their trains?

Terrorism, unfortunately, works... in many ways. It certainly reveals the cowards who would gladly replace the risks of a free society with the (seeming) assurances of a security state.

(Incidentally, the "correct" reaction to all of this is to embrace the refugees - they're running from the very terrorists who committed the atrocities in Paris.)

DH


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Thanks to unrestricted immigration in Europe, the threat is as much one within as it is without.


In what way?



Balfour said:


> In the UK, the security services need to be massively enhanced in numbers and budget. The surveillance package needs to be enacted.


Why?In order to deprive us of freedom?



Balfour said:


> The solution isn't to bomb indiscriminately foreign nations. But there is much to be said for the Bush Doctrine here.


Which was what exactly?



Balfour said:


> The suggestion that deposing Hussein created this form of terrorism is utterly laughable.


In what way?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> And your point is....?
> 
> Half the invaders stomping their way through the Balkans were carrying fake Syrian passports and throwing their own passports into the undergrowth. The Syrian passport office was looted and thousands of passports made their way out to whatever forgers were about. Just today, another man was stopped by Serbian police with a duplicate of the one found.
> So the fact that the passport was fake is a red herring. The killers still walked into Europe at the behest of Merkel.
> ...


Oh dear. What a surprise, Farage is making political capital out of a tragedy. What a surprise that the Right are using this as a justification for their views. The terrorists appear to have won already.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> So, would this be a kind of side-project you'd manage while you're reducing the global population down to under a billion people, per a previous discussion?
> 
> And how will you remove the "millions of Muslims" from Europe - cattle cars, maybe? Uber? Will you store them in special "holding camps" (ahem) while they wait for their trains?
> 
> ...


Very well put.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Dhaller said:


> And how will you remove the "millions of Muslims" from Europe - cattle cars, maybe? Uber? Will you store them in special "holding camps" (ahem) while they wait for their trains?


Assuming that was a serious question, and not just trolling, I think the best way to do it would be to impose a deadline, giving people 12 months to arrange their own affairs and transport. After the deadline, any still remaining would be breaking the law by staying, and normal deportation procedures would apply.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> So, would this be a kind of side-project you'd manage while you're reducing the global population down to under a billion people, per a previous discussion?
> 
> And how will you remove the "millions of Muslims" from Europe - cattle cars, maybe? Uber? Will you store them in special "holding camps" (ahem) while they wait for their trains?
> 
> ...


I find it most odd that you would choose to snipe at molto concerning overpopulation when, having had the opportunity to advance your position on the thread dedicated to this subject, you turned tail and fled from the discussion in disgrace.

As to hinting at the Nazi regime to discredit any notion that a solution may be tentatively proposed to address the problems which we are currently facing, you do realise that this is a preposterous tactic and now, having done so, your argument is automatically invalidated?

Funnily enough, and this may surprise you just as much as it has surprised me, we are in firm agreement on one of the issues you have raised, the erosion of our liberty to counter terrorism is wholly unacceptable. One cannot sacrifice liberty to protect liberty.

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> What a surprise that the Right are using this as a justification for their views.


It's not a "right wing" view, it's just plain common sense. The Australian system works, the European system doesn't.
This could be the greatest threat Europe has ever faced, and the politicians do nothing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> It's not a "right wing" view, it's just plain common sense. The Australian system works, the European system doesn't.
> This could be the greatest threat Europe has ever faced, and the politicians do nothing.


It is "common sense" is the usual expression of the right, along with "it stands to reason" and "it is self-evident". Such expression imply that theirs is the only rational view, and also that they don't need to justify their views.
In any case, what is your evidence for your assertion that is isn't working? Evidence that Australia's abandonment of international law _*is*_ working? I do find it a bit rich that a country of immigrants who have oppressed the indigenous people for years are now condemning immigrants!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> ...
> (Incidentally, the "correct" reaction to all of this is to embrace the refugees - they're running from the very terrorists who committed the atrocities in Paris.)
> 
> DH


Do so. People are free to invite these refugees into their own homes if they wish and look after them at their own expense.

However deeply one sympathises with the dreadful plight of those refugees, there is a point of view that dysfunctional states such as Syria have no automatic right to export their problems elsewhere, which seems merely to be furthering the murderous ends of ISIS and others, while enriching the odious people-smugglers. The mass exodus of its middle class is unlikely to solve the problem within Syria.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Joseph Peter said:


> Hold on now. Wasnt a longstanding complaint about US foreign policy that the US supported dictators who suppressed people yearning for the freedom to remake their own county? I concede that Bush's misadventure wasnt about the suppressed people of Iraq but now that the dictator is gone, are you seriously suggesting you wish he was still there?


I'd actually never heard this criticism of US foreign policy, which has always recklessly pursued short-term goals. I can't imagine anyone, less certain fanatical Mohammedans, preferring present day Iraq to Hussein's Iraq.



Dhaller said:


> And how will you remove the "millions of Muslims" from Europe - cattle cars, maybe? Uber? Will you store them in special "holding camps" (ahem) while they wait for their trains?


First, why not? Though an attempt at a smear, there are parallels of an outgroup, deemed destructive, that people wished to banish for the sake of their own security. But to answer the question, you simply reverse the mechanism by which they were brought here. Cut off all public support and remove any economic incentive. Grant nothing in terms of adopting or accommodating the culture. Levy discriminatory taxes. End all the allure that brought them in the first place and they will return on their own. However, nations are well within their rights to do a forced march at the end of a gun after giving sufficient notice of exile.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

The BBC state propaganda channel always pretends there is no alternative to the illegals.

The resultant chaos suits the divide and rule agenda of the globalists.

Only Hungary stands up to the groupthink and defends its own nation state.


----------



## Ensiferous (Mar 5, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> state propaganda channel always pretends there is no alternative to the illegals.
> 
> The resultant chaos suits the divide and rule agenda of the globalists.


You, sir, could transpose those very words over here with one hundred percent accuracy.


----------



## Ensiferous (Mar 5, 2012)

Notice that the Muslim countries are not taking them in.

The average American citizen is too stupid to have learned anything from the Tsarnaev brothers murderous actions in Boston, from the Bataclan massacre, or even from 9/11, but the cultural marxists are planning on making sure that any crisis caused by the impending violent actions of these invaders will not go to political waste.

The inevitable pop-up jihads will be used as the pretext for further infringements upon the Constitution and the liberties of the American people. Useful idiots, in this case, will be augmented with useful invaders.

"If you like your Islamic Terrorism-free communities you can keep your Islamic Terrorism-free communities." - Typical American leftist politician liar.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Pat Condell hits the nail on the head, as usual:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcltV7r-nM" target="_blank">


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ensiferous said:


> Notice that the Muslim countries are not taking them in.
> 
> The average American citizen is too stupid to have learned anything from the Tsarnaev brothers murderous actions in Boston, from the Bataclan massacre, or even from 9/11, but the cultural marxists are planning on making sure that any crisis caused by the impending violent actions of these invaders will not go to political waste.
> 
> ...


