What Exactly Is "Hysterical Fear" After Muslim Terrorist Attacks in Paris and Mali?

[daws101]

I keep hearing this birdie whispering in my ear that's saying,''hold your head up high, and don't continue to let the terrorists change you and your Country's values of helping those in need, your freedom, your life as it once was....don't let them scare you, if you do, the terrorists win... by terrorizing you''.

Strong screening is needed, but we should not let the terrorist's terror, make us in to pussies...if we do, then they win....

Do we really want that...???

Pussies? How? Our focus should be on helping those in our own country and making our country a better place. Unless those immigrants have something to offer, there is no logical reason for us to take them in. Being anti-immigration isn't just about fear. It's about realizing that our resources are limited, and we have people here in our own country who need help.

but we don't take in refugees because they are suppose to HELP US, we have always helped refugees since our inception to help THEM, to help them escape death, in many cases.

Bullshit. Name any refugees we took in before WW II.

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

 

[ChrisL]

I keep hearing this birdie whispering in my ear that's saying,''hold your head up high, and don't continue to let the terrorists change you and your Country's values of helping those in need, your freedom, your life as it once was....don't let them scare you, if you do, the terrorists win... by terrorizing you''.

Strong screening is needed, but we should not let the terrorist's terror, make us in to pussies...if we do, then they win....

Do we really want that...???

Pussies? How? Our focus should be on helping those in our own country and making our country a better place. Unless those immigrants have something to offer, there is no logical reason for us to take them in. Being anti-immigration isn't just about fear. It's about realizing that our resources are limited, and we have people here in our own country who need help.

but we don't take in refugees because they are suppose to HELP US, we have always helped refugees since our inception to help THEM, to help them escape death, in many cases.

Bullshit. Name any refugees we took in before WW II.

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

Well times have changed. Stop living in the past.

 

[daws101]

False .
You forget I've made my living working in concert hall, theatres, and outdoor venues.
The odds of people dying in those places and situations from a number of causes is extremely high.

We were speaking of your absurd comparison of deaths in bathtubs.

You failed to apply the statistic to terrorists deaths in concert halls.

You're failure to apply statistics correctly is noted.

It is far more likely to die in a terrorist attack in a Paris nightclub then to die in a bathtub in the same location.

And that is unacceptable.

That's a false comparison , one there are no bathtubs in concert halls.
Two. any building that holds an equivalent or near equivalent number people is statistical the same as the concert hall.
Your constant repeating of " concert hall" is melodramatic and nothing more.

Youve never worked a concert hall with a bathtub in it? No A list artists then.

Got it.

False. but nice try, any theatres that had bathtubs, concert halls etc. That had tubs were built in the 19th or early 20th century.
All of them are either gone or been extensively remodeled to comply with modern safety codes and insurance concerns.
Do I need to list the a listers I have worked with?

You made the comparison fool. How likely then is it to be killed by a terrorist while in a bathtub.

You are 14 times more likely to die in a bathtub then by being killed by a terrorist IS STILL HUGELY UNACCEPTABLE.

Stating fact makes me a fool, not in this universe.
Again you're making a false comparison.
I didn't make any such comparison.

 

[daws101]

Pussies? How? Our focus should be on helping those in our own country and making our country a better place. Unless those immigrants have something to offer, there is no logical reason for us to take them in. Being anti-immigration isn't just about fear. It's about realizing that our resources are limited, and we have people here in our own country who need help.

but we don't take in refugees because they are suppose to HELP US, we have always helped refugees since our inception to help THEM, to help them escape death, in many cases.

Bullshit. Name any refugees we took in before WW II.

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

Well times have changed. Stop living in the past.

false# things are no different in that regard.
What is different is the raging xenophobia.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. I don't know why people are so freaked out about it. Given the circumstances, it is the smart thing to do, IMO.

lets try the M&Ms again. You have a bowl of 500 M&Ms, you know that 10 of them contain poison that will kill you. Would you just grab a handful and eat them?

You don't actually expect them to concede to logic and facts, do you? If their position was logical, they would be calling anyone who opposes them racists and Nazis. They know they are on the wrong side of the argument, but they just don't care because the safety of American isn't their primary concern. Importing new Democrats is their concern.

