The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

You convey the message much more eloquently and concisely than myself. That quote about Pepsi and death is spot on.

402

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What we are doing isn’t working. [/quote]

Yeah and you and I are the only ones coming up with other ideas even if they are a bit extreme and have no chance of being carried out.

Your Mecca idea at least follows a proven template though. In WWII I believe we detonated at least one nuclear devise off shore of Japan first. Then we hit a city, then another and Japan finally conceded. We now have a great relationship with Japan and have had this great relationship with them for at least my lifetime of 50 years.

As Magic Johnson used to say, “go to the well until the well runs dry”.

403

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

Glad to see the tide turning a little bit with you & Push. Welcome to the dark side.

404

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What we are doing isn’t working. [/quote]

Yeah and you and I are the only ones coming up with other ideas even if they are a bit extreme and have no chance of being carried out.

Your Mecca idea at least follows a proven template though. In WWII I believe we detonated at least one nuclear devise off shore of Japan first. Then we hit a city, then another and Japan finally conceded. We now have a great relationship with Japan and have had this great relationship with them for at least my lifetime of 50 years.

As Magic Johnson used to say, “go to the well until the well runs dry”.[/quote]

Or as Toby Keith used to say, “we’ll put a boot in your ass its the American way”. Or is that a thing of the past now?

405

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

406

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I disagree with much of what you wrote, but you have this part exactly backwards. It’s not the West that can’t tolerate Islam, unless by Islam you mean the wholesale slaughter of innocents simply for practicing a different form of their own religion (see: Boko Haram).

It is Islam as practiced by various theocratic nation-states that can not tolerate the West.
[/quote]

By Islam I mean them wanting to be allowed to stone women to death for whatever reason. Obviously most Western states don’t really like that.

And many of the Muslim terrorists attack the West because the West does things that they consider abhorrent and they believe the West is pushing that onto them.

And yet, Russia and China routinely commit human right violations and the West just leaves them alone. They have to tolerate it even though it goes against their stated beliefs because reality demands it.

You took the most negative interpretation possible of my statement. Not sure why you did that.[/quote]

Because by being purposefully vague, you’re attempting to set up a false equivalence between “things we do” and “things they do”.

In fact, you attempted it again in this very post. “And many of the Muslim terrorists attack the West because the West does things that they consider abhorrent and they believe the West is pushing that onto them.”

This is true, we do do things they find abhorrent. Things like, not forcibly circumsizing our women and allowing a woman to walk down the street without being escorted by a male relative.

Our abhorrent =/= their abhorrent unless you are completely missing a moral compass.

If that’s what you’re saying, then say it. Say that we’re all allowed to decide right from wrong for ourselves and that if they believe murdering infidels is the way to the Promised Land, well, then who are we to say any differently.

407

Stupid west, letting women have rights and treating them like human beings.

Who do we think we are?

408

From David Brooks in the NYT:

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let?s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn?t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it?s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.

The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don?t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to ?épater la bourgeoisie,? to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people?s religious beliefs.

But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.

Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.

In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you?ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It?s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.

Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.

In most societies, there?s the adults? table and there?s the kids? table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults? table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids? table. They?re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

Healthy societies, in other words, don?t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.

409

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

[/quote]

Ah ok. Our wires got crossed. The nested stuff quoted from AC is about threatening (and being willing to go through with) nuclear strikes.

410

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

You convey the message much more eloquently and concisely than myself. That quote about Pepsi and death is spot on.[/quote]

You are too kind, sir.

The quote really is something. And not entirely false, too.

411

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

This isn’t a school yard bully we are discussing, but rather a transnational movement of religious terrorism. You cannot cogently compare interpersonal relations among rational actors to militant jihadism. Those that undertake Mumbai (and now Paris) style attacks do so fully knowing that they will die at the hands of authorities, a fate which they welcome.

412

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

[/quote]

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM. This is definitely valid. Perhaps you should read the post that I responded to before you come in shooting from the hip.

413

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

We have to gain the psychological upper hand. That means making them FEAR us more than they currently do. We need to take off the kid gloves.