To be blunt, that is just bollix. There are more Syrian refugees in Jordan than there are in Europe! There are more in Lebanon than there are in Europe. There are more in turkey than there are in Europe. But never mind, just let your imagination work overtime and develop your fear, whilst ignoring the facts.

This is such a xenophobic fear mongering view, and is exactly the view that Daesh have sought to create. They seek to cause fear and hatred, and you respond with fear and hatred! Well done! As far as you are concerned, Daesh has already won! They've already bent you to their will.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> Pat Condell hits the nail on the head, as usual:
> 
> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcltV7r-nM" target="_blank">


Whoever he might be..... I assume that you've searched for somebody who has trhe same attitude as you do, therefore he must be right! That this "piece" is entitled "The Invasion of Europe" tells me all that I need to know about the content....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I, for one, would simply ignore them. Their purpose is to cause fear and panic, to create an impression. Our politicians condemning them as psychopaths etc is what they thrive on. The West closing frontiers, curtailing our freedoms expelling immigrants etc is exactly what they want us to do. They want us to react, and we are reacting in exactly the way that they want us to. The whole point of the fake passport was to make us reject the refugees. Even though the fake passport has been shown to be fake it hasn't stopped the "keep out the refugees because they are terrorists" rhetoric!
The event was tragic, the scale of murder was unforgiveable, yet more people will have been killed on the roads of France this year than have died at the hands of terrorists. If we, the people, accept these attacks as a reality, whilst seeking to prevent them through the use of intelligence, as we have been doing, and put up with them, and demonstrate our resolve by changing nothing in our way of life, by not giving way to fear, by not giving way to anger, no matter how justified we might think it, then we will, in the end, beat them because they will realise that their attacks will become pointless.
Instead we get the hate and fear mongers using the attack as a justification for their xenophobia and their hate, with a triumphant "I told you so". No attempt to solve the problem, no attempt to even understand the problem, no attempt to even learn what the problem is, just a hate and fear filled knee jerk reaction to those dreadful foreigners. 
Even though there is no evidence to suggest that there is any link between the Paris terrorists and the refugees, that doesn't matter, they're all the same in the eyes of the xenophobes. 
The fact that most of them are muslim (although not all) and are sort of brown coloured has nothing to do with the fear and hate, I suppose.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> The BBC state propaganda channel always pretends there is no alternative to the illegals.
> 
> The resultant chaos suits the divide and rule agenda of the globalists.
> 
> Only Hungary stands up to the groupthink and defends its own nation state.


Who are the "illegals"? You're not referring to refugees are you?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Who are the "illegals"? You're not referring to refugees are you?


Who are the"refugees"?

You are not referring to the unwelcome third world types who turn up in European countries from perfectly safe countries like Turkey are you?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Who are the"refugees"?
> 
> You are not referring to the unwelcome third world types who turn up in European countries from perfectly safe countries like Turkey are you?


Which they are legally entitled to do. "Third world types". That's an interesting euphemism,.... I'm sure that you had another expression in mind!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Approaching all of this as an actual problem in need of solution...

Obviously, removing all Muslims from Europe is never going to happen (fortunately, the actual people who make decisions in the EU have zero overlap with AAAC forum posters!)

So the question becomes: how do we minimize (i) importation of terror cells via refugee migration and (ii) how do we prevent radicalization of the existing Muslim population? (i) Is actually not much of a problem (it's too operationally problematic to be a sustainable terror strategy), so the focus probably needs to be on (ii).

Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm going to share a cogent analysis by a friend of mine who is intimately familiar with the middle east situation (having conducted a number of intelligence operations there):

"The Syrian refugee problem is not an easy one. But it is one that presents solutions as it does problems.
Full Context:
One root of the problem is that we currently don't have much good intelligence in Syria to have a baseline for identification and vetting of refugees. We could likely vet them for membership in the Assad regime based off previous intelligence we have collected or if they traveled to Syria from a foreign country and are now seeking return. But native non-regime residents of Syria are going to be very challenging to vet.
However, the unfortunate reality is ISIS doesn't *need* to infiltrate through refugees. ISIS has been successfully recruiting foreigners to fight in Syria and Iraq at a clip of ~30,000 a year, several thousand of whom each are residents and hold passports to US or European countries, many others hold passports and lack the criminal records that might allow them to return home and then travel through normal means into the US or Europe. They also have an unknown number of sympathetic lone-wolves who ISIS can, and have, mobilized via media messaging to conduct actions that ISIS announces - but does not need to coordinate or communicate directly with the actors.(1) Operationally speaking, using refugees to infiltrate is a high-risk-of-failure mission. Refugees have been subject to chaotic and random conditions; including detention, re-routed through different countries and groups are frequently split up. If you wanted to ensure the success of a mission, sending in a cell through the refugee stream would add a lot of operational risk of something going wrong and disrupting the attack.
But - ISIS is savvy enough from a media & strategy perspective to clearly understand the challenge the refugee crisis is putting on Europe. Creating additional division between allies, and between countries and refugees, is a force multiplier for them. It also plays into their narrative within local Suuni populations in the areas they operate "the west will never help you, the see how they turn their back on you, see how they condemn you all, the Shia and the dictators will kill you - we are the only ones who can protect you." This is a powerful PR campaign in areas defined by the lethal-ambiguity of civil war and exacerbated by the abysmal reaction of the west to the Arab Uprising "see how you tried democracy and it didn't work salafi takfirism is the only answer."
ISIS also knows both Europe and the US have struggled domestically for years with larger questions of refugee entry and assimilation politically. Anyone who thinks the challenge of refugee status and domestic policy is just one that started in the last six months needs their head examined. What has happened, especially in Europe, is it has become exponentially more serious with the flood of refugees originating largely from conflict countries in North Africa and the Middle East.
These are the challenges. What are some of the opportunities?
The human stream of Syrian refugees represent both an untapped intelligence opportunity as well as an opportunity to seize the narrative back from ISIS. Even if the refugees aren't necessarily aware of the intelligence they possess - as residents in the conflict zone they might know pieces of information that are vital: identification, locations and habits of ISIS fighters and leadership; locations of potential targets for oil refinement, distribution and smuggling routes; identities (even if descriptions) of foreign fighters that can then be attempted to match back to the above mentioned passport-holding recruits.
And above all - they are probably the best source of intelligence to identify any ISIS operatives amongst them; even as unlikely as it is ISIS is using that route.
Think of it like the Nuremberg trials and other war-cime trials ever since - it is the witness testimony of those who suffered most directly at the hands who are best equipped to help identify and speak to the actions of those who made them suffer: from the low-level camp guards in Auschwitz to mid-level leaders who orchestrated the Rawanda genocide. We know who Al-Baghdadi is, but where is he? Perhaps someone who knows a piece of that information because their house was appropriated by ISIS and they can identify couriers we know as close to Al-Baghdadi is currently sitting in a detention facility in Hungary wondering where their relatives are. We know ISIS is using small, 20k bpd home-grown oil refineries, but that's like finding a scud missile launcher if your only assets are in the air. Perhaps refugees remember "yeah they had one of those in the field across from my village" or "they hid it this way near this building."
Am I the only seeing a way to make this work?
Instead of treating Syrian (and North African) refugees as a country-by-country problem - we need a comprehensive policy that treats them humanely but also recognizes the limited (yet real) risk that ISIS is attempting to infiltrate this. We can do this without sacrificing our morals or compassion. The US government alone has resources both in manpower and money that we spend on completely useless **** that I would think this very pressing issue of ISIS and the refugee flow could have some funds redirected towards that problem. Setting up centers where refugees can stay - not five star hotels - but not tent camps either. Family rooms, 3 squares a day, activities for their children and counseling for all survivors - would garner immense goodwill from a population that has been turned away with barb-wire and firehoses after a thousand mile journey by foot or boot or bicycle to leave a country and an enemy almost every politician will admit is the one of the worst actors of the new century.
Then - as they recover from the journey - be upfront. We're going to ask you questions, and there are incentives. First and foremost, if you have credible intelligence leading to the identification of an ISIS infiltrator within the refugees - and it proves to be accurate - citizenship for you and your family. These refugees have spent weeks alongside one another in all manner of circumstances. Many have traveled in kin-networks and alongside former town residents - they can point out who they know, who they don't, and who they think may be someone ISIS has sent along. Second - what intelligence can you provide of the conditions from where you came, the information discussed above. Again credible information that leads to strike targets on ISIS that can increase the damage we do to their capability while minimizing civilian causalities - that's gotta be worth a work visa and some seed money right? If amongst their ranks there are the able-bodied and capable to serve as translators for SIGINT or documents recovered or social media - we know the challenges our agencies have had in securing skilled translators (a gap largely self-inflicted by dubious policies.) If there are those who, once recovered, wish to return and join the fight via the YPG, Peshmerga or other elements of the KSRF - we can facilitate that. And again, incentives can be provided.
This is not to say that those who aren't able to provide intelligence, translation or military support are left out in the cold. Hardly. Because by treating everyone - from children to grandparents, humanely - and making that known - we undercut the ISIS narrative of isolating the Suuni they seek to recruit from in Syria, Iraq and other ares. By providing first person accounts of the atrocities committed against other Muslims, how despite their public facade what life is really like under the the Islamic State - we undercut *their* strategic narrative.
This will not be easy. And even the quick lay down of the plan above has numerous potential problems to work out. But the worst outcome is to shut our doors as winter approaches and leave the refugees to fend for themselves. It is staring a gift-horse-of-intelligence-in-the-mouth and missing an opportunity to retake a narrative away from ISIS in the susceptible populations that matter. And if ISIS has attempted to infiltrate the refugee migrations, perhaps the refugees themselves are the best equipped to identify and "out" them once they know they are safe and there can't be any reprisals against them.
To defeat ISIS and other salafist takfiri we need to be smarter than knee-jerk reactions, we need to be cognizant of the global media eye and how the salafist takfiri manipulate strategic messaging based on our overreactions to their advantage and we need to not stub our toe while shooting ourselves in the foot with a potential intelligence boon. We need to be pragmatic, doing nothing also has risks. Turning away refugees or treating them poorly may lead to some radicalization at the margins. Nothing in the world is certain - it's all about tradeoffs and potential gains vs. potential costs."


