MikeK
Gold Member
Take a few minutes to listen to what this fellow has to say.
And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.
And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Take a few minutes to listen to what this fellow has to say.
And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.
23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
Yeah, I know. The same answer they give every time there's a mass shooting in the US. Interesting that the right proposes solutions for the Islamic suicide bombers and the left proposes solutions for gun nut mass murder but not vice-versa.23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
How many children died in Iraq?
The answer on the right "Who gives a fuck"
What he's saying is the attacks you've cited, along with every other recent terrorist attack experienced in the UK and other European nations and the U.S., have been the work of Muslims. He is not oblivious to the facts you've mentioned. What he is saying is, why compound the obvious problem by adding to it.The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
He clearly and specifically refers to the futility of making more "vetting" laws, which are utterly incapable of controlling the flood of hostile "refugees" -- and he's right. Considering the obvious fact that more than 85% of the incoming "refugees" are military-age males it is clear the UK is importing a foreign army. All that remains to do is arm and deploy them.So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
Are you talking about "pinpricks" like the 9/11 attack?The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
What he's saying is the attacks you've cited, along with every other recent terrorist attack experienced in the UK and other European nations and the U.S., have been the work of Muslims. He is not oblivious to the facts you've mentioned. What he is saying is, why compound the obvious problem by adding to it.The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
He clearly and specifically refers to the futility of making more "vetting" laws, which are utterly incapable of controlling the flood of hostile "refugees" -- and he's right. Considering the obvious fact that more than 85% of the incoming "refugees" are military-age males it is clear the UK is importing a foreign army. All that remains to do is arm and deploy them.So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
All Muslims are not terrorists. And all snakes and spiders are not venomous.
First, let me say that I fully agree with all of the provocations listed in the initial paragraphs of your message. I was strongly opposed to H.W. Bush's Operation Desert Storm and the cruelty with which the Iraqi Army was destroyed. I was not only opposed to W. Bush's invasion of Iraq but angrily so, and while I watched the bombing of Baghdad on television my first thought was we will pay for this egregious war crime.[...]
Make policies which actually do something in life, rather than ones that make you feel good about yourself because you think it'll have an impact, simply because you're not thinking about things properly. (note this isn't you as in you, this is the impersonal you).
First, let me say that I fully agree with all of the provocations listed in the initial paragraphs of your message. I was strongly opposed to H.W. Bush's Operation Desert Storm and the cruelty with which the Iraqi Army was destroyed. I was not only opposed to W. Bush's invasion of Iraq but angrily so, and while I watched the bombing of Baghdad on television my first thought was we will pay for this egregious war crime.[...]
Make policies which actually do something in life, rather than ones that make you feel good about yourself because you think it'll have an impact, simply because you're not thinking about things properly. (note this isn't you as in you, this is the impersonal you).
I was so opposed to these events, and others, that I wrote letters to my Congress members, House and Senate, and I even wrote a vaguely insulting letter to Bush that I expected a response to but never received. I did receive the usual bullshit responses from the Congress but life went on as usual and I'm much too sane and content to do a McVeigh or a Hinckley. In fact all I am capable of doing is hoping that all whom I hold dear can manage to avoid being a target of the vengeance which is sure to come in recompense for those crimes which you've mentioned and which I am equally aware of.
But that doesn't mean I'm willing to stand contritely still while some bearded bastard in pajamas and sneakers blows us up. I acknowledge there is a slow and quiet war being waged by a determined and capable guerrilla force and I and mine are their targets. And while I do understand why they hate me, and I really can't blame them, there is nothing I can do to appease them. So I have every intention of doing anything and all I can do to defend myself and mine.
While I am painfully sorry about what the Bush family and other equally criminal bastards have done, I didn't approve of it and there was absolutely nothing I could do to prevent it. So now that it's done and cannot be undone, please don't expect anything other from me than the most active form of resistance to retributive terrorism that I am capable of.
Take a few minutes to listen to what this fellow has to say.
And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.
