IGX

Tim, I'm sure you in your infinite wisdom will find the "right ones" to put in your sights.... read them their rights and teach them how to live their lives like good progressive Americans....

Wipe Israel and America of the map. WE are at war with islam. Islam is not just a tiny cult, you retard Tim Cahil see no forest.

They're hamstrung right now-- Northern European states won't give border states enough for them to do the dirty work. And returning people to places that don't want them is ugly work.

seeahill wrote:The way my friend Robert Young Pelton sees it:

Let's get our narrative right. This is not about Islam, this is not about migrants, this is not about Israel or Palestine, this is not even about 9/11 or history. It is about a core group of propagandists who have attracted and manipulated a small cult of sexually frustrated, nihilist young male followers who have turned to violence against civilians knowing that they will get killed before the age of 30. They are everywhere and anywhere. So it is up to us to discard traditional labels and prejudices to root them out and reduce their numbers. Much like school shootings and suicide by cop, we are talking about a tiny network of thrill kill suicide cultists.

... Then whipped into a frenzy by those who benefit from international unrest and their propagandists aka the media, to agitate the myopic masses in which ever direction serves their ends.

When these things happen you must ask yourself "who ultimatey benefits". If those who benefit possess the power to stop it and aren't doing so (actually doing so, not smoke and mirrors) then these people are the ones who actually deserve our hate and derision. This is where our energies are most wisely directed as it is the only course that will really change anything.

On a separate issue yes the separation of government and fairytale (state and religion) must be looked into more seriously. The simple fact that an adult still believes in such things should be the ultimate litmus test of their sound judgement on serious issues and whether they are fit to hold any position of power or authority.

SubClaw wrote:Until those sand-niggers detonate a dirty bomb (or something worse) in a very large city, literally killing millions, it won't really change a thing.

Yes.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:You Yankees need to remember that for many Europeans the love affair with letting in lots of Muslims is like the American obsession with guns; all the evidence says that it's a stupid thing to do but it's a principle they aren't willing to abandon.

Yes as well.

seeahill wrote:OK, 6,000,000 million Muslims in France.
Did, like, say, 1% participate in the attacks?
That'd be, what? 60,000?
Or did like, say, 60, maybe 30. Maybe 20.

OMG, yes again.

This may require a solution beyond a six-second sound bite.

It's a shame that's all anybody has anymore though.

terra wrote:

seeahill wrote:The way my friend Robert Young Pelton sees it:

Let's get our narrative right. This is not about Islam, this is not about migrants, this is not about Israel or Palestine, this is not even about 9/11 or history. It is about a core group of propagandists who have attracted and manipulated a small cult of sexually frustrated, nihilist young male followers who have turned to violence against civilians knowing that they will get killed before the age of 30. They are everywhere and anywhere. So it is up to us to discard traditional labels and prejudices to root them out and reduce their numbers. Much like school shootings and suicide by cop, we are talking about a tiny network of thrill kill suicide cultists.

... Then whipped into a frenzy by those who benefit from international unrest and their propagandists aka the media, to agitate the myopic masses in which ever direction serves their ends.

When these things happen you must ask yourself "who ultimatey benefits". If those who benefit possess the power to stop it and aren't doing so (actually doing so, not smoke and mirrors) then these people are the ones who actually deserve our hate and derision. This is where our energies are most wisely directed as it is the only course that will really change anything.

On a separate issue yes the separation of government and fairytale (state and religion) must be looked into more seriously. The simple fact that an adult still believes in such things should be the ultimate litmus test of their sound judgement on serious issues and whether they are fit to hold any position of power or authority.

Good post Terra.

odin wrote:

Gene wrote:Sucks....

Gun Free Zones - they work

Irrelevant drivel.

People with guns stopped the attacks. They were agents of the State.

We can argue whether a civilian with a firearm could have stopped the attacks. Maybe, maybe not. Many of us believe that even some return fire would have changed the scenario for the better. Civilians in the US have stopped mass shootings.

What is for certain is that disarmed civilians were left to die. Gun Free zones work.

The spiralling migrant crisis will cost EU member Austria one billion euros ($740 million) in 2016, the finance ministry announced Wednesday, as the country expects 85,000 new asylum-seekers by the end of this year.

Average spending per asylum-seeker is set to rise to 10,724 euros next year, up from 9,593 euros in 2014, the latest available figures, the ministry said in its annual budget report to the European Commission.

The total cost will represent 0.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) compared to 0.1 percent this year, according to Finance Minister Hans Joerg Schelling.

Despite the extra burden, Austria's public deficit would nevertheless stay well below the European Union's prescribed ceiling of 3.0 percent of GDP, Schelling added.

http://reliefweb.int/report/austria/ref ... 6-ministry
Austria is not one of the major destination countries either, and the cost may be understated:
http://www.trust.org/item/20151110140153-97r0g/

terra wrote:...fairytale...

