An Intelligent, Reasoned Treatise On The Muslim Problem:

[FJO]

The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.

Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.

Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.

What he's saying is the attacks you've cited, along with every other recent terrorist attack experienced in the UK and other European nations and the U.S., have been the work of Muslims. He is not oblivious to the facts you've mentioned. What he is saying is, why compound the obvious problem by adding to it.

So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?

He clearly and specifically refers to the futility of making more "vetting" laws, which are utterly incapable of controlling the flood of hostile "refugees" -- and he's right. Considering the obvious fact that more than 85% of the incoming "refugees" are military-age males it is clear the UK is importing a foreign army. All that remains to do is arm and deploy them.

All Muslims are not terrorists. And all snakes and spiders are not venomous.

Yes, they have been the work of Muslims. Why?

Perhaps that in 2003 the US and UK invaded Iraq. Why did they invade Iraq? For oil, to destroy OPEC's power to be a successful cartel.

Perhaps that after the invasion the US completely fucked up the post war period in Iraq, getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, but hey, at least the oil's pumping,right? And and they then went and put a puppet govt in place.

Perhaps because in 2011 the US bombed Libya and got the leader deposed. Perhaps because the US did nothing to reconstruct the country.

Perhaps because in 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan and put in a puppet govt.

Perhaps because the US have been putting strict sanctions in place against Iran.

Perhaps because the US went into Somalia in the 1993 and decided it could dictate what happened in that country.

Perhaps because the US has bombed Pakistan and Yemen.

Oh, well, if we add up all this, then you can see why Islamic extremism has taken off in recent years.

To pretend that Muslims are bad and somehow the West is the good guy is laughable. The West has done FAR MORE than Muslim extremists have done. But hey, everyone has "cowboy and injun syndrome".

This syndrome is that the Injuns were the baddies. They were protecting their land, they were protecting their way of life from GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING.
The cowboys were the goodies. They were the people perpetrating the GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING, but also pretending to claim the higher moral ground.

The second problem is the guy is full of shit. He claims, as I said before, to not want to make policy for the sake of making policy which has NOT IMPACT ON THE PROBLEM, then goes and does just this.

And what you've said trying to back this guy up about this is just wrong. Why are you trying to stop people getting in the country to solve a problem that isn't a problem.

Personally I think immigration should be controlled, and I think immigration should be controlled in a manner that is advantageous to the country. There are Muslims who play an important part in the UK. I've lived in the UK and I lived with a Pakistani and he was doing a PhD in Computer Science and his brother was a Doctor in the UK. Why would you want to stop this guy? He's never going to blow anyone up, he was adding to society.

What you want to stop are the under educated people from ALL COUNTRIES. The UK doesn't need under educated people from Pakistan in the UK. It's that simple. It also doesn't need under educated people from Peru, from South Africa, from Indonesia, from the Moon or Mars.

Make policies which actually do something in life, rather than ones that make you feel good about yourself because you think it'll have an impact, simply because you're not thinking about things properly. (note this isn't you as in you, this is the impersonal you).

You justified terrorism and killing and blood lust and vengeance and capitalism and greed and social justice and liberal mindset in such eloquent way, now try justify your existence.

Maybe next time you can say something worth replying to, instead of just talking crap.

Obviously, you had nothing to refute what I said.

 

[FJO]

The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.

These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.

Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.

23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.

According to Annalisa Merelli:

Between 1970 and 1994, however, terrorist attacks in Europe were much more common. From Northern Ireland’s Irish Republican Army (IRA) to Spain’s Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) to Italy’s Anni di Piombo (Years of Lead), extremist political groups organized bombings in each of those countries.

In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe, an average of more than 350 per year, according to the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The peak was reached in 1979, when 1,019 attacks were perpetrated in Europe, but all through the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s attacks occurred with an average frequency of about 10 per week. Since 1997, the trend line has been even lower.​

I don't recall in the 1960s and 970s hearing about travel bans -- most especially not religiously themed ones -- and the other foolishness that's been proposed by Trump, and yet the incidence of airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1972 averaged one per week. 1973 marked the start of individual passenger screenings.

England withstood terror attacks from the IRA for decades. The Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims are today. Yet the solution was political not a "ban" on the Irish

It takes an especially stupid or myopic person to say that the Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Banning Muslims from entering the US or the UK isn't going to solve any problem. It's just not. So, trying to solve a problem with a solution that doesn't solve the problem is ridiculous.

[...]

