-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
French getting another round of "inshallah"
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
I could have sworn we were talking about a coordinated terrorist attack, not a lone gunman whack job situation. Also, Nidal Hassan probably isn't the best example for your counter argument.
I thought we were talking about terrorist attacks, period. After all the method doesn't matter, the results do. Your immigration 'solution' is simplistic and likely unworkable and would not have prevented many domestic terrorist attacks, to include McVeigh.
The topic of this thread is another coordinated attack in France perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. The answer is fixing their immigration, and it should have happened a decade ago. Your examples aren't relevant, but I think you know that.
Just how would 'fixing their immigration' prevented this? Pretty bold assertion when the details about the attackers aren't known yet. Unless a country completely shuts their borders to everyone to include 'tourists' you can't prevent folks from entering your country. Most of the 9/11 hijackers proved that. And even then that doesn't mean they will be able to prevent attacks as demonstrated repeatedly by 'homegrown' terrorists here and in other countries to include France. And France's immigrant Muslim population and their descendants is far older than a mere decade.
As for relevance, I didn't realize that rules and guidelines had been established for the thread. They simply aren't relevant to you because they don't fit your simplistic argument.
You know what? You're right. There's no way that changing their immigration policy could prevent French speaking (according to survivors) Islamic terrorists from conducting another attack. After all, since other people could potentially kill, there is no reason to react to this trend at all. The fact that France declared a state of emergency and temporarily closed their borders was a shortsighted and pointless step because Timothy McVeigh may already be there.
The next time someone says there was a coordinated shooting and bombing attack in France, you might be the only person that has to read the article to figure out who it was.
Because we all know only the French speak French, that these guys were all immigrants and France screwed up a decade ago (at least) by not leaving the EU/Schengen Area and closing their borders. How could I not see it is all so simple?
Okay Flash,
Dazzle us with YOUR solution to the violent establishment of the Caliphate we see right now.
I'm all fucking ears.
While you type, I'll give you mine: we stop supporting Sunni Wahhabism.
I know some of my former students from the House of Saud won't like that answer. But look where the foundation of militant Islam was, to include the majority of those that attacked us on 9/11 and those who continue to fight in Levant to create the Islamic State.
We have picked the wrong side in the Middle East religious turf battle (because both sides are wrong) and lack the willpower our English, French, and Italinan forefathers had hundreds of years ago to do anything about it. Which is truly sad as we actually have the funding, military and technology to do something about it (as opposed to the men who actually had the willpower to fight the Crusade on their turf)
Winston Churchill may have put it best in 1899:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
We can wring our hands about civil liberties, religious freedom, and what exactly constitutes the body of "militant Islam" but until the clerics are willing to denounce and defund the radicals (don't hold your breath) and the people of their faith and lineage are willing to denounce them publicly, beyond the mealy mouthed responses from CAIR, jack-shit will be done without violent and ruthless opposition to their way of living on their turf.
Dazzle us with YOUR solution to the violent establishment of the Caliphate we see right now.
I'm all fucking ears.
While you type, I'll give you mine: we stop supporting Sunni Wahhabism.
I know some of my former students from the House of Saud won't like that answer. But look where the foundation of militant Islam was, to include the majority of those that attacked us on 9/11 and those who continue to fight in Levant to create the Islamic State.
We have picked the wrong side in the Middle East religious turf battle (because both sides are wrong) and lack the willpower our English, French, and Italinan forefathers had hundreds of years ago to do anything about it. Which is truly sad as we actually have the funding, military and technology to do something about it (as opposed to the men who actually had the willpower to fight the Crusade on their turf)
Winston Churchill may have put it best in 1899:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
We can wring our hands about civil liberties, religious freedom, and what exactly constitutes the body of "militant Islam" but until the clerics are willing to denounce and defund the radicals (don't hold your breath) and the people of their faith and lineage are willing to denounce them publicly, beyond the mealy mouthed responses from CAIR, jack-shit will be done without violent and ruthless opposition to their way of living on their turf.
I never said I had a solution, just that 'stopping immigration' is a pretty simplistic and unworkable one. For France or any other country. If I had a workable solution I certainly wouldn't be here pontificating in about it.
As for supporting Saudi Arabia we are allied with them in order to keep the oil flowing, it is literally the fuel for the world's economy, and the stability of that country and the reliable flow of oil has been in our national interest as the world's largest economy since WWII. At least that is what every President has decided since FDR no matter the party. Cutting off our support now will have little to no impact on any of the current upheaval and conflict in the region. It's not like they need much of it anyways, they can always find someone else to take their money. If not us then who?
Flash - is it really? Why is it so outrageous to consider actually following the law and supporting legal, controlled immigration? While I am not advocating for Trump here, his position on FOLLOWING the immigration laws is why he is getting a lot of traction on this issue. His position will be emboldened and continue to be supported by this tragic event in France. The entire world has been bent and twisted into acquiescing to these cultures and their demands on society. Fuck them. Assimilate and contribute or leave. I'm willing to bet a lot of countries and leaders will be taking a fresh look at the steady flow of refugees coming out of Syria and their immigration policies writ large.
There is a big difference between stopping immigration and allowing legal, controlled immigration. Then again, how do we know that this had anything to do with immigration whatsoever? And if it did, that these guys were illegal? Could have been they or their parents were immigrated legally. Or maybe they were there as 'tourists'. Or....who the hell knows?! Unless you are part of the investigation we don't k ow jack or squat yet so why fixate on immigration?
And as for 'fixing' immigration, how do you suppose that will 'fix' the problem with domestic terrorist attacks? Are we and France supposed to ban all Muslims from immigrating? Because that seems to be where some of these arguments are headed. Almost all the terrorists on 9/11 were here legally. And France has been recently criticized for not accepting more refugees recently, I doubt they change their minds now. How has that changed things?
I have some pretty strong feelings about immigration, especially being married to one, and citizenship that are more in line with some harder line positions. But short of kicking out Muslims to include many citizens, which is unrealistic and illegal, or using a time machine to go back and change immigration policy for Europe and the U.S. 50 or more years ago I don't see how 'fixing immigration' would prevent these attacks.
Be careful out there, Caesium.
Superstition abounds. They picked Friday the 13th for this latest round of atrocities.
For those who are wondering what Caesium is talking about with respect to NATO Article 5.
Superstition abounds. They picked Friday the 13th for this latest round of atrocities.
For those who are wondering what Caesium is talking about with respect to NATO Article 5.