What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

More Terrorism in France, or Something else? (1 Viewer)

No. Radical Islam has a stated goal of trying to destroy us which makes them an enemy. If there is another ideology with that as a goal that outwardly acts on it, then sure, throw them in, but yours is a broad stroke question, whereas my views are, for now, narrowly focused.
So, if someone is radicalized to do harm to citizens (but not acted  upon it)...deport them if they are muslim (even if born here).  If they are not muslim...then what?

 
But there were fundamentalists.
So your policy would be "no fundamentalists"?  Is that all religions or just Muslim? 

And does the fact that you can't even retrofit an immigration policy to effectively stop a particular incident tell you something?

 
So, if someone is radicalized to do harm to citizens (but not acted  upon it)...deport them if they are muslim (even if born here).  If they are not muslim...then what?
C'mon dude - what do you want from me? I'm not going to sit here and engage you in every "what if" you bring up. I want radicalized Muslims out. Period. That's all I've said. You take from that what you will.

 
So your policy would be "no fundamentalists"?  Is that all religions or just Muslim? 

And does the fact that you can't even retrofit an immigration policy to effectively stop a particular incident tell you something?
retrofitting is a problem.

 
C'mon dude - what do you want from me? I'm not going to sit here and engage you in every "what if" you bring up. I want radicalized Muslims out. Period. That's all I've said. You take from that what you will.
I want something realistic and constitutional.

Deporting citizens is a dangerous path...especially those born here...and done based on their religion which is constitutionally protected.

Also, would like to see what your due process is on showing they are "radicalized".

 
badmojo1006 said:
I saw another report that his family member described him as a POS who was abusive to his wife, drank, smoked pot, was always in trouble and had no participation or interest in Islam. He lost his job as a trucker driver because he fell asleep at the wheel and hit a bunch of people, also was involved in a bar brawl. A lot of these ISIS attackers aren't even very religious. They are just demented, angry, bitter and violent people. I still content that the closest comp to ISIS are Latin drug cartels. They are young criminal delinquents looking easy money, thrills and suffer from serious bloodlust. 

 
sho nuff said:
Also, would like to see what your due process is on showing they are "radicalized".
This is key.  Everyone wants "radicalized" Muslims out of this country.  It's identifying them and extracting them that's the problem.  

 
I think I would support stripping any American of their citizenship who has left the country and now is waging war against us.

But any thought of deporting citizens who are radicalized is a silly idea (and deport to where?). We'd have to deport a quarter of Idaho and then anyone with a "Don't tread on me" bumper sticker. 

There are a lot of radicalized people in this country, and an overwhelming majority of them have nothing to do with Islam.

 
sho nuff said:
I want something realistic and constitutional.

Deporting citizens is a dangerous path...especially those born here...and done based on their religion which is constitutionally protected.

Also, would like to see what your due process is on showing they are "radicalized".
I voiced my general opinion. I don't feel inclined to have to come up with specifics to justify my OPINION so you're getting nothing from me. But guess what, I still have that opinion. Imagine that.

 
I think I would support stripping any American of their citizenship who has left the country and now is waging war against us.

But any thought of deporting citizens who are radicalized is a silly idea (and deport to where?). We'd have to deport a quarter of Idaho and then anyone with a "Don't tread on me" bumper sticker. 

There are a lot of radicalized people in this country, and an overwhelming majority of them have nothing to do with Islam.
No it isn't. Edit to add that I was referring to radicalized Islamists only. They are enemies of the state.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Let me ask you, or anyone else here, a question about this.  Why do you think this is?  We have plenty of smart people who study and advise on this - I doubt they do not understand this pitfall.

I think the notion of a "failed" policy only comes into play if you consider that our policy is designed to bring peace, democracy, and freedoms to the people of the Middle East.  We have pretty clearly failed in that regard.  I am beginning to question whether that is our real policy goal in the region.
We have failed in that regard because the middle east does not want "peace, democracy, and freedoms". 

 
We have failed in that regard because the middle east does not want "peace, democracy, and freedoms". 
I'm guessing you've never been to the Middle East.

The people doing this stuff, and those supportive of their actions, are a very small minority of Muslims and residents of Middle Eastern countries.

 
bueno said:
Slapdash said:
We've held onto the removal of Assad demands for far too long.  I agree it would be ideal if he would go, but these removals of dictatorships have not worked out well for us.
The problem is that Russia is seen as an Assad ally - the agreement will look like a betrayal to the forces we support there.
It will.  I'm sure there are rebels that oppose both Assad and ISIS.  I don't trust us to tell the difference based on the prior support of rebels that became ISIS...

We should still work towards a transition away from Assad, but unrealistic to expect Russia to loosen its political grip on the country...no matter what the outcome

 
The few Muslims who are radical Islamist terrorists in this country don't exactly announce themselves...this discussion of deporting them is kind of useless. Most times we don't even know who they are until they strike. 

 
We have failed in that regard because the middle east does not want "peace, democracy, and freedoms". 
This level of ignorance is mind boggling.  Travel a bit, it will fix this problem for you.

The average person, anywhere in this world, wants the same things we do.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

 
A few months back I proposed what I thought was a reasonable compromise on the issue of Syrian refugees, and last night I heard Hillary hint she might be for something like it: 

for the time being, delay letting in men and women between 16 and 40- put them through a longer, more extensive screening period (even more than the one we have now!) Let in children and middle aged people especially the ones with retail business experience- store owners, etc. 

 
This level of ignorance is mind boggling.  Travel a bit, it will fix this problem for you.