Yes, it will! Because we presently have too many Muslims here, most of whom are military age males, in addition to which we have ample cause to fear their intentions. To deny this is patronizing, ultra-Liberal nonsense -- and it's dangerous.

Our current immigration policy is ridiculous. When my grandparents migrated here from Germany and Holland they were held at Ellis Island until they could be properly identified and evaluated. My grandmother was quarantined for nine days because she had the flu and my grandfather had to convince the examiners that he had earning potential.

Today they just walk in, go on welfare, and nobody knows a damn thing about them. Anyone with any sense will agree there is something seriously, and suspiciously, wrong with this policy. What we are seeing is not migration -- it is a passive, first-stage invasion and it must be stopped!

 

[MikeK]

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

If one of the 23 was your child you would be thinking differently. There is no good reason to argue in favor of continued Muslim migration into this Country.

We already have too many of them. What we need are more Europeans and Scandinavians.

 

[Scamp]

One of the main goals of the Terrorists is the Islamization of the West. Suckering the West into welcoming so many refugees helps the Terrorists to achieve this goal.

They must be laughing at the ignorance of Europe and the US.

 

[Borillar]

The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.

These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.

Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.

23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.

According to Annalisa Merelli:

Between 1970 and 1994, however, terrorist attacks in Europe were much more common. From Northern Ireland’s Irish Republican Army (IRA) to Spain’s Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) to Italy’s Anni di Piombo (Years of Lead), extremist political groups organized bombings in each of those countries.

In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe, an average of more than 350 per year, according to the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The peak was reached in 1979, when 1,019 attacks were perpetrated in Europe, but all through the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s attacks occurred with an average frequency of about 10 per week. Since 1997, the trend line has been even lower.​

I don't recall in the 1960s and 970s hearing about travel bans -- most especially not religiously themed ones -- and the other foolishness that's been proposed by Trump, and yet the incidence of airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1972 averaged one per week. 1973 marked the start of individual passenger screenings.

I'm sure the NRA trots that argument out after every mass shooting in the USA.

 

[MikeK]

[...]


What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.

[...]

And what you fail to realize is the current "pinprick," along with many other "pinpricks" occurring all over the Western world, outstandingly including destruction of the World Trade Center which took the lives of 3,000 Americans, are harbingers of what history will call the Tenth Crusade. By permitting hundreds of thousands of military-age Muslim males to position themselves within our borders when we have ample cause to believe a substantial percentage of them harbor a murderous disposition toward infidels, which is what we are, is simply foolhardy.

Again, the conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim is not new. While it has been dormant for a few centuries, as George Santayana has wisely observed, They who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[MikeK]

Is it religion? Is all terrorism Islamic? Was Roof Islamic? No, it's not.

But there is a problem in the West with Islamic terrorism. The reason why is pretty simple, the US and the West have been fucking over Muslim countries for so long, and they're fighting back. Not all of them, not even most of them, but some of them.

As for your "you would if you are a liberal" is also complete bullshit, sticking all Liberals into the same box, the same as putting all Muslims into the same box. It's ridiculous.

What are your thoughts on what this fellow has to say?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Take a few minutes to listen to what this fellow has to say.



And hear a calmly reasoned commentary on Trump's actions here.

The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.

Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.

Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.

So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?

So, it seems that country of origin or place of birth are not the issue, religion is.

Would you ban ten thousand immigrants from whatever religion, if you knew that one of the ten thousand WILL kill your neighbor, your friend, your child or you?

You would NOT, if you are a liberal.

Would you care about the feelings of the 9,999 who would never have any intention to hurt anyone?

You would, if you are a liberal.

Is it religion? Is all terrorism Islamic? Was Roof Islamic? No, it's not.

But there is a problem in the West with Islamic terrorism. The reason why is pretty simple, the US and the West have been fucking over Muslim countries for so long, and they're fighting back. Not all of them, not even most of them, but some of them.

As for your "you uld if you are a liberal" is also complete bullshit, sticking all Liberals into the same box, the same as putting all Muslims into the same box. It's ridiculous.

When it comes to religion and terrorism only extreme religion leas go terrorism.

Name group or an individual Catholic or a Mormon or a Presbyterian or a Lutheran or a Buddhist or a Baptist or a Methodist or an Evangelist that goes and blows up himself in order to kill innocent people.

ONLY Muslims do that, And the only Muslim that s not an extremist Muslim is only waiting for the word from the local imam.

Do what FDR did, isolate and lock them up. Deal with the consequences in 40 years.