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Which they are legally entitled to do. "Third world types". That's an interesting euphemism,.... I'm sure that you had another expression in mind!


Um, why have I seen so many videos of hordes of people rampaging past police blockades? That was legal? 
Also, do you have a parallel news source that presents a narrative of grateful and orderly "refugees" that are not raping their own women, and use restrooms properly? Or are they third world types?


> Think of it like the Nuremberg trials and other war-cime trials ever since...


I am highly skeptical of this notion that partial parties are going to deliver anything but self-serving fiction. As the above cited Tsarnaev brothers example proves, intelligence that is not acted on is worthless. We don't have a lack of intelligence, but of action.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Which they are legally entitled to do. "Third world types". That's an interesting euphemism,.... I'm sure that you had another expression in mind!


"Asylum seekers" is an outdated Victorian concept ill-suited to modern life when chancers can turn up on your doorstep without too much effort looking for free handouts.

Of course, it makes the bien pensants feel good about themselves to say we should let them all in. The loathsome Simon Sharma being a noteworthy recent example.






The state propaganda channel fly in ****s like Shama from his comfortable pad the US to lecture Brits on how to welcome these freeloaders.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> Who are the "illegals"? You're not referring to refugees are you?


They are not refugees, they are illegals. Refugees would stop and claim asylum at the first border they come to, according to the law.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Kingstonian said:


> "Asylum seekers" is an outdated Victorian concept ill-suited to modern life when chancers can turn up on your doorstep without too much effort looking for free handouts.


Well said, the entire asylum system needs to be unplugged ASAP. We live in an era of "entitlement", in which people who don't have money feel they have the right to take it from those who do, rather than creating their own wealth. There are so many reasons not to let these illegals into Europe, I'm truly spoiled for choice.


----------



## Ensiferous (Mar 5, 2012)

Chouan said:


> To be blunt, that is just bollix. There are more Syrian refugees in Jordan than there are in Europe! There are more in Lebanon than there are in Europe. There are more in turkey than there are in Europe. But never mind, just let your imagination work overtime and develop your fear, whilst ignoring the facts.
> 
> This is such a xenophobic fear mongering view, and is exactly the view that Daesh have sought to create. They seek to cause fear and hatred, and you respond with fear and hatred! Well done! As far as you are concerned, Daesh has already won! They've already bent you to their will.


Thanks for the correction. Excellent then, that simplifies things. Those countries you have mentioned can find a way to accept them all since they already have shown the willingness, and are culturally compatible. We are not willing, we can't afford it, and their violent political ideology is imcompatible with our laws, our Constitution, or our culture. And your "Let the terrorists in because they want to cause fear and hatred" theory is a bit convoluted.

I think you like to accuse people you do not know of "xenophobia" (an all too convenient misnomer to throw around, like "racist.")

Phobia
noun
irrational fear

Irrational
adjective
not logical or reasonable

Simply looking at the word phobia, I need to offer a correction in return. The fact that logic and reason, applied to clear evidence, mathematical probability, and the observation of past negative performance of both terrorists and government bureaucrats have demonstrated utterly justifiable grounds for rejection, the charge of "xenophobia" is thus rendered erroneous and inapplicable. There are many dangerous things that I do not fear, but I avoid. And there are things that you had better fear, if you are even slightly intelligent.

I have invented some new words for you to use to accurately describe those who reasonably and logically oppose the unnecessary threat of grave bodily injury, death, and/or cultural destruction:

terrorvitare (terrorism avoidance)

terrorvitarist (terror avoider)

parsaevus (dislike of savagery)

Or if those don't work, I am satisfied with just "Interested in self preservation."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> ....Obviously, removing all Muslims from Europe is never going to happen (*fortunately, the actual people who make decisions in the EU have zero overlap with AAAC forum posters!*)....


