Breaking: Truck Plows into Berlin Christmas Market

[Route 45]

Not just the Germans. We're almost to this point here in the USA.

The recent election tells a different story.

 

[bwframe]

Yep, the people spoke and that's about to change here.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I see your point Sylvain. Allow me to put a finer point on the previous couple posts.

Do we expel ALL Muslims, especially citizens? NO!!!!! Should we stop accepting refugees? Possibly.

It would be poor form, possibly bordering on criminal to start rounding up all of them and shipping them out. Somebody has done that before there and it didnt end well.

I wouldnt fault them for halting refugees. Not one bit. As Brad said you cant vet them. We dont accept a consumer product that 1 of every 1,000,000 is deadly. Why accept a foreign population that has the potential to have the same odds?

I say if you want to keep accepting an un-vettable population that is known by all to harbor extremists that will kill you, OK. But you need to accept responsibility for that decision. At this point it looks like the statement is "I accept that by saving x number of refugees, y number of my countrymen will die due to radicals within the value of x." We all need to decide if the value of x is greater than the loss of y. If we value our y's more than x's then something needs to be done.

 

[Sylvain]

The point being the you cannot vette them with no background and no law in the god forsaken land they hail from.
You can trust in your fellow man if you think that is a good form of protection.
Look at your words what thread did all of the attackers have in common.
When enough people get tired of being killed they will create a backlash.
Not all of them are evil but they all will be considered evil if the attacks continue.
This is one of the major causes of the return of nationalism and the end of globalization.

Since January 2015, over 240 people were killed in terrorist attacks in France.
Most of the perpetrators have been French nationals, not evil foreign refugees.

Same thing in the US.Look at all the different mass shootings comitted in the US.

Will there be a backlash against non-Muslim white American men if it keeps happening?
Because that's the kind of person who usually go out and kill his fellow men.

 

[miguel]

Huns gotta wake up!

 

[T.Lex]

Clearly, it is ok on INGO to say that all Muslims are terrorists or cultists, with all that entails.

With that in mind, then, I think it only fair to say that people who think all Muslims are terrorists or cultists are idiots. Their world view belongs in white robes lighting crosses, as they are the philosophical lineal descendants of those same base thoughts. They must exist to remind us that stupid people have 1A rights and draw likeminded simpletons to them. The American way is to identify them so that we can marginalize and reject them. Their input on topics of public discourse should be shunned.

In the 1920s, I've recently learned, certain Catholic colleges and universities in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania were targeted by people like this. Rallies and marches turned to threats and violence. Bombs were cast at students at these places, these places that accepted immigrants and helped them succeed. Truly, education is a key to advancement. And prejudiced people, in part, are victims of their own lack of it.

But that can only be a reason, not an excuse. Students at those institutions in the 1920s fought back - physically and philosophically.

If it is ok on INGO to utter hateful prejudice toward Muslims, it must be ok to echo that back to them. There is no principled distinction.

 

[Route 45]

Since January 2015, over 240 people were killed in terrorist attacks in France.
Most of the perpetrators have been French nationals, not evil foreign refugees.

Same thing in the US.Look at all the different mass shootings comitted in the US.

Will there be a backlash against non-Muslim white American men if it keeps happening?
Because that's the kind of person who usually go out and kill his fellow men.

What was the motivation of the French nationals? Perhaps an ideology from another part of the world that happens to be the same as the one of the refugees in question? French nationals who commit terrorist attacks are a problem that must be dealt with in a different manner than people who have no inherent right to enter the country.

 

[Cameramonkey]

OK, status quo it is because anything else is awful.

 

[Brad69]

Unregulated immigration is going to be a hallmark of the EU's demise.
Europe cannot absorb that amount of humanity and keep it traditions and rule of law.
What about the "jungle" that was destroyed in the past few weeks the anger is growing by the day.
A country without tradition,language,borders is not a country.

 

[Route 45]

Clearly, it is ok on INGO to say that all Muslims are terrorists or cultists, with all that entails.

With that in mind, then, I think it only fair to say that people who think all Muslims are terrorists or cultists are idiots. Their world view belongs in white robes lighting crosses, as they are the philosophical lineal descendants of those same base thoughts. They must exist to remind us that stupid people have 1A rights and draw likeminded simpletons to them. The American way is to identify them so that we can marginalize and reject them. Their input on topics of public discourse should be shunned.

In the 1920s, I've recently learned, certain Catholic colleges and universities in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania were targeted by people like this. Rallies and marches turned to threats and violence. Bombs were cast at students at these places, these places that accepted immigrants and helped them succeed. Truly, education is a key to advancement. And prejudiced people, in part, are victims of their own lack of it.