Well the question is why? Why is it the Muslims who are committing most of the acts? Well, it's because the US is mostly a Christian nation with Europe being mostly Christian too, and they're the ones with the large armies doing all the bullying. Jihad among Muslims was reborn in Afghanistan to fight the superior power of the British Army, and they won. It's their only chance to win. If the West didn't go in, then there would be no need for Jihad. As it is... the West is causing all the problems and promoting the need for terrorism.

This isn't about Islam, any religious group could end up doing it. However it just so happens that many Muslim countries took a downturn in fortunes for the last three to five hundred years, ended up being backwards, then ended up having a lot of something the richer countries wanted, OIL, it's spelt disaster.

Some people blame this somehow on Islam being incompatible with the West, which is ridiculous, as there are Muslims living perfectly fine in the West, there are Muslims in countries like Malaysia who get on just fine with their neighbors (within the realms that any religious groups "gets along" with any other).

Do what FDR did, go against the principles that make the country, become what you claim to be fighting against. Yeah, great idea.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem with what he has to say it that he's sort of trying to pose both sides of the argument, and then IGNORING what he just said.

Oh, we need to stop all Muslim immigration because it might stop one or two people getting in.

Right, 7/7 bombings were carried out by three people born in the UK and one in Jamaica, none of these would have been stopped coming in. The attack in Manchester was carried out by someone born in the UK. The attack in London last month was carried out by someone born in the UK. The Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out mostly by people local to the area.

What he's saying is the attacks you've cited, along with every other recent terrorist attack experienced in the UK and other European nations and the U.S., have been the work of Muslims. He is not oblivious to the facts you've mentioned. What he is saying is, why compound the obvious problem by adding to it.

So, he says not to make laws for the sake of making laws, then his solution is to make laws for the sake of making laws. What?

He clearly and specifically refers to the futility of making more "vetting" laws, which are utterly incapable of controlling the flood of hostile "refugees" -- and he's right. Considering the obvious fact that more than 85% of the incoming "refugees" are military-age males it is clear the UK is importing a foreign army. All that remains to do is arm and deploy them.

All Muslims are not terrorists. And all snakes and spiders are not venomous.

Yes, they have been the work of Muslims. Why?

Perhaps that in 2003 the US and UK invaded Iraq. Why did they invade Iraq? For oil, to destroy OPEC's power to be a successful cartel.

Perhaps that after the invasion the US completely fucked up the post war period in Iraq, getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, but hey, at least the oil's pumping,right? And and they then went and put a puppet govt in place.

Perhaps because in 2011 the US bombed Libya and got the leader deposed. Perhaps because the US did nothing to reconstruct the country.

Perhaps because in 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan and put in a puppet govt.

Perhaps because the US have been putting strict sanctions in place against Iran.

Perhaps because the US went into Somalia in the 1993 and decided it could dictate what happened in that country.

Perhaps because the US has bombed Pakistan and Yemen.

Oh, well, if we add up all this, then you can see why Islamic extremism has taken off in recent years.

To pretend that Muslims are bad and somehow the West is the good guy is laughable. The West has done FAR MORE than Muslim extremists have done. But hey, everyone has "cowboy and injun syndrome".

This syndrome is that the Injuns were the baddies. They were protecting their land, they were protecting their way of life from GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING.
The cowboys were the goodies. They were the people perpetrating the GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING, but also pretending to claim the higher moral ground.

The second problem is the guy is full of shit. He claims, as I said before, to not want to make policy for the sake of making policy which has NOT IMPACT ON THE PROBLEM, then goes and does just this.

And what you've said trying to back this guy up about this is just wrong. Why are you trying to stop people getting in the country to solve a problem that isn't a problem.

Personally I think immigration should be controlled, and I think immigration should be controlled in a manner that is advantageous to the country. There are Muslims who play an important part in the UK. I've lived in the UK and I lived with a Pakistani and he was doing a PhD in Computer Science and his brother was a Doctor in the UK. Why would you want to stop this guy? He's never going to blow anyone up, he was adding to society.

What you want to stop are the under educated people from ALL COUNTRIES. The UK doesn't need under educated people from Pakistan in the UK. It's that simple. It also doesn't need under educated people from Peru, from South Africa, from Indonesia, from the Moon or Mars.

Make policies which actually do something in life, rather than ones that make you feel good about yourself because you think it'll have an impact, simply because you're not thinking about things properly. (note this isn't you as in you, this is the impersonal you).