[/quote]

This is the key.

We are dealing with cowards. Cowards respond to FEAR. Well.
[/quote]

Degenerate pieces of shit, yes. Cowards, no. Terrorists who do not fear death cannot be deterred.

The key is the disruption of terrorist attack cycles. Intelligence, especially human intelligence, is the best tool for doing just that.

414

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t think there is any point in trying to figure out why they are the way they are. Self preservation has little or nothing to do with it. Hatred is not rational and they operate on pure hatred not for lands, culture or way of life. They kill because they hate. Why they hate, they themselves may not even know.[/quote]

No. Read what Bismark wrote. At the very least, Al-Qaeda had a clear reason for why they went to war with the U.S.
[/quote]
This sounds dangerously close to justification to me.
I don’t have time to read all of bismark’s pseudo-academic aimlessly wandering babble about things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, hence I scroll down when I see the walls of mind-numbing recollections of the previous day’s school lecture that have zero to do with the terrorist attacks in France and the problem of large systemic, well organized and coordinated islamic fundamentalism fueling the violence and the west’s propensity to look away, cower to fear, and a stronger desire to be ‘fair’ than be right about the people doing it.
I know why al qaeda said they did it. I just think they are liars. If we pulled every western toe out of arabic lands and gave them everything they say they want, they would still kill us. Hell, it would embolden them to kill us even more.[/quote]

“This sounds dangerously close to justification to me.”

It’s UBL’s justification for terrorism against the United States and her allies, not my own. You made a reductionist assertion that religious terrorists are motivated by “hate”. I produced a primary source document (UBL’s 1998 fatwa), which constitutes al-Qa’ida’s casus belli for militant jihad against the West. You haven’t studied this fundamental text, yet you still feel that you have an insight into the psychology of strategic terrorism?

“. . .[Your post has] nothing to do with the topic at hand . . . zero to do with the terrorist attacks in France . . .”

Given that the Paris cell leader Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen in 2011 and received formal training from al-Qa’ida operatives, my argument has everything to do with the attacks in France. Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the attack.

“If we pulled every western toe out of arabic lands and gave them everything they say they want, they would still kill us. Hell, it would embolden them to kill us even more.”

I do not disagree. I merely wished to provide a glimpse into the psychology of religious terrorism, which is far more complex than you are giving it credit for.

415

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

[/quote]

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM. This is definitely valid. Perhaps you should read the post that I responded to before you come in shooting from the hip.[/quote]

I did not make the threat of a nuke, perhaps you should make certain the person who made those references. Perhaps it was your assumption that that was what I meant, and maybe I should have been more clear, but in no way would I ever suggest a nuke.

The mistakes that created this mess were open and blind tolerance to unregulated migration. This was also not homegrown terrorism, France does not produce this shit, nor does Europe in general. This ideology followed these people from their homeland, when it should have been halted at the French border.

Those who practice the violent forms of extreme Islam can GTFO.

416

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
No, there is a DISTINCT difference: muslims blow shit up without warning, killing as many people as possible. They choose trains, boats, buildings, markets, businesses. What I am proposing is entirely different. I want to USE THE THREAT of the destruction of the holiest part of their entire religion as a check and balance AGAINST further terrorist attacks.
[/quote]

Terrorism is the USE or THREAT of violence against non-combatants to achieve political objectives. There exists no distinct difference. Far more Muslims have died in terrorist attacks than non-Muslims. Pakistan alone has lost over 35,000 citizens to terrorism since the events of 11 September 2001. You cannot tenably treat the Islamic world as a homogeneous unit.

417

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

[/quote]

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM. This is definitely valid. Perhaps you should read the post that I responded to before you come in shooting from the hip.[/quote]

I did not make the threat of a nuke, perhaps you should make certain the person who made those references. Perhaps it was your assumption that that was what I meant, and maybe I should have been more clear, but in no way would I ever suggest a nuke.

The mistakes that created this mess were open and blind tolerance to unregulated migration. This was also not homegrown terrorism, France does not produce this shit, nor does Europe in general. This ideology followed these people from their homeland, when it should have been halted at the French border.