You have expressed this sentiment previously, on a different subject. Is this how you glibly dismiss all thought which does not align with your own? At any rate it is not an entirely accurate statement. You are aware of democracy? Whilst politicians may be a scheming, self-serving, untrustworthy bunch they will feverishly chase after votes. The 'actual people' who make the decisions can occasionally be the 'actual people'.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Um, why have I seen so many videos of hordes of people rampaging past police blockades? That was legal?
> Also, do you have a parallel news source that presents a narrative of grateful and orderly "refugees" that are not *raping their own women,* and use restrooms properly? Or are they third world types?
> I am highly skeptical of this notion that partial parties are going to deliver anything but self-serving fiction. As the above cited Tsarnaev brothers example proves, intelligence that is not acted on is worthless. We don't have a lack of intelligence, but of action.


Ah yes, the raping. This is, one presumes, evidence of the high regard that muslims confer upon females?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> In any case, what is your evidence for your assertion that is isn't working?


Oh, good grief. Now I know you're just trolling.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> Oh, good grief. Now I know you're just trolling.


Oh, because I disagree with your view I must be trolling? That's a very arrogant attitude! It implies that yours is, obviously, the correct view, and that if I express a contrary view it can only be being done deliberately to annoy!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Um, why have I seen so many videos of hordes of people rampaging past police blockades? That was legal?


Why indeed? Are you not aware that news reporting is selective? On the evening of the Paris outrages, which were widely reported, 40+ people were killed by similar attacks in Lebanon. None of the popular news media reported that. Why is that, do you think?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Ah yes, the raping. This is, one presumes, evidence of the high regard that muslims confer upon females?


Okay, now I'm in partial agreement, but let's recognize that their rape is not limited to women. I was thinking along the lines of religious doctrine, not general culture. It seemed odd that you'd be in line with the types that lament the oppression of modest dress and relying on males to be chauffers.


Chouan said:


> Why indeed? Are you not aware that news reporting is selective? On the evening of the Paris outrages, which were widely reported, 40+ people were killed by similar attacks in Lebanon. None of the popular news media reported that. Why is that, do you think?


I refer to online videos captured by the horrified citizenry. The news media is indeed selective, but they are propagandizing sympathetically IMHO.
Since you asked, there are two obvious answers to higher coverage of Paris attacks than Lebanon.
1. If it bleeds, it leads. The larger body count takes precedence. 
2. Dog bites man isn't news. Terror in Lebanon is at least decades old, and is not the news story that terror in Paris is.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> I refer to online videos captured by the horrified citizenry. The news media is indeed selective, but they are propagandizing sympathetically IMHO.


But, as you'll be aware, the popular news media uses those film clips selectively and not necessarily in context or in the correct chronological order. Look at the film reports of the events at Orgreave.



Tempest said:


> Since you asked, there are two obvious answers to higher coverage of Paris attacks than Lebanon.
> 1. If it bleeds, it leads. The larger body count takes precedence.
> 2. Dog bites man isn't news. Terror in Lebanon is at least decades old, and is not the news story that terror in Paris is.


It was an example of selective news media reporting.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> But, as you'll be aware, the popular news media uses those film clips selectively and not necessarily in context or in the correct chronological order. Look at the film reports of the events at Orgreave.
> 
> It was an example of selective news media reporting.


Orgreave was 30 years ago, I doubt whether many here will have the faintest idea what you're talking about. As far as I can recall, the reporting was rather impartial - a few truculent rioters happened to get under the hoofs of police horses I seem to remember, whilst following Arthur Scargill.

It seems perfectly understandable that the reports from Lebanon took second place to Paris - it would have been media distortion had it been the other way round.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

These are worth watching:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34862437


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

It is wrong to lie to children.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> It is wrong to lie to children.


And? I assume that you have a point? Or is it that you only want to hear of peoples' hate? Or would you rather that we all lived full of fear and hate, as you appear to?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Ensiferous said:


> Simply looking at the word phobia, I need to offer a correction in return. The fact that logic and reason, applied to clear evidence, mathematical probability, and the observation of past negative performance of both terrorists and government bureaucrats have demonstrated utterly justifiable grounds for rejection, the charge of "xenophobia" is thus rendered erroneous and inapplicable. There are many dangerous things that I do not fear, but I avoid. And there are things that you had better fear, if you are even slightly intelligent.


Exactly. It is not irrational to fear something dangerous.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

To those still in denial about the threat of Islam, or trying to have us believe that it is "just a few radicals", 42% of young muslims in France support suicide bombings. Here are the survey results for several countries, for those who are interested:


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> And? I assume that you have a point? Or is it that you only want to hear of peoples' hate? Or would you rather that we all lived full of fear and hate, as you appear to?


Pollyanna-type answers are not appropriate, even for a young child. Reassurance yes, but cut out the flowers and candles stuff.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

No comments about the other film?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> To those still in denial about the threat of Islam, or trying to have us believe that it is "just a few radicals", 42% of young muslims in France support suicide bombings. Here are the survey results for several countries, for those who are interested:
> 
> View attachment 15416


An interesting accidental misreading of the data (I'm being charitable). If you look again you'll see that the 42% that you quote is made up of 23% who say that suicide bombing is rarely justified and 19% say that terrorism may be justified. It simply does not say that 42% of young French Muslims support suicide bombing. You also fail to show the context. Is this about terrorism in general, including the use of terrorism by Muslims in Palestine, for example?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> It was a fake passport, designed to convince the gullible that he was a refugee from Syria, thus tainting all refugees as potential terrorists.


It has now been established that two of the suicide bombers had their fingerprints registered in Greece on October 3rd. Perhaps not with the intention of 'tainting all refugees', but merely exploiting the notoriously lax border controls in continental Europe.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> These are worth watching:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34862437


I saw this, and thought it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I wonder how long that kid will go thinking that a flower will actually protect him from a gun. Instead of the father saying something a long the lines of there's a lot of policemen here to find out why this happened and how to prevent it from ever happening again.

Also, saw this today and I know it's a inconvenient truth for some, but a truth nonetheless.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> I saw this, and thought it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I wonder how long that kid will go thinking that a flower will actually protect him from a gun. Instead of the father saying something a long the lines of there's a lot of policemen here to find out why this happened and how to prevent it from ever happening again.


Do Americans not understand symbolism?



Dmontez said:


> Also, saw this today and I know it's a inconvenient truth for some, but a truth nonetheless.


Sorry, as soon as I saw that the report was fronted by a proven liar I stopped watching it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^I am reminded of that old saw, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer!" Seems to me, if you truly distrust Bill O'Reilly to the degree you say, you should want to keep a closer watch on him? Although I must confess, I, ironically, view the "lame stream media in much the waty that you view O'Reilly and Fox News.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The easiest way to ignore or dismiss an argument is to attack the source.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Do Americans not understand symbolism?
> 
> Sorry, as soon as I saw that the report was fronted by a proven liar I stopped watching it.