The safety of America has already been compromised both from the Inside and out you act as if this has never happened before.
Again proving you have no grasp of logic and history.

Dimocraps are the ones who compromise it. Now you want to compromise it again.

Really? The gop sold it's soul to the religious right, the tea baggers. Etc.
If that's not compromise than nothing is .
Funny how you attempted and failed to dodge the security of the country being compromised question.

How are the religious right and the TEA party a security threat? One thing we know, commies are a security threat. They hate this country, and the vast majority of Democrat politicians are commies - especially Obama.

 

[ChrisL]

but we don't take in refugees because they are suppose to HELP US, we have always helped refugees since our inception to help THEM, to help them escape death, in many cases.

Bullshit. Name any refugees we took in before WW II.

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

Well times have changed. Stop living in the past.

false# things are no different in that regard.
What is different is the raging xenophobia.

Yes, sorry but many, many things are different. MANY things.

Actually, you would be wrong about your second statement as well, as the Irish suffered from much discrimination, if that is what you mean by "xenophobia."

Sorry, but we do not have to accept anyone into our country. We don't have enough jobs for them all anyways. Like I stated previously, 35% of our current population is collecting some type of social service benefits.

 

[daws101]

lets try the M&Ms again. You have a bowl of 500 M&Ms, you know that 10 of them contain poison that will kill you. Would you just grab a handful and eat them?

You don't actually expect them to concede to logic and facts, do you? If their position was logical, they would be calling anyone who opposes them racists and Nazis. They know they are on the wrong side of the argument, but they just don't care because the safety of American isn't their primary concern. Importing new Democrats is their concern.

The safety of America has already been compromised both from the Inside and out you act as if this has never happened before.
Again proving you have no grasp of logic and history.

Dimocraps are the ones who compromise it. Now you want to compromise it again.

Really? The gop sold it's soul to the religious right, the tea baggers. Etc.
If that's not compromise than nothing is .
Funny how you attempted and failed to dodge the security of the country being compromised question.

How are the religious right and the TEA party a security threat? One thing we know, commies are a security threat. They hate this country, and the vast majority of Democrat politicians are commies - especially Obama.

Thanks for proving my point for me!

 

[daws101]

Bullshit. Name any refugees we took in before WW II.

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

Well times have changed. Stop living in the past.

false# things are no different in that regard.
What is different is the raging xenophobia.

Yes, sorry but many, many things are different. MANY things.

Actually, you would be wrong about your second statement as well, as the Irish suffered from much discrimination, if that is what you mean by "xenophobia."

Sorry, but we do not have to accept anyone into our country. We don't have enough jobs for them all anyways. Like I stated previously, 35% of our current population is collecting some type of social service benefits.

More xenophobia.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't actually expect them to concede to logic and facts, do you? If their position was logical, they would be calling anyone who opposes them racists and Nazis. They know they are on the wrong side of the argument, but they just don't care because the safety of American isn't their primary concern. Importing new Democrats is their concern.

The safety of America has already been compromised both from the Inside and out you act as if this has never happened before.
Again proving you have no grasp of logic and history.

Dimocraps are the ones who compromise it. Now you want to compromise it again.

Really? The gop sold it's soul to the religious right, the tea baggers. Etc.
If that's not compromise than nothing is .
Funny how you attempted and failed to dodge the security of the country being compromised question.

How are the religious right and the TEA party a security threat? One thing we know, commies are a security threat. They hate this country, and the vast majority of Democrat politicians are commies - especially Obama.

Thanks for proving my point for me!

I didn't prove your point.

Now explain how the religious right and the TEA party a security threat.

 

[bripat9643]

I keep hearing this birdie whispering in my ear that's saying,''hold your head up high, and don't continue to let the terrorists change you and your Country's values of helping those in need, your freedom, your life as it once was....don't let them scare you, if you do, the terrorists win... by terrorizing you''.

Strong screening is needed, but we should not let the terrorist's terror, make us in to pussies...if we do, then they win....