Those who practice the violent forms of extreme Islam can GTFO.[/quote]

Unregulated migration is to blame? That is demonstratively false. As I have stated ad nauseum in this thread, the Paris cell was French. They were born in Paris. They grew up in Paris. They were radicalized by as-Sahab (Arabic: the Cloud), which is al-Qa’ida’s propaganda division. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was as-Sahab’s chief within al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula.

418

[quote]Bismark wrote:
reductionist
[/quote]

Felicitous word choice. That’s exactly what’s going on here.

419

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]

At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]

It’s called LEVERAGE. I didn’t say bomb it out of the blue. I said THREATEN to bomb it. Put in on the table. Draw a “red line” (and have the balls to back it up).

If the “peace lovin” muslims think their holy site will get bombed if the terrorists bomb our civilians, they might start to think about, I don’t know, TURNING THEM IN.

This shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The imam at the mosque near my house was the crazy fucker that got droned. I’d be willing to bet that there are PLENTY of muslims in my neighborhood who KNEW that he was a radical and chose to keep their filthy treasonous mouths shut. If we gave them ALL a potential consequence, then perhaps a few of them might find a conscience. [/quote]

The irony is that the “leverage” you speak of is definitively identical with terrorism. [/quote]

Strongly disagree. A bully will not fuck with someone who is willing to fight back. And when I say bully, I am more accurately referring to the aggressor.

If people know you will unleash Tony Montana style hellfire if they fuck with you, they won’t fuck with you. Not saying you need to provoke or invite trouble, but make it clear we will seriously wreck your shit if you come here looking for trouble.
[/quote]

But Tony Montana did get fucked with. And that raid on his house at the end of the movie: in our analogy, that is thermonuclear apocalypse.

It is true what many of our enemies say: “Americans love Pepsi Cola; we love death.” Radical Muslims would be falling over each other to attack us if they thought that such an attack might occasion nuclear war, which would lead to world war, which would lead to death, which they are far happier to accept than we.

We are doing fine right now. Islamic terrorists have killed a few thousand of our citizens over the course of decades. Why in god’s name would we fuck this up by dropping a nuclear bomb and changing literally everything?[/quote]

Who said anything about dropping a nuke ?

You can begin with stopping the political correctness, having a more strict immigration policy along with a secure border. You make it clear that the bullshit policies these immigrants are fleeing from, will be left in their native country and not follow them into their new country. If they don’t like it, they don’t need to migrate out of their home country.

[/quote]

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM. This is definitely valid. Perhaps you should read the post that I responded to before you come in shooting from the hip.[/quote]

I did not make the threat of a nuke, perhaps you should make certain the person who made those references. Perhaps it was your assumption that that was what I meant, and maybe I should have been more clear, but in no way would I ever suggest a nuke.

The mistakes that created this mess were open and blind tolerance to unregulated migration. This was also not homegrown terrorism, France does not produce this shit, nor does Europe in general. This ideology followed these people from their homeland, when it should have been halted at the French border.

Those who practice the violent forms of extreme Islam can GTFO.[/quote]

Unregulated migration is to blame? That is demonstratively false. As I have stated ad nauseum in this thread, the Paris cell was French. They were born in Paris. They grew up in Paris. They were radicalized by as-Sahab (Arabic: the Cloud), which is al-Qa’ida’s propaganda division. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was as-Sahab’s chief within al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula. [/quote]

I want to add something to this, even in still in shock after what happened here.

Most of the french djihadists who take action (incl those from today) are lost guys, with little or no social life, no jobs, no schools, and often a past of criminality. Most of them go to jail before the actions and they radicalize in jail, because french jails are fucked up and because terrorists recruit in jails.

It seems those guys are less interested by religion, faith and philosophy than by being part of something and having a shot at becoming heroes for somebody.

They have one shot at making the news. That’s what they want. They prefer to die making the news than live for nothing. And the best way is not criminality, drug dealing, bank robberies are out of fashion and does not grant nationwide eyes on…

420

How many generations has their family been in France? I’d be surprised if it was one.