Do you think a 3 year old truly understand symbolism, or is it more likely that he's going to grow up thinking that flowers will actually protect him from terrorism?

You can distrust bill O'Reilly as much as you want, but the truth is the truth. Terrorists ARE posing refugees in order to commit terrorism. I didn't watch the video either, but I read the story that was sourced reliably.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> Do you think a 3 year old truly understand symbolism, or is it more likely that he's going to grow up thinking that flowers will actually protect him from terrorism?
> 
> You can distrust bill O'Reilly as much as you want, but the truth is the truth. Terrorists ARE posing refugees in order to commit terrorism. I didn't watch the video either, but I read the story that was sourced reliably.


Distrust? No, he is a proven liar, as well as a vile bully, so I won't watch anything that he fronts. Fortunately, he doesn't appear on television in Britain, so that isn't a problem.
Just out of interest, how many refugees from Syria has the US accepted? How many proven terrorists have been found amongst the Syrian refugees that have arrived in Europe? How many Syrian refugees have arrived in Europe in the last two months, or so? How real is the danger? How many Americans have been killed by firearms since the Daesh attack on Paris? Which is the more dangerous?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/guns-k...ism-over-the-past-decade-20151002-gjzv6t.html


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan, you are changing the subject. The video which I have not watched either doesn't seem to have much to do with the article which is what I'm referring to. It was written by Maxim Lott, not the "vile bully". The fact is refugees, and asylees have been convicted of domestic terrorism already. Paris is just the straw the has broken the camels back.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If I were an ISIS strategist, what better way to get someone a western country than to pose as a refugee. 

Apparently they're coming in droves through Europe and our own vetting process doesn't exactly give me hope.

The Tsarnaev brothers, or at least one, was being watched by the Russians and they even gave us the heads up and we still didn't do anything about it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> Chouan, you are changing the subject. The video which I have not watched either doesn't seem to have much to do with the article which is what I'm referring to. It was written by Maxim Lott, not the "vile bully". *The fact is refugees, and asylees have been convicted of domestic terrorism already*. Paris is just the straw the has broken the camels back.


But not in Europe. In any case, if the vile bully has nothing to do with the article why is he fronting it? 
If the death toll in the US from domestic gun crime is so shockingly high, yet you think it irrelevant, why do you see terrorism as such a problem?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> But not in Europe.


What are you talking about? Several of the Paris attackers entered Europe through Greece with the hordes of illegals. 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...tacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> What are you talking about? Several of the Paris attackers entered Europe through Greece with the hordes of illegals.
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...tacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html


Suspected, in some circles, but, like the fake passport that was purported to "prove" that the terrorist had passed through Greece, there's no proof that they entered Europe as refugees. Even the French government argued that the refugee crisis had merely facilitated their travel through Europe, not that they had entered Europe as refugees. The quote from the Torygraph, that you linked reports here 
*"Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister, said French intelligence was unaware Abaaoud was in the country until after the massacre, and said other states had provided no intelligence on his whereabouts. He demanded Europe "pull itself together"." 
*It doesn't say that he came to France having posed as a refugee. The article suggests that internal European borders should have more stringent controls, not that the terrorists actually posed as refugees. 
*"Up to six of the eight Paris attackers fought in Syria, and Abaaoud had boasted to an Isil magazine of how police failed to catch him as he moved several times between Belgium and Syria, with border guards failing to recognise his face as a wanted man."
*Again, this doesn't mean that he travelled as a refugee. The terrorists don't need to travel as refugees, they're already here, radicalised Belgians, Brits, Germans and French.

Still, please feel free to search for evidence to feed your fear of refugees. I'm sure that you and your fearful friends will find plenty more from like minded people. In the meantime the US is supporting, politically and militarily, the country that is buying the oil from Daesh which is supporting their economy, and which is supporting their aggression.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> *
> *It doesn't say that he came to France having posed as a refugee.


Did you miss the very first sentence of the article? 


> *The mastermind of the Paris attacks was able to slip into Europe among Syrian migrants*, it emerged last night, as police on the continent admitted they are unable to monitor thousands of suspected jihadists.


or this?


> It has emerged that *Abaaoud, and at least two of the Paris terrorists took the migrant route via Greece*


You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid the plain truth of the matter.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> Did you miss the very first sentence of the article?
> 
> or this?
> 
> You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid the plain truth of the matter.


Can you not tell the difference between fact and opinion? The article gives some opinions, but there is no evidence to back up the opinion.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

It's abundantly clear that the terrorists have been entering Europe at will amidst the stream of frantic refugees. It would be bizarre of them to arrive any other way. I happened to be on holiday in Hungary in September and saw with my own eyes hordes of people forcing their way over the Serbian border. The nearest border official was in a circling helicopter. Hungary's subsequent decision to seal off the border with razor wire was entirely understandable in the light of the refugees' behaviour - aggressive bands of men were ransacking village stores at will and causing great distress to the local population in various unpleasant ways. That side of the story was not reported by the world's media, which preferred to focus on photogenic family groups rather than ruthless young men seemingly intent on causing trouble.

I don't doubt that most of the refugees are genuine, but to pretend that terrorists are not hiding among them is rather naive.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Obviously, among tens of thousands (and more) of refugees, there may be some terrorists or, more likely, simply folks easy to radicalize. That said, "plants" aren't really ISIS's thing, since it's so easy to radicalize locals.

However, the possibility of a minority of terrorists isn't cause to block refugee migration (that's a very, very cowardly approach to security). When weighing compassion versus security, in the case of such large odds of innocence, compassion should win. 

I don't expect everyone to think this way - many, or even most, of the world's peoples are cowardly. I do expect Americans - who presumably are acquainted with Patrick Henry - to accept refugees in spite of possible threat; frankly, any American who favors blocking refugee migration needs to revoke his US citizenship and leave. 

I can't imagine what it must be like to be the sort of person who would abandon those in genuine need out of fear - do these cowards feel self-loathing? perverse satisfaction? The very notion makes my skin crawl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm not sure that measures to ensure a nation's security can justifiably be downgraded - it would be irresponsible of any government not to take every possible step to prevent outrages of the type that have happened in France. Compassion is a noble thing but when people's lives and safety are at stake their forbearance cannot be taken for granted if they feel their security is being trifled with.

A separate issue is whether the mass exodus from Syria, which is an established fact, has advanced the cause of peace there, or merely worsened the uncertainty and chaos.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, let's think about a government "taking every possible step" to prevent "outrages". 

For starters, they can impose a national curfew (the Paris attack was at night). They could surveil everyone's email, physical mail, phone calls, emails, etc. They could restrict or block apps and internet sites, ban the wearing of long coats, and require that all bags be transparent (no suitcase bombs or guns-in-a-bag!) Obviously, one can go on and on, and make it pretty hard to engage in terrorist activities. 

Of course, *you* will be beholden to these restrictions - everyone will - but it's for the greater good, right? 