Do we really want that...???

Pussies? How? Our focus should be on helping those in our own country and making our country a better place. Unless those immigrants have something to offer, there is no logical reason for us to take them in. Being anti-immigration isn't just about fear. It's about realizing that our resources are limited, and we have people here in our own country who need help.

but we don't take in refugees because they are suppose to HELP US, we have always helped refugees since our inception to help THEM, to help them escape death, in many cases.

Bullshit. Name any refugees we took in before WW II.

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

The Irish weren't refugees.

So you managed to name two. So if we follow your example, we'll allow two Syrian refugees to enter the country, but half of them half to have a PHD.

 

[ChrisL]

Albert Einstein
Henry Kissinger
Among others.

Several million Irish during the potato famine.
Bripat will falsely claim it's a lie.

Well times have changed. Stop living in the past.

false# things are no different in that regard.
What is different is the raging xenophobia.

Yes, sorry but many, many things are different. MANY things.

Actually, you would be wrong about your second statement as well, as the Irish suffered from much discrimination, if that is what you mean by "xenophobia."

Sorry, but we do not have to accept anyone into our country. We don't have enough jobs for them all anyways. Like I stated previously, 35% of our current population is collecting some type of social service benefits.

More xenophobia.

Is that all you have? What a piss poor argument you put forth. Obviously you aren't intelligent enough for me to waste my time on. Go troll someone else.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A lot of people are confusing the refugees that are being sent here with those that are flooding into Europe. Those entering Europe are not being screened before they enter. It is mass migration using whatever means available. It sometimes resembles the exodus of Cubans and Haitians, in that anything that floats is used. The Syrians coming here are mostly from refugee camps, where they have spent the last 2 - 3 years being screened and processed. While it is possible that terrorists are posing as people fleeing the violence, I think it's a lot less likely than the rhetoric from a few organizations and individuals would have you believe. There are much faster and easier ways to enter the United States, to say nothing of radicalizing people already here. The SAFE Act might catch some people IF they were to make it through the process undetected (none have so far), but it really doesn't add that much more scrutiny to the sufficient (to date) measures already in place. It just requires a unanimous approval from the heads of the FBI, DHS, and Director of National Intelligence.

One, our own FBI chief says we cannot properly screen those Syrian refugees.

Two, you are ignoring the fact that terrorists have repeatedly been recruited from among Muslim immigrants/refugees. That's because many average Muslims agree with extremist Muslims on a number of issues, and because quite a few average Muslims sympathize with ISIS and Al Qaeda.

You guys keep dancing around the incontrovertible fact that we know from recent history that the more Muslims a Christian/secular/pro-Western country has, the more likely it is that that country will suffer terrorist attacks. That is just reality. And given that reality, it is only sane and rational, and prudent, to either stop allowing Muslims to enter this country for the foreseeable future or to greatly toughen the screening process and to maintain some kind of surveillance of them for a time after they are allowed to enter.

I don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. I don't know why people are so freaked out about it. Given the circumstances, it is the smart thing to do, IMO.

Let me try to give you a clue: We have innumerable cases where Muslim immigrants have been recruited to be terrorists after they were allowed to enter a Western or pro-Western country. Are you not aware of this?

Also, our own FBI chief says we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees about whom you speak. Other intelligence officials have echoed this observation.

Under very controlled circumstances, the FBI and DOD interrogators and officials at Gitmo failed to detect 168 future repeat terrorists out of the 602 whom they screened, even though they conducted numerous interviews, conducted background checks, and used polygraphs. And those detainees had been at Gitmo for years. Are you aware of this fact? (I've provided links in several previous replies.)

So these are some of the reasons that Obama's plan to allow in thousands of Syrian refugees is dangerous, and this is why so many people are "freaked out" (read: justifiably concerned) about Obama's plan.