The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
What he's saying is the attacks you've cited, along with every other recent terrorist attack experienced in the UK and other European nations and the U.S., have been the work of Muslims. He is not oblivious to the facts you've mentioned. What he is saying is, why compound the obvious problem by adding to it.The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
He clearly and specifically refers to the futility of making more "vetting" laws, which are utterly incapable of controlling the flood of hostile "refugees" -- and he's right. Considering the obvious fact that more than 85% of the incoming "refugees" are military-age males it is clear the UK is importing a foreign army. All that remains to do is arm and deploy them.So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
All Muslims are not terrorists. And all snakes and spiders are not venomous.
Yes, they have been the work of Muslims. Why?
Perhaps that in 2003 the US and UK invaded Iraq. Why did they invade Iraq? For oil, to destroy OPEC's power to be a successful cartel.
Perhaps that after the invasion the US completely fucked up the post war period in Iraq, getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, but hey, at least the oil's pumping,right? And and they then went and put a puppet govt in place.
Perhaps because in 2011 the US bombed Libya and got the leader deposed. Perhaps because the US did nothing to reconstruct the country.
Perhaps because in 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan and put in a puppet govt.
Perhaps because the US have been putting strict sanctions in place against Iran.
Perhaps because the US went into Somalia in the 1993 and decided it could dictate what happened in that country.
Perhaps because the US has bombed Pakistan and Yemen.
Oh, well, if we add up all this, then you can see why Islamic extremism has taken off in recent years.
To pretend that Muslims are bad and somehow the West is the good guy is laughable. The West has done FAR MORE than Muslim extremists have done. But hey, everyone has "cowboy and injun syndrome".
This syndrome is that the Injuns were the baddies. They were protecting their land, they were protecting their way of life from GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING.
The cowboys were the goodies. They were the people perpetrating the GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING, but also pretending to claim the higher moral ground.
The second problem is the guy is full of shit. He claims, as I said before, to not want to make policy for the sake of making policy which has NOT IMPACT ON THE PROBLEM, then goes and does just this.
And what you've said trying to back this guy up about this is just wrong. Why are you trying to stop people getting in the country to solve a problem that isn't a problem.
Personally I think immigration should be controlled, and I think immigration should be controlled in a manner that is advantageous to the country. There are Muslims who play an important part in the UK. I've lived in the UK and I lived with a Pakistani and he was doing a PhD in Computer Science and his brother was a Doctor in the UK. Why would you want to stop this guy? He's never going to blow anyone up, he was adding to society.
What you want to stop are the under educated people from ALL COUNTRIES. The UK doesn't need under educated people from Pakistan in the UK. It's that simple. It also doesn't need under educated people from Peru, from South Africa, from Indonesia, from the Moon or Mars.
Make policies which actually do something in life, rather than ones that make you feel good about yourself because you think it'll have an impact, simply because you're not thinking about things properly. (note this isn't you as in you, this is the impersonal you).
Take a few minutes to listen to what this fellow has to say.
And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.
The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
So, it seems that country of origin or place of birth are not the issue, religion is.
Would you ban ten thousand immigrants from whatever religion, if you knew that one of the ten thousand WILL kill your neighbor, your friend, your child or you?
You would NOT, if you are a liberal.
Would you care about the feelings of the 9,999 who would never have any intention to hurt anyone?
You would, if you are a liberal.
What he's saying is the attacks you've cited, along with every other recent terrorist attack experienced in the UK and other European nations and the U.S., have been the work of Muslims. He is not oblivious to the facts you've mentioned. What he is saying is, why compound the obvious problem by adding to it.The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
He clearly and specifically refers to the futility of making more "vetting" laws, which are utterly incapable of controlling the flood of hostile "refugees" -- and he's right. Considering the obvious fact that more than 85% of the incoming "refugees" are military-age males it is clear the UK is importing a foreign army. All that remains to do is arm and deploy them.So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
All Muslims are not terrorists. And all snakes and spiders are not venomous.
Yes, they have been the work of Muslims. Why?