It's easy to cash in liberties for security, but I'm not convinced that's 'responsible'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Our emails are already subject to surveillance, certainly in the UK and I have no doubt in Europe too. Curfews have been instigated in Brussels - other measures too numerous to list, not overlooking the highly disruptive security measures at airports. The reason these curtailments of our liberty are in place is that terrorists have made it so.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> Obviously, among tens of thousands (and more) of refugees, there may be some terrorists or, more likely, simply folks easy to radicalize. That said, "plants" aren't really ISIS's thing, since it's so easy to radicalize locals.
> 
> However, the possibility of a minority of terrorists isn't cause to block refugee migration (that's a very, very cowardly approach to security). When weighing compassion versus security, in the case of such large odds of innocence, compassion should win.
> 
> ...


Indeed, my thoughts entirely. Rather than panic and give way to fear, which leads to hatred, we should simply ignore them. They do these things to make us fear them, so, if we fear them, they've achieved their aims. If we reduce and restrict our freedoms, again they've won. If we turn on the refugees who are fleeing these ba$tards, again, they've won. In the US you're far more at risk from a homegrown idiot with a gun. I, for one, won't let them win by making me afraid of them.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Indeed, my thoughts entirely. Rather than panic and give way to fear, which leads to hatred, we should simply ignore them. They do these things to make us fear them, so, if we fear them, they've achieved their aims. If we reduce and restrict our freedoms, again they've won. If we turn on the refugees who are fleeing these ba$tards, again, they've won. In the US you're far more at risk from a homegrown idiot with a gun. I, for one, won't let them win by making me afraid of them.


Is this wise? You would be happy to 'ignore' the body count arising from incidents like the Bataclan siege? Most governments find that terrorism demands a more robust approach. It's when terrorism goes unchecked that fear wins, and you end up with a situation not dissimilar from Syria on your own doorstep.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Our emails are already subject to surveillance, certainly in the UK and I have no doubt in Europe too. Curfews have been instigated in Brussels - other measures too numerous to list, not overlooking the highly disruptive security measures at airports. The reason these curtailments of our liberty are in place is that terrorists have made it so.


The terrorists haven't made it so, our governments in their panic, have done the terrorists' work for them. The terrorists seek to cause disruption; our governments have given them the disruption that the terrorists want.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Is this wise? You would be happy to 'ignore' the body count arising from incidents like the Bataclan siege? Most governments find that terrorism demands a more robust approach. It's when terrorism goes unchecked that fear wins, and you end up with a situation not dissimilar from Syria on your own doorstep.


If terrorist outrages, which are actually very rare, and are even rarer if our governments' intelligence was doing its work properly, are pretty much ignored, then why would the terrorists continue with them? Their purpose is to gain publicity and to provoke fear. If they don't provoke fear then they become pointless. Politicians present a more robust approach because they think that it wins them popular support. Hollande ordered Syria to be bombed, not because it will damage Daesh, or prevent terrorism, but because it creates a good impression with the electorate. By declaring war on Daesh Hollande gave "Islamic State" status. One only declares war on a state, by doing so Hollande gave Daesh the status of a state.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Really serious conflagrations are actually very rare too. I suppose one approach might be to ignore them, on the basis that the fire may eventually die out, even if numerous unfortunate people die in the process.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The terrorists haven't made it so, our governments in their panic, have done the terrorists' work for them. The terrorists seek to cause disruption; our governments have given them the disruption that the terrorists want.


No, I'm afraid you must be badly misinformed. There is some disruption, yes - but not mayhem and body-bags, which is what the terrorists really want.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I've heard the security vs. Liberty argument here as well with many prominent pols pounding the lectern about how are freedoms are being infringed upon. 

I've honestly have yet to see it. This libertarian argument seems to be one that lives in the ether and is completely theoretical at this time...probably for all time.

I've never had anyone come knocking on my door nor has anyone else in this country for sending and receiving normal emails or making normal calls. I've never been hassled once at an airport or anywhere else.

The government knows where I go based on the electonic toll payment device on my car and my credit card purchases.

My phone calls and text messages are logged and I can get a detailed report of everything at the end of the month. 

By paying my taxes and filing my return, the government knows, in a round about way, what church I go to and by inference my religion. It knows what charities I give to. It knows about my bank accounts and if I withdraw or deposit >$10,000, my bank reports it. 

At just about every turn, either a tech company or the government at every level has information about me. Yet here I am going about my business as always completely free to say and do as I please without any infringement on my liberties.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> I don't expect everyone to think this way - many, or even most, of the world's peoples are cowardly. I do expect Americans - who presumably are acquainted with Patrick Henry - to accept refugees in spite of possible threat; frankly, any American who favors blocking refugee migration needs to revoke his US citizenship and leave.


When America was in its pomp, these Syrians would have absolutely no chance of being accepted in the USA. The door opened with the 1965 immigration act. You can blame Ted Kennedy (egged on by cultural Marxists) for that.

Places like Australia kept a more sensible and restrictive policy until the 1970s.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ... my credit card purchases...


Be aware that all collected information is exactly as insecure and vulnerable as your credit card info. How many weeks have gone by since a security breach occurred where gargantuan amounts of credit card info was compromised?

And it doesn't matter because the info is not used. Allow us to recall the Boston marathon case again. Russia warned us about these specific people, their phone calls were recorded, and boom, stuff still blew up and people died.

The security measures are theatre meant to cause warm fuzzy feelings. They achieve little and risk everything.

It needs stating that the "Syrian" "refugees" are largely neither. They are North Africans and the like and are trampling way past nearest safe asylum, presuming they actually left anything scarier than lack of free government checks. Recall that Aylan Kurdi's father was a human trafficker that "fled" Turkey to get cosmetic dentistry done. It's all a lie.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Dhaller said:


> I can't imagine what it must be like to be the sort of person who would abandon those in genuine need out of fear - do these cowards feel self-loathing? perverse satisfaction? The very notion makes my skin crawl.


What makes my skin crawl is the mentality that allowing unfettered immigration into Europe is the only way to help people, and that sacrificing the security of hundreds of millions of Europeans is somehow justified, or the cultural suicide, or the rapes, terrorism, misogyny and other charming behaviours which accompany Islamic immigration.

Immigration will NOT solve the problems of the Middle East but will certainly create new problems. And someone has to say it - Islam idolizes a prophet who was both a murderer and pedophile. Oh, good grief. Everything about Islam makes my skin crawl.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> Everything about Islam makes my skin crawl.


At least you've finally been honest.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> It needs stating that the "Syrian" "refugees" are largely neither. They are North Africans and the like ..... It's all a lie.


Really? Any evidence for that?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Really? Any evidence for that?


First of all, unless they have proper documentation on them (ha!) nobody really knows. What does "Others" mean?








Is there a better source than Frontex? Here's the most recent published numbers, although feel free to view their website.