The belief in an atheist utopia is the greatest fairytale of all.

terra wrote: On a separate issue yes the separation of government and fairytale (state and religion) must be looked into more seriously. The simple fact that an adult still believes in such things should be the ultimate litmus test of their sound judgement on serious issues and whether they are fit to hold any position of power or authority.

Everyone should be free to believe what they want. Science has become a new religion that dominates the world in the same way as Catholicism dominated it 300 years ago. There is a place for God in the world, but for some reason your understanding of it is similar to the poorly educated peasants - the man with the beard on the could etc. - and I don't understand why you keep insisting that this is what religion is.

Buddhists and Hindus figured out quite a few things couple of thousand years ago: the duality of the world, the nature of time (read Nagarjuna), the error of singularity and so on. And they still believe in God, though their concept is not as simple as that of Judeo-Christian tradition (curiously, from what I understand Muslim ideas of God are closer to that of Buddhists). Jewish and Christian mystics contributed a lot to the philosophical understanding of reality, so did the Sufis. The main trouble with religions is that over centuries they have become political instruments and have been/are used to control people. It is how this control is used that is the key.

I don't see anything wrong with people being religious, as long as it does not affect others in negative way. One of the surgeons I know is Bahai, and in that religion you are supposed to actively do good. So, he noticed that in some area of town there are not enough garbage bins and wrote several letters to the Council. Now there are more bins. What's wrong with that? Sure, you don't have to be religious to do that, but what harm is there if this guy is? Another friend of mine is a devout Christian. Very nice and decent person, and you will never hear a word about religion from him. Religion is his way to ethics and decency, so what's the harm in that?

Politics must be separate from religion, there is no argument about it. But politicians are humans, and their beliefs will affect their decisions. From the point of ethics believing in Christ is better than believing in the superiority of white race, for example. The latter is grounded in the same principles as religion, though not formally classified as one.

Sangoma wrote:

terra wrote: On a separate issue yes the separation of government and fairytale (state and religion) must be looked into more seriously. The simple fact that an adult still believes in such things should be the ultimate litmus test of their sound judgement on serious issues and whether they are fit to hold any position of power or authority.

Everyone should be free to believe what they want. Science has become a new religion that dominates the world in the same way as Catholicism dominated it 300 years ago. There is a place for God in the world, but for some reason your understanding of it is similar to the poorly educated peasants - the man with the beard on the could etc. - and I don't understand why you keep insisting that this is what religion is.

Buddhists and Hindus figured out quite a few things couple of thousand years ago: the duality of the world, the nature of time (read Nagarjuna), the error of singularity and so on. And they still believe in God, though their concept is not as simple as that of Judeo-Christian tradition (curiously, from what I understand Muslim ideas of God are closer to that of Buddhists). Jewish and Christian mystics contributed a lot to the philosophical understanding of reality, so did the Sufis. The main trouble with religions is that over centuries they have become political instruments and have been/are used to control people. It is how this control is used that is the key.

I don't see anything wrong with people being religious, as long as it does not affect others in negative way. One of the surgeons I know is Bahai, and in that religion you are supposed to actively do good. So, he noticed that in some area of town there are not enough garbage bins and wrote several letters to the Council. Now there are more bins. What's wrong with that? Sure, you don't have to be religious to do that, but what harm is there if this guy is? Another friend of mine is a devout Christian. Very nice and decent person, and you will never hear a word about religion from him. Religion is his way to ethics and decency, so what's the harm in that?

Politics must be separate from religion, there is no argument about it. But politicians are humans, and their beliefs will affect their decisions. From the point of ethics believing in Christ is better than believing in the superiority of white race, for example. The latter is grounded in the same principles as religion, though not formally classified as one.

So, apart from your implied opinion that spurning organised religion necessitates being devoid of spiritual consideration and that poor 'education' limits such a spiritual experience of life, I think we agree.

What exactly do you mean by "spiritual consideration"? Spirituality comes from "spirit", which in Latin means soul (as well as vigor and breath). Last time I checked science didn't say much about the soul. Meaning that spirituality is not scientific. Spirituality does not mean that you have to belong to an official religion to explore it (or that those who do not belong to a religion cannot explore spirituality), but it grounded rather in metaphysics and not science.

<metaphysics>
<physics>
...
</physics>
</metaphysics>

Sangoma wrote:

terra wrote: On a separate issue yes the separation of government and fairytale (state and religion) must be looked into more seriously. The simple fact that an adult still believes in such things should be the ultimate litmus test of their sound judgement on serious issues and whether they are fit to hold any position of power or authority.