 

[ChrisL]

A lot of people are confusing the refugees that are being sent here with those that are flooding into Europe. Those entering Europe are not being screened before they enter. It is mass migration using whatever means available. It sometimes resembles the exodus of Cubans and Haitians, in that anything that floats is used. The Syrians coming here are mostly from refugee camps, where they have spent the last 2 - 3 years being screened and processed. While it is possible that terrorists are posing as people fleeing the violence, I think it's a lot less likely than the rhetoric from a few organizations and individuals would have you believe. There are much faster and easier ways to enter the United States, to say nothing of radicalizing people already here. The SAFE Act might catch some people IF they were to make it through the process undetected (none have so far), but it really doesn't add that much more scrutiny to the sufficient (to date) measures already in place. It just requires a unanimous approval from the heads of the FBI, DHS, and Director of National Intelligence.

One, our own FBI chief says we cannot properly screen those Syrian refugees.

Two, you are ignoring the fact that terrorists have repeatedly been recruited from among Muslim immigrants/refugees. That's because many average Muslims agree with extremist Muslims on a number of issues, and because quite a few average Muslims sympathize with ISIS and Al Qaeda.

You guys keep dancing around the incontrovertible fact that we know from recent history that the more Muslims a Christian/secular/pro-Western country has, the more likely it is that that country will suffer terrorist attacks. That is just reality. And given that reality, it is only sane and rational, and prudent, to either stop allowing Muslims to enter this country for the foreseeable future or to greatly toughen the screening process and to maintain some kind of surveillance of them for a time after they are allowed to enter.

I don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. I don't know why people are so freaked out about it. Given the circumstances, it is the smart thing to do, IMO.

Let me try to give you a clue: We have innumerable cases where Muslim immigrants have been recruited to be terrorists after they were allowed to enter a Western or pro-Western country. Are you not aware of this?

Also, our own FBI chief says we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees about whom you speak. Other intelligence officials have echoed this observation.

Under very controlled circumstances, the FBI and DOD interrogators and officials at Gitmo failed to detect 168 future repeat terrorists out of the 602 whom they screened, even though they conducted numerous interviews, conducted background checks, and used polygraphs. And those detainees had been at Gitmo for years. Are you aware of this fact? (I've provided links in several previous replies.)

So these are some of the reasons that Obama's plan to allow in thousands of Syrian refugees is dangerous, and this is why so many people are "freaked out" (read: justifiably concerned) about Obama's plan.

Do you people have reading comprehension difficulties? Read my post again, slowly this time.

 

[the_human_being]

THE ‘MEDIA’ FAILED TO TELL YOU That ISIS Tortured And Dismembered Victims At Concert In Paris

 

[ChrisL]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

 

[Redfish]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

 

[ChrisL]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

 

[Redfish]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

there is nothing grammatically wrong with double negatives. You said "I do NOT think that is Unreasonable" that's a double negative and grammatically perfectly OK.

All I meant is that people sometimes get confused by double negatives.

 

[ChrisL]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

there is nothing grammatically wrong with double negatives. You said "I do NOT think that is Unreasonable" that's a double negative and grammatically perfectly OK.

All I meant is that people sometimes get confused by double negatives.

Well,not to nit pick, but a double negative is something that actually turns the meaning of the sentence into a positive, so it is grammatically incorrect, such as "I didn't do nothing."

Don't argue with me. Proper grammar is part of what I do for a living.

 

[Redfish]

Here, I will help you all. I said "I DO NOT think that sounds UNREASONABLE at all." Except I said "don't." Did that throw you all off or somethin?

we obviously misread your post. maybe the double negative.

That is not a double negative, buddy. A double negative is something like "I didn't do nothing." My sentence is perfectly structured and grammatically correct, I can assure you. It is actually the opposite of "I do not think that sounds reasonable." Sorry if you are confused by English.

there is nothing grammatically wrong with double negatives. You said "I do NOT think that is Unreasonable" that's a double negative and grammatically perfectly OK.

All I meant is that people sometimes get confused by double negatives.

Well,not to nit pick, but a double negative is something that actually turns the meaning of the sentence into a positive, so it is grammatically incorrect, such as "I didn't do nothing."

Don't argue with me. Proper grammar is part of what I do for a living.

then you will probably be out of a job pretty soon. "didn't do nothing" is bad grammar.

" I did not participate in non payment of my debts" is a double negative that is grammatically correct.