> "Those people who pass themselves off as Syrian are Arabic speakers, and *many come from North Africa* or elsewhere in the Middle East," Fabrice Leggeri, head of Frontex, the European Union border-control agency, told French radio Europe 1 in September. "They tend to have the profile of *economic migrants*."


https://www.wsj.com/articles/thrivi...e-syrian-passports-raises-concerns-1447614598


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> First of all, unless they have proper documentation on them (ha!) nobody really knows. What does "Others" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting, and again selective reporting. The "refugee crisis" in Eastern Europe is almost entirely that of Syrian refugees. However, by looking at all refugees attempting to come to Europe over the last couple of years it is quite easy to prove that many of them are not Syrian. However, why is there such a migration of refugees from Libya? You are aware that Daesh are active in Libya aren't you? Why do you think there are refugees coming from Afghanistan?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Interesting, and again selective reporting. *The "refugee crisis" in Eastern Europe is almost entirely that of Syrian refugees.* However, by looking at all refugees attempting to come to Europe over the last couple of years it is quite easy to prove that many of them are not Syrian. However, why is there such a migration of refugees from Libya? You are aware that Daesh are active in Libya aren't you? *Why do you think there are refugees coming from Afghanistan?*


Oh come on. Do you read any news apart from the Morning Star?

The UNHCR's own figures say 20% of all the gimmigrants currently storming Europe are from Afghanistan.
And 61% are adult males.

Check this graphical representation of the invasion. It's staggering.
https://www.lucify.com/the-flow-towards-europe/

How many of these men currently attacking police at the Macedonian border are Syrian?
Not many, if any. Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sub-Saharan Africa by the looks of them all.
https://www.breitbart.com/london/20...s-macedonia-puts-up-fence-along-greek-border/

Merkel and her minions want to ramp up the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan as they sense the whole EU house of cards beginning to topple. Now they want to accelerate the planned admission of Turkey ! 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/671077206030983168Turkey which is now revealed to be a prime supporter of the Islamic State plague.

Make no mistake. Europe is being invaded.
Cameron and his stooges can make a lot of noise about bombing Syria, but all he wants is a mandate to continue attacking Assad, the only one who kept a lid on the problem.
The real problem is now among us.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> The "refugee crisis" in Eastern Europe is almost entirely that of Syrian refugees.


Because you say so?



Chouan said:


> However, why is there such a migration of refugees from Libya? You are aware that Daesh are active in Libya aren't you? Why do you think there are refugees coming from Afghanistan?


Parasites looking for a new host.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Odradek said:


> Make no mistake. Europe is being invaded.


Yes, it's that simple. European politicians are guilty of treachery by ignoring and even enabling this.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

More angelic "refugees" expressing their gratitude and peace-loving nature:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Oh come on. Do you read any news apart from the Morning Star?
> 
> The UNHCR's own figures say 20% of all the gimmigrants currently storming Europe are from Afghanistan.
> And 61% are adult males.
> ...


There are, of course, refugees from other countries, and it is hardly suprising that the majority of refugees are going to be men. Apart from them being most suited to undertake the task of seeking a refuge (then fetching their dependents to join them) they are also the group most at risk from Daesh, or the Taliban, or of conscription into one of the many warlord/regional militias.



Odradek said:


> Merkel and her minions want to ramp up the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan as they sense the whole EU house of cards beginning to topple. Now they want to accelerate the planned admission of Turkey !
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/671077206030983168Turkey which is now revealed to be a prime supporter of the Islamic State plague.


Yet we and the Americans continue to support Turkey despite knowing that they are funding and supporting Daesh, which has caused the refugee crisis.



Odradek said:


> Cameron and his stooges can make a lot of noise about bombing Syria, but all he wants is a mandate to continue attacking Assad, the only one who kept a lid on the problem.


Indeed. Why is that?



Odradek said:


> The real problem is now among us.


The real problem has been among us for ages. It was made worse by Blair and Bush, of course, but was there before they destabilised the Middle East and created Daesh. But Islamist opposition was there beforehand, based on the attitude of the West to the Middle East and the West's perceived opposition to Islam.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Oh come on. Do you read any news apart from the Morning Star?
> 
> The UNHCR's own figures say 20% of all the gimmigrants currently storming Europe are from Afghanistan.
> And 61% are adult males.
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Yet we and the Americans continue to support Turkey despite knowing that they are funding and supporting Daesh, which has caused the refugee crisis.


I actually agree here. We need to be more like Putin.

When I saw this video, I rather wished that the Europeans were more like the IDF in their responding to rock-throwing children with missiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=382njADcWvE#t=29


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> When I saw this video, I rather wished that the Europeans were more like the IDF in their responding to rock-throwing children with missiles.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=382njADcWvE#t=29


Why? It is the violence and disproportionate responses (assassinations, destruction of homes etc) of the IDF that causes and provokes the violence in the first place. How are people supposed to react to a heavy handed army of occupation who are supporting the people who are seizing your land?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh, I quite agree that the murderous violence against Palestinians is an atrocity. I was wishing this atrocity to befall the parading hoodlums that have besieged Europe. Were they meek and polite and grateful, this might be another discussion, one where I don't ask why they are all shirking military service and leaving their women and children behind.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Oh, I quite agree that the murderous violence against Palestinians is an atrocity. I was wishing this atrocity to befall the parading hoodlums that have besieged Europe. Were they meek and polite and grateful, this might be another discussion, one where I don't ask why they are all shirking military service and leaving their women and children behind.


You think that escaping forced conscription into the army of Deash, or the Taliban, or whichever other warlord's army is "shirking military service"? You would rather that they quietly joined Daesh or their local branch of the Taleban? Really?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Tempest said:


> When I saw this video, I rather wished that the Europeans were more like the IDF in their responding to rock-throwing children with missiles.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=382njADcWvE#t=29


What a bunch of ZZZZZZZ. And people like Merkel still defend them? It beggars belief.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> How are people supposed to react to a heavy handed army of occupation who are supporting the people who are seizing your land?


Oh good grief, there is NO justification for the behaviour of Arabs towards Israel. As soon as Israel was established by the League of Nations in 1948, 4 Arab states tried to wipe out Israel, and luckily they all failed. Israel has been acting in SELF DEFENCE from day one against these zzzzzzzz, and Palestinians have been whining about it ever since, choosing terrorism over just getting on with their lives. Zero pity here.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> Oh good grief, there is NO justification for the behaviour of Arabs towards Israel. As soon as Israel was established by the League of Nations in 1948, 4 Arab states tried to wipe out Israel, and luckily they all failed. Israel has been acting in SELF DEFENCE from day one against these ZZZZZZZZ, and Palestinians have been whining about it ever since, choosing terrorism over just getting on with their lives. _*Zero pity here.*_


Really? I am surprised...... Has it got something to do with them making your skin crawl?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> I agree that the slaughter of Palestinians is an atrocity. I feel this response more deserved by these marauding ingrates that utterly fail to maintain a facade of meek, docile thankfulness or civility. Were they able to do so, the fact that they are abandoning their women and children to shirk armed service and beg at the teat off foreign nations might be seen as less reprehensible.


I think that we heard you the first time......


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I've already done some editing.

1. Please do not refer to people as "animals" no matter how odious you think them to be. 

2. The rules of AAAC apply even in emotionally volatile threads in the Interchange.

Everyone has been warned to behave themselves.