Everyone should be free to believe what they want. Science has become a new religion that dominates the world in the same way as Catholicism dominated it 300 years ago. There is a place for God in the world, but for some reason your understanding of it is similar to the poorly educated peasants - the man with the beard on the could etc. - and I don't understand why you keep insisting that this is what religion is.

Buddhists and Hindus figured out quite a few things couple of thousand years ago: the duality of the world, the nature of time (read Nagarjuna), the error of singularity and so on. And they still believe in God, though their concept is not as simple as that of Judeo-Christian tradition (curiously, from what I understand Muslim ideas of God are closer to that of Buddhists). Jewish and Christian mystics contributed a lot to the philosophical understanding of reality, so did the Sufis. The main trouble with religions is that over centuries they have become political instruments and have been/are used to control people. It is how this control is used that is the key.

I don't see anything wrong with people being religious, as long as it does not affect others in negative way. One of the surgeons I know is Bahai, and in that religion you are supposed to actively do good. So, he noticed that in some area of town there are not enough garbage bins and wrote several letters to the Council. Now there are more bins. What's wrong with that? Sure, you don't have to be religious to do that, but what harm is there if this guy is? Another friend of mine is a devout Christian. Very nice and decent person, and you will never hear a word about religion from him. Religion is his way to ethics and decency, so what's the harm in that?

Politics must be separate from religion, there is no argument about it. But politicians are humans, and their beliefs will affect their decisions. From the point of ethics believing in Christ is better than believing in the superiority of white race, for example. The latter is grounded in the same principles as religion, though not formally classified as one.

Well the religion being discussed in this case is very much about the man on the cloud, who in this particular instance seems to be telling his numbskull followers to kill people.

Even if we take what you said at face value and accept that 'real' religion is just an attempt to understand the world beyond the physical, it's still a worthless endeavour when the method of understanding is to just make something up that you like the sound of. If you want to believe it, fine, but don't ask anyone else to take it seriously.

'Science has become a religion' is such a lame duck argument. How an adult can trot it out is beyond me. And the reason science doesn't have much to say about the soul is because it is made up. It has plenty to say about consciousness on the other hand.

And I don't think anyone has ever said that if everyone was atheist the world would be perfect, but you'd have to admit it would stop a lot of people blowing themselves and others up in the name of Allah. That's the chief issue with the whole 'what harm does someone's religion do?' concept. It does plenty of harm all over the world.

Religion exists because it's what the people want. Should we kill off the organized ones with the man in the cloud, others will fill the void: communism, fascism, progressivism. Everything will be just as bad as it is right now. Probably worse.

DARTH wrote: It's always a smaller percentage that's the real problem, but you have to overkill to get it done.

Japan, anyone?

seeahill wrote:OK, 6,000,000 million Muslims in France.
Did, like, say, 1% participate in the attacks?
That'd be, what? 60,000?
Or did like, say, 60, maybe 30. Maybe 20.

You, should take, some writing, lessons,.

Gav wrote:

terra wrote:

seeahill wrote:The way my friend Robert Young Pelton sees it:

Let's get our narrative right. This is not about Islam, this is not about immigrants, this is not about Israel or Palestine, this is not even about 9/11 or history. It is about a core group of propagandists who have attracted and manipulated a small cult of sexually frustrated, nihilist young male followers who have turned to violence against civilians knowing that they will get killed before the age of 30. They are everywhere and anywhere. So it is up to us to discard traditional labels and prejudices to root them out and reduce their numbers. Much like school shootings and suicide by cop, we are talking about a tiny network of thrill kill suicide cultists.

... Then whipped into a frenzy by those who benefit from international unrest and their propagandists aka the media, to agitate the myopic masses in which ever direction serves their ends.

When these things happen you must ask yourself "who ultimatey benefits". If those who benefit possess the power to stop it and aren't doing so (actually doing so, not smoke and mirrors) then these people are the ones who actually deserve our hate and derision. This is where our energies are most wisely directed as it is the only course that will really change anything.

On a separate issue yes the separation of government and fairytale (state and religion) must be looked into more seriously. The simple fact that an adult still believes in such things should be the ultimate litmus test of their sound judgement on serious issues and whether they are fit to hold any position of power or authority.

Good post Terra.

If I may for a moment put a stream of consciousness exercise here instead of a notebook:

1. we need to make jihadist dead....all of them.
2. most Muslims are not jihadist, nor are they supportive of the jihad.
3. excluding immigrants based on creed is un-American--it's not gonna happen.
4. we in the US, need to stop and take a breath and get the 'what if's' out of the way: we need to get our house in order before we invite more in who will make a bigger mess since they know no better. What I mean by that is:
a. I think our vetting process for refugees is likely bullshit, ergo, the threat of punishment needs to be legitimate
b. I believe most refugees and/or illegals just want a better life, which means, most won't every have to worry about "a"
c. I think many if not most of them will be more productive members of American society than the multi-generational welfare homies and their baby mommas

To do this right, we 'productive Americans' need to put on our big boy and big girl pants and stop feeling sorry for everyone. EBT cards are NOT the answer. As are any other 'freebees' we give to refugees, illegals, or our own.