Perhaps that in 2003 the US and UK invaded Iraq. Why did they invade Iraq? For oil, to destroy OPEC's power to be a successful cartel.
Perhaps that after the invasion the US completely fucked up the post war period in Iraq, getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, but hey, at least the oil's pumping,right? And and they then went and put a puppet govt in place.
Perhaps because in 2011 the US bombed Libya and got the leader deposed. Perhaps because the US did nothing to reconstruct the country.
Perhaps because in 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan and put in a puppet govt.
Perhaps because the US have been putting strict sanctions in place against Iran.
Perhaps because the US went into Somalia in the 1993 and decided it could dictate what happened in that country.
Perhaps because the US has bombed Pakistan and Yemen.
Oh, well, if we add up all this, then you can see why Islamic extremism has taken off in recent years.
To pretend that Muslims are bad and somehow the West is the good guy is laughable. The West has done FAR MORE than Muslim extremists have done. But hey, everyone has "cowboy and injun syndrome".
This syndrome is that the Injuns were the baddies. They were protecting their land, they were protecting their way of life from GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING.
The cowboys were the goodies. They were the people perpetrating the GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING, but also pretending to claim the higher moral ground.
The second problem is the guy is full of shit. He claims, as I said before, to not want to make policy for the sake of making policy which has NOT IMPACT ON THE PROBLEM, then goes and does just this.
And what you've said trying to back this guy up about this is just wrong. Why are you trying to stop people getting in the country to solve a problem that isn't a problem.
Personally I think immigration should be controlled, and I think immigration should be controlled in a manner that is advantageous to the country. There are Muslims who play an important part in the UK. I've lived in the UK and I lived with a Pakistani and he was doing a PhD in Computer Science and his brother was a Doctor in the UK. Why would you want to stop this guy? He's never going to blow anyone up, he was adding to society.
What you want to stop are the under educated people from ALL COUNTRIES. The UK doesn't need under educated people from Pakistan in the UK. It's that simple. It also doesn't need under educated people from Peru, from South Africa, from Indonesia, from the Moon or Mars.
Make policies which actually do something in life, rather than ones that make you feel good about yourself because you think it'll have an impact, simply because you're not thinking about things properly. (note this isn't you as in you, this is the impersonal you).
You justified terrorism and killing and blood lust and vengeance and capitalism and greed and social justice and liberal mindset in such eloquent way, now try justify your existence.
What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.
These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.
Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.
I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.
According to Annalisa Merelli:
Between 1970 and 1994, however, terrorist attacks in Europe were much more common. From Northern Ireland’s Irish Republican Army (IRA) to Spain’s Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) to Italy’s Anni di Piombo (Years of Lead), extremist political groups organized bombings in each of those countries.
In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe, an average of more than 350 per year, according to the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The peak was reached in 1979, when 1,019 attacks were perpetrated in Europe, but all through the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s attacks occurred with an average frequency of about 10 per week. Since 1997, the trend line has been even lower.
I don't recall in the 1960s and 970s hearing about travel bans -- most especially not religiously themed ones -- and the other foolishness that's been proposed by Trump, and yet the incidence of airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1972 averaged one per week. 1973 marked the start of individual passenger screenings.
Take a few minutes to listen to what this fellow has to say.
And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.
The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.
Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.
Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.
So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?
So, it seems that country of origin or place of birth are not the issue, religion is.
Would you ban ten thousand immigrants from whatever religion, if you knew that one of the ten thousand WILL kill your neighbor, your friend, your child or you?
You would NOT, if you are a liberal.
Would you care about the feelings of the 9,999 who would never have any intention to hurt anyone?
You would, if you are a liberal.
Is it religion? Is all terrorism Islamic? Was Roof Islamic? No, it's not.
But there is a problem in the West with Islamic terrorism. The reason why is pretty simple, the US and the West have been fucking over Muslim countries for so long, and they're fighting back. Not all of them, not even most of them, but some of them.
As for your "you uld if you are a liberal" is also complete bullshit, sticking all Liberals into the same box, the same as putting all Muslims into the same box. It's ridiculous.