Responsible TV channels in the US (with my hopes particularly being pinned on MSNBC) should report in the next few days on the real victims here, the innocent Muslims in the West who might face a backlash after the attack.
Exactly. If the US allows 100,000 or so refugees into the country, only 1% (1000) might be terrorists. Despite what FBI director is telling us, we can safely assume that out of this one thousand, we can further weed out 99%, bringing the total number of terrorists to an acceptable 10 and really, how much damage can those 10 people do? And would that damage really outweigh the horrific effects of bigotry and racism against Muslims?
If this post isnt evidence of a t word we arent allowed to use, then what is?
Well, if he means those people should be included AMONG the victims of this attack as people we need to care about and watch out for, I absolutely agree.
And if I thought for a second anyone would look twice at a Caucasian practitioner of that ideology, or assume that people of a certain skin tone were anything but, that would be more compelling.
But either way, since according to you it’s not racist to oppose Islam, you should have no problem describing in frank detail exactly what you think should be done to Muslims here and abroad, right?
Thats not what he said
If the math says there are terrorists among a certain group, then yes, you knowingly import terrorists if you import sufficient numbers of that group.
If Syrian refugees attack us, the blame will fall on the President that brought them in. There’s just no way he’ll be able to dodge responsibility for that.
In the past, I have found that reporting such posters to a moderator is more effective than using the first letter of words we’re not allowed to use. (Click on the exclamation point in the upper right of a post.)
Yep, which is exactly why we should’ve closed the borders to the Irish during the '70s and '80s, right?
Luckily for us, then, that the group called “Syrian refugees” are, by definition, fleeing the terrorists, so no problem!
Unless you’re saying they’re more likely to be infiltrated than British immigrants, in which case I don’t see how you’d keep from “knowingly” importing terrorists other than closing the borders entirely, at the very least to all brown skinned people with funny names, in which case you should just say that’s what you want to do.
President Obama displayed an admirable restraint in his statement, related to this incident: I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this and we should all follow his lead. It is still possible that Muslims had nothing to do with these horrific events.
Extremely naive.
I still wish conservatives would just flat out state that they hate Islam and everything it stands for, and think its practitioners should be wiped off the face of the Earth or forced to abandon their religion and culture for Christianity (or atheism or whatever).
“Waah,” they say, “but if I didn’t pussyfoot and use euphemisms and sarcasm, people might call me racist!” Well, if you really think you’re right, and that your path is the best or only way to save countless lives, what the hell does that matter? Show you’re braver than the liberals you accuse all the time of being pants-wettingly afraid of everything!
Just state what you believe and why flat out already. And this applies to SO many topics I can think of (gay marriage, racial issues, etc). Abortion may be the only topic on which a good number of conservatives actually do this.
Are you that sure about the Japanese?
Please list all AS attacks in the USA or in any other country. The Japanese government dealt severely with them sentencing some to death iirc.
My current project is near Paris for an American client, but I’ve flown down to Barcelona for the weekend, so I only found out about the attacks when I went to buy fresh food.
If I may repeat what I said when I saw the headlines, la puta 
My team may have to work remotely next week, but that’s peanuts compared with what the people in the attacked locations and their friends and families are and will be going through.
He was actually being sarcastic and hated it when people took the book as serious.
BBC is saying France is now linking the attack directly to ISIS and calling it an act of war. Hollande is vowing to strike back.
I believe this to be wrong and short sighted for a couple of reasons.
- There is a possibility members of ISIS could be hidden within this refugee community.
- Refugees procreate. It’s very possible 2nd and 3rd generation refugees will become radicalized. The gratitude of their parents might not extend to the gratitude of their children and grandchildren. You already admit these people have socio-economic problems, and that these problems exacebrate their radicalisation. This socio-economic issue will still be a problem for France and much of the West in 20 years time.
Would French rules of engagement be crafted to avoid gender, racial, or religious bigotry in target selection?
How is it any better to make them to stay in Syria or whatever, where they’ll have direct contact and (sometimes forced) recruitment at the hands of those terrorists directly?
Accepting this, which do you believe is a more effective way of dealing with the issue?
-
Social and economic efforts to integrate citizens more fully into the polity of the nation.
-
Bomb Muslims back to the Stone Age.
Methinks you got whooshed. My point is that even Japan, a notoriously peaceful society for the last 70 years, also has terrorists.