1. Hard Labor/chaingang and after hours education in the 3 R's after hours for convicts vs. lie-around and shoot hoops, prison time.
2. NO DEPORTATION FOR CRIMINALS: it doesn't work, they laugh at it, we cannot enforce it. See #1 above as the solution.
3. When they have served their time, they are done--but it needs to be meaningful time.
4. No one is fiscally rewarded in any way, shape, or form, for making babies. If Loquisha or whomever is popping kids, they can go seek charity from blacklivesmatter, not Uncle Sam.

Last but not least, let's let Russian and the frogs do what they can do and be the tip of the sphere for a change. They are sharper and have a better stomach for it these days anyway....THANKS, OBAMA!

Name the Islamic society where any of you are just dying to live (pun intended).

DrDonkeyLove wrote:A surprisingly cogent IS analysis from The Atlantic

Good read.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:If I may for a moment put a stream of consciousness exercise here instead of a notebook:

1. we need to make jihadist dead....all of them.

It's not possible. If Red Dawn taught us anything, it's that heavy-handed invasion promotes Swayze-levels of resistance. The Russians tried real, real hard, in two different conflicts. They gave up in Afghanistan and still have to deal with Chechens blowing shit up every few years.

Given that, it may be useful to take the fact that ISIS didn't hit an American target to decide exactly what we want to do. The French don't really have a choice, they have to attack. But the Swiss don't really have anything to worry about. We've been compromising our principles in the ME for a long time in the name of "stability," "national interest," and "Israel." Maybe our interests have changed.

Last but not least, let's let Russian and the frogs do what they can do and be the tip of the sphere for a change. They are sharper and have a better stomach for it these days anyway....THANKS, OBAMA!

The Russian model of going hard on jihadis is the best argument against the typical jingoist response.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:If I may for a moment put a stream of consciousness exercise here instead of a notebook:

1. we need to make jihadist dead....all of them.

It's not possible. If Red Dawn taught us anything, it's that heavy-handed invasion promotes Swayze-levels of resistance. The Russians tried real, real hard, in two different conflicts. They gave up in Afghanistan and still have to deal with Chechens blowing shit up every few years.

Given that, it may be useful to take the fact that ISIS didn't hit an American target to decide exactly what we want to do. The French don't really have a choice, they have to attack. But the Swiss don't really have anything to worry about. We've been compromising our principles in the ME for a long time in the name of "stability," "national interest," and "Israel." Maybe our interests have changed.

Last but not least, let's let Russian and the frogs do what they can do and be the tip of the sphere for a change. They are sharper and have a better stomach for it these days anyway....THANKS, OBAMA!

The Russian model of going hard on jihadis is the best argument against the typical jingoist response.

Why I think you're wrong is this: it's a tad different with these guys....I reckoned them as more like Crips and Bloods vs. a sophisticated global organization; but some who know way more than me have told me I am wrong and that was a month before, this. I also think they are more about lust than religion (be it rape, violence, power, whatever) Keep killing them....one by one by one. Russian ugly, Delta smackdowns, French Frog raids, Drones, itchy trigger finger cops, ARMED CIVILIANS, all of it. Don't worry, they're coming to the windy city, too. I just hope some of your illegally armed gangta homies are around to do some whackin'. No one else will have gats in that town, as you well know.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:The Russian model of going hard on jihadis is the best argument against the typical jingoist response.

But the main threat we face is from local goofballs inspired by ISIS videos and social media, or possibly from small groups that have already entered/will soon enter through our "immigration system." In the first case, you need to make "joining ISIS" less attractive, and don't you do that by decimating their little movement, their so-called caliphate? Take away their territory. Kill their fighters. Eliminate their sources of wealth. They may still make some videos but it won't look nearly as inspiring or attractive to join a movement that is completely degraded.

Right now, they look like the strong horse. That could be easily fixed with firepower.

TerryB wrote:Right now, they look like the strong horse. That could be easily fixed with firepower.

ISIS attracted MORE followers after they publicized their atrocities because ISIS recruits do not think along the Western "Fair/Not Fair" axis. They care about "Win/Lose" and the Strong Horse (Osama Bin Laden's term).

Followers will stop flocking to ISIS when we humiliate & devastate ISIS. Understanding/respecting them shows weakness, and merits their contempt and further attacks.

ALSO we need to disconnect the Savages from wealth, i.e. Muslim donors, Oil money, etc., because Big Bucks buys the technology to attack the West.