Post deletions and infractions will ensue if there are any more rule violations, fighting or other problems.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> You think that escaping forced conscription into the army of Deash, or the Taliban, or whichever other warlord's army is "shirking military service"?


It most certainly is. One may argue the morality of it, but these "refugees" have not been proving to be of high moral character with all that raping and rock throwing.


> "You would rather that they quietly joined Daesh or their local branch of the Taleban? Really?


They would pose less threat to the Western world by doing so than their current invasion does.


moltoelegante said:


> As soon as Israel was established by the League of Nations in 1948, 4 Arab states tried to wipe out Israel, and luckily they all failed. Israel has been acting in SELF DEFENCE from day one...


The US serviceman killed on the USS Liberty and the women and children slaughtered by Israelis in some 24 to 68 massacres in a single year surely disagree. Israel keeps expanding borders via self defense, which is quite an impressive trick.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> It most certainly is. One may argue the morality of it, but these "refugees" have not been proving to be of high moral character with all that raping and rock throwing.


These are grossly sweeping generalisations that you're making. Do you seriously think that a Syrian escaping from conscription by Daesh is proof of them not being of a "high moral character"? Even though they, like us, may think Daesh to be barbarous murderers, you think that they should stay and fight for Daesh? Really?

"All that raping and rock throwing"? Are you suggesting that all Syrian refugees are rapists and throw rocks? Really?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Tempest said:


> The US serviceman killed on the USS Liberty and the women and children slaughtered by Israelis in some 24 to 68 massacres in a single year surely disagree. Israel keeps expanding borders via self defense, which is quite an impressive trick.


Now you bringing up a conspiracy theory from 1967.

From the Wikipedia article about the incident: "Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. *Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity*"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Mistakes do happen in the battlefield. Even the US has lost troops to friendly fire in the past. Only people with an agenda are refusing to accept this could have been an accident.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> Are you suggesting that all Syrian refugees are rapists and throw rocks? Really?


I don't think anyone is suggesting that all of these illegal immigrants are rapists or rock throwers or even Syrian. The group is clearly 'rich' in terrorists, would-be rapists, other criminals, but above all people with a complete lack of respect for Europe who have no intention of integrating. The latter qualification alone makes the entire group wholly unsuitable for entry into Europe.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

moltoelegante said:


> Now you bringing up a conspiracy theory from 1967.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
> 
> Mistakes do happen in the battlefield.


Let us be clear. This is no "mistake"; no "theory".

This was another shameful act by the pariah state of Israel. Same as the Lavon affair a false flag operation where they blew up hotels and tried to blame it on Arabs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

Israel was also trouble-making in South Ossetia and the Ukraine more recently.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that all of these illegal immigrants are rapists or rock throwers or even Syrian. The group is clearly 'rich' in terrorists, would-be rapists, other criminals,


Are they? Do you have some kind of secret intelligence that tells you that? Or is it just because they make your skin crawl?



moltoelegante said:


> but above all people with a complete lack of respect for Europe who have no intention of integrating.


What, all of them? You know this absolutely for certain?



moltoelegante said:


> The latter qualification alone makes the entire group wholly unsuitable for entry into Europe.


Every single one of them? Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people condemned as easily as that? On what basis? Because you've seen a couple of Youtube videos and a couple of news reports? Or because they make your skin crawl?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> Now you bringing up a conspiracy theory from 1967.
> 
> From the Wikipedia article about the incident: "Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. *Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity*"
> 
> ...


This was also a conspiracy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing You condemn the Palestinians for doing the same kind of thing as Israeli terrorists have done! Perhaps the Israeli settlers in the 1930's and 40's should just have accepted that they lived in a British Mandated territory of the United Nations.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Kingstonian said:


> Let us be clear. This is no "mistake"; no "theory".
> 
> This was another shameful act by the pariah state of Israel. Same as the Lavon affair a false flag operation where they blew up hotels and tried to blame it on Arabs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
> 
> Israel was also trouble-making in South Ossetia and the Ukraine more recently.


So your rebuttal consists of more conspiracy theories? Ukraine? Seriously? :laughing:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

moltoelegante said:


> Oh good grief, there is NO justification for the behaviour of Arabs towards Israel. As soon as Israel was established by the League of Nations in 1948, 4 Arab states tried to wipe out Israel, and luckily they all failed. Israel has been acting in SELF DEFENCE from day one against these zzzzzzzz, and Palestinians have been whining about it ever since, choosing terrorism over just getting on with their lives. Zero pity here.


I might change some verbs, but a wholehearted hear, hear for our Israeli friends fighting the good fight!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

moltoelegante said:


> So your rebuttal consists of more conspiracy theories? Ukraine? Seriously? :laughing:


Anybody who checks can see USS Liberty for what it was.
https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html

Ukraine and South Ossetia are further examples of Israeli subversion.

Fifth columnists again:-
https://m.jpost.com/Diaspora/Israel...3Mzk4Rjg5QkVCMEI2Rjg5RDJFRUUwQTAxOTQ2Mzc2NUQ=

https://electronicintifada.net/content/tel-aviv-tbilisi-israels-role-russia-georgia-war/7664


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I might change some verbs, but a wholehearted hear, hear for our Israeli friends fighting the good fight!


So, an army of occupation oppressing a native people in favour of immigrants is a good thing?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...o-please-our-allies-is-a-dangerous-game-video


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...o-please-our-allies-is-a-dangerous-game-video


Spot on. 
Actually, the uproar about Paris should illustrate the anger that nations develop when attacked on their homeland. Somehow people fail to understand that other nations have people that will feel the same way should we go doing the same in a larger scale.

Back to the Liberty, the absolute kindest assessment is that the Israelis went out in international waters, circled an unarmed and unaggressive ship twice and decided to attack despite claiming not to have established identity. This is self-defense?

Exactly what have our "friends" the Israelis ever done for us in return for the amazing fortune and power bestowed upon them?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

More joy spread by these "people"


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Why is Denmark not providing concubines for these poor, humble, well-behaved refugees that seek to do only good? Surely they just missed the intimacy of the women they left behind when they came several nations over in seek of government benefits and ... stuff. The Europeans need to take better care of these delightful visitors. Surely they will learn a skill and start obeying the law and become contributors to society as soon as Europe gives them everything they have. Why are the privileged Europeans failing to open their homes, wallets, daughters, and futures to the poor, delightful migrants??? Racist xenophobia is no excuse!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

moltoelegante said:


> More joy spread by these "people"


So an alleged rape, allegedly carried out by a migrant or a refugee, is sufficient evidence to condemn all refugees? Or is it simply because they make your flesh crawl?


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Chouan said:


> So an alleged rape, allegedly carried out by a migrant or a refugee, is sufficient evidence to condemn all refugees? Or is it simply because they make your flesh crawl?


Some people are really living in a fantasy land when it comes to Islam. Don't listen to me, listen to the former chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, for example, as he tells us that "terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam"


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

This sums it up pretty well:


----------