The average person, anywhere in this world, wants the same things we do.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
I think I'll trust the Pew Research poll before Matuski's personal travels. The majority of muslims in the Middle east and Africa support Sharia law. I doubt that is the same things we want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deportation is silly however so is Hillary saying last week she wants to allow 65k Syrians into the US after vetting them.  There is no way to do this safely.  If Trump were smart he'd just play that clip of her saying that over and over.  

I I believe profiling people along with better NSA is a reasonable approach.  

 
I think I'll trust the Pew Research poll before Matuski's personal travels. The majority of muslims in the Middle east and Africa support Sharia law. I doubt that is the same things we want.
A shame.. you should try talking to some muslims from the Middle East or Africa.  They aren't so scary.

Give it a try before you make these stupid mistakes.

eta - that isn't to say of course that they don't have different religious beliefs.  You yourself would share those beliefs had you been raised there.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A shame.. you should try talking to some muslims from the Middle East or Africa.  They aren't so scary.

Give it a try before you make these stupid mistakes.

eta - that isn't to say of course that they don't have different religious beliefs.  You yourself would share those beliefs had you been raised there.  
The majority in the middle east support sharia as the law of the land.  I don't share those arcane beliefs & I'm not a scaredy cat of Muslims.  Sharia law is not even close to the principles that established this country. 

 
I think I'll trust the Pew Research poll before Matuski's personal travels. The majority of muslims in the Middle east and Africa support Sharia law. I doubt that is the same things we want.
Speaking of public opinion polls, this 2014 poll of Share of people with a positive attitude toward ISIS looks downright frightening for France...

Up to 15 percent of French people said they have a positive attitude toward the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The share of ISIS supporters is largest among France’s younger generation, a new poll says.

Twice as many French people expressed a positive reaction to Islamic State (IS) militants than in Britain, where the number of people favorably disposed to the IS stands at 7 percent, and Germany, where a meager 2 percent of the respondents sided with the IS, according to a poll carried out in July among 1,000 people aged over 15 years (over 18 in Britain) in each country.  The poll was conducted by ICM Research for the Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya.

Broken down by age (Bar Graph), the poll looks even more frightening for France.

How's that assimilation working out?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the guy isn't a radical Muslim? Just a depressed loser?
That's the liberal media's twist, but sure, you keep believing that.

The fact that Muslims commit the vast majority of mass murders in the world today is surely a coincidence, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So they turn to fascism, xenophobia, and bigotry. Awesome. 
It must hurt you that the French Prime Minister's own words are driving the French people toward the National Front.  C'est la vie!

‘Thanks, M. Valls’: Social media furious over PM’s ‘France will have to live with terrorism’ comment

Social media reacted with anger to French Prime Minister Manuel Valls’ assertion that France “will have to live with terrorism.” Users shamed the PM, saying that more people apparently need to be killed in terror attacks to wake up the French government.

Valls made the statement following the attack in Nice that killed at least 84 people and injured dozens.

“Times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism, and we must face this together and show our collective sang-froid,” he said. “France is a great country and a great democracy and we will not allow ourselves to be destabilized.”

However, Valls’ assumption that “France-is-going-to-have-to-live-with-terrorism” hasn’t amused French social media, and possibly bolstered France’s reputation as a country that surrenders at the drop of a hat. Users are apparently livid, taking the PM’s remarks to mean that the French government doesn’t plan to take on the extremists, but simply call on its citizens to learn to live with the threat.

The government is “unable to protect French people,” @DamienLcc wrote on Twitter, while @lazgougeon added that the nation doesn’t have “to get used to the incompetence of our leaders!”

 
Relax. I was just asking, been busy all day and just reading some headlines.

This is from liberal rag FOX news: French terrorist not overtly religious
Not surprising.  Fox is the only major news outlet that will present spin from both the left and the right.  They do lean to the heavily to the right, but usually, the other side will be presented.

Honestly, when I first noticed your Costas pic a few weeks or so ago, I though it was as a joke; because the guy is an idiot.

Please tell me I was right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, when I first noticed your Costas pic a few weeks or so ago, I though it was as a joke; because the guy is an idiot.

Please tell me I was right.
Thanks for noticing my avatar, weirdo. 

We are just moving past the liberal media question I suppose? 

 
Ahh...the old...Fox will spin it left too?
They will usually have a libtarded panel member, or guest, to present the left's spin on the news.

Rarely, does the right get any representation on MSDNC, ABC, or the other large news outlets.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Added to my last post.

We are moving past the idiot Costas question I suppose?
You keep adding to your posts. Again, was asking a simple question. I have since read more about it and sounds like not much is known about this guy right now. Not sure why you are taking it this direction, you seem to be disappointed or something. 

Since you are so inquisitive about my avatar, it was from when Costas had pink eye during the Olympics and they kept putting him in front of the camera grossing out the audience. My wife had pinkeye at the same time so it was funny at the time to me.

Your FOX commentary is pretty funny as well.

 
Meh.

Fox leans heavily to the right, but will present both sides.

The others are complete liberal spin.

If the truth is funny, so be it.

 
Meh.

Fox leans heavily to the right, but will present both sides.

The others are complete liberal spin.

If the truth is funny, so be it.
CBS's "Face The Nation", NBC's "Meet The Press" always have conservatives on. Can't think of ABC's news shows.

MSNBC rolls out some right winger occasionally, as does FOX with a lefty. Generally, both those networks pick an oddball from the opposing side IMO. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top