But that can only be a reason, not an excuse. Students at those institutions in the 1920s fought back - physically and philosophically.

If it is ok on INGO to utter hateful prejudice toward Muslims, it must be ok to echo that back to them. There is no principled distinction.

People who discriminate on the basis of race are indeed idiots and simpletons. Islam is not a race. It is a chosen belief system, and one that at its core is incompatible with modern western values. We'd all be better off as a species if religious belief would simply go ahead and fade into obscurity where it belongs, but in the meantime, some religions are more of a threat to western ideals than others. If you can look at the number of Muslims worldwide who support sharia and other barbaric notions, and then turn around and equate the religion with any notion of peaceful coexistence with non-believers, then I don't know what to call you except for willfully ignorant.

 

[Sylvain]

What was the motivation of the French nationals? Perhaps an ideology from another part of the world that happens to be the same as the one of the refugees in question? French nationals who commit terrorist attacks are a problem that must be dealt with in a different manner than people who have no inherent right to enter the country.

By ideology you mean Islam?
It would be stupid to target a whole population just because they had something in common with those terrorists.
If all the terrorists happen to be all French Muslim men, do we ban all Muslims? All French people from France? Just all men?

 

[T.Lex]

People who discriminate on the basis of race are indeed idiots and simpletons. Islam is not a race.

Straw man. It isn't a race. It is several races. Which makes it even more idiotic to generalize based on it.

It is a chosen belief system, and one that at its core is incompatible with modern western values.

Demonstrably false. And people who say stuff like that are the same kind of idiots I was talking about.

We'd all be better off as a species if religious belief would simply go ahead and fade into obscurity where it belongs, but in the meantime, some religions are more of a threat to western ideals than others. If you can look at the number of Muslims worldwide who support sharia and other barbaric notions, and then turn around and equate the religion with any notion of peaceful coexistence with non-believers, then I don't know what to call you except for willfully ignorant.

Speaking of willful ignorance, that's more stuff that stupid people say. People who really don't have a clue about people outside their own clan.

 

[Route 45]

By ideology you mean Islam?
It would be stupid to target a whole population just because they had something in common with those terrorists.
If all the terrorists happen to be all French Muslim men, do we ban all Muslims? All French people from France? Just all men?

Which of these traits are inherent (gender, origin of birth, etc) and which are chosen behaviors? Do you understand the difference?
Ban Muslim citizens? Of course not. Ban refugees from violent parts of the world where vetting is not possible? Absolutely. But only if you care more about your fellow citizen than you do about how noble you are to give someone the shirt off of someone else's back.

 

[Brad69]

If I am attacked by Santas elves over and over again.
I have no right to be wary of elves just because not all elves follow Santa and are not bad?

You have entire areas in your country where your law is meaningless. They have been taken over and follow a religious law and your police will not even enter them.

At some point a faction will turn to extreme violence to rectify a problem real or conceived.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Which of these traits are inherent (gender, origin of birth, etc) and which are chosen behaviors? Do you understand the difference?
Ban Muslim citizens? Of course not. Ban refugees from violent parts of the world where vetting is not possible? Absolutely. But only if you care more about your fellow citizen than you do about how noble you are to give someone the shirt off of someone else's back.

Prior to 2001, what places would you consider "violent parts of the world?" Do we ban Israelis along with Palestinians?

 

[Sylvain]

OK, status quo it is because anything else is awful.

More often than not the attacks are commited by native citizens, so even it's you banned all refugees you will still get attacks.

 

[Route 45]

More often than not the attacks are commited by native citizens, so even it's you banned all refugees you will still get attacks.

Good thing that people like you weren't in charge of trying to cure smallpox.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

There will always be risks involved with freedom. Freedom to drive a car, freedom to own a gun, freedom to be a free person.

People will commit crimes with those freedoms. It's the cost of being free.

 

[Brad69]

I do think KUT may have smallpox!

 

[Sylvain]

If I am attacked by Santas elves over and over again.
I have no right to be wary of elves just because not all elves follow Santa and are not bad?

You have entire areas in your country where your law is meaningless. They have been taken over and follow a religious law and your police will not even enter them.

At some point a faction will turn to extreme violence to rectify a problem real or conceived.

Are you talking about the famous "no go zones" mentioned by FoxNews a couple of years back?
The ones where only Muslims are allowed to enter?
The ones in the heart of Paris in touristic areas that FoxNews made up?