You justified terrorism and killing and blood lust and vengeance and capitalism and greed and social justice and liberal mindset in such eloquent way, now try justify your existence.

Maybe next time you can say something worth replying to, instead of just talking crap.

Obviously, you had nothing to refute what I said.

No, nothing at all. I mean, if you come and write nothing, how can I refute that? The only thing you said was "try and justify your existence", which isn't something you're going to refute, is it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

[...]

Banning Muslims from entering the US or the UK isn't going to solve any problem. It's just not. So, trying to solve a problem with a solution that doesn't solve the problem is ridiculous.

[...]

Yes, it will! Because we presently have too many Muslims here, most of whom are military age males, in addition to which we have ample cause to fear their intentions. To deny this is patronizing, ultra-Liberal nonsense -- and it's dangerous.

Our current immigration policy is ridiculous. When my grandparents migrated here from Germany and Holland they were held at Ellis Island until they could be properly identified and evaluated. My grandmother was quarantined for nine days because she had the flu and my grandfather had to convince the examiners that he had earning potential.

Today they just walk in, go on welfare, and nobody knows a damn thing about them. Anyone with any sense will agree there is something seriously, and suspiciously, wrong with this policy. What we are seeing is not migration -- it is a passive, first-stage invasion and it must be stopped!

But the ones who are immigrants aren't the ones blowing themselves up. It's the ones who were born to immigrants. And they're angry because of the foreign policy of the US.

I didn't say the US immigration policy wasn't ridiculous, but making it more ridiculous doesn't male things better. Also, plenty of people made it into the US who weren't properly identified and evaluated. What identification and evaluation meant in those days wasn't that much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it religion? Is all terrorism Islamic? Was Roof Islamic? No, it's not.

But there is a problem in the West with Islamic terrorism. The reason why is pretty simple, the US and the West have been fucking over Muslim countries for so long, and they're fighting back. Not all of them, not even most of them, but some of them.

As for your "you would if you are a liberal" is also complete bullshit, sticking all Liberals into the same box, the same as putting all Muslims into the same box. It's ridiculous.

What are your thoughts on what this fellow has to say?

Tommy Robinson isn't Tommy Robinson. The scumbag that is Tommy Robinson has his name being used by a guy call Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Now, the guy is, first and foremost, a football hooligan. He was locked up for getting into a mass fight, organized, between Luton Town FC ultras and Newport County FC ultras.

He set up the EDL as a reason to go onto the streets, get drunk, get into fights and get away with it. He's a hate filled idiot who wouldn't know sensible arguments if they ripped his ass out and forced them down his throat.

That's what I think this "fellow" has to say, bullshit, nonsense, crap, bollocks, the guy is nothing but a waste of space.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the main goals of the Terrorists is the Islamization of the West. Suckering the West into welcoming so many refugees helps the Terrorists to achieve this goal.

They must be laughing at the ignorance of Europe and the US.

And what is the purpose of the West's involvement in the Middle East?

 

[MikeK]

Tommy Robinson isn't Tommy Robinson. The scumbag that is Tommy Robinson has his name being used by a guy call Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Now, the guy is, first and foremost, a football hooligan. He was locked up for getting into a mass fight, organized, between Luton Town FC ultras and Newport County FC ultras.

He set up the EDL as a reason to go onto the streets, get drunk, get into fights and get away with it. He's a hate filled idiot who wouldn't know sensible arguments if they ripped his ass out and forced them down his throat.

That's what I think this "fellow" has to say, bullshit, nonsense, crap, bollocks, the guy is nothing but a waste of space.

My reference to Tommy Robinson (or whatever his name is) refers to what he has to say in that particular video clip. It is not a character reference. Presuming everything you've said about his character is true, he has addressed what I regard as an extremely serious problem, which is the surreptitious entry into the U.S. and various European nations of military age Muslims posing as minor children. That's all.

I don't care if Tommy Robinson is or was a pimp, a mailbox burglar or a cockfight promoter. What I care about is what he's brought to light. As previously mentioned, I am profoundly concerned about the potential for widespread terrorist activity by Muslims right here in the U.S. -- and the more military-age Muslim males there are here the greater the potential for that.

It would be very nice if such hard-line reasoning were not necessary and if, as Rodney King has graciously recommended, we all could just get along. But unfortunately the die is cast. What I see coming in the future is not good and I am eager to have as many of my fellow Americans as aware as possible of what we are facing.

You've seen the inclination of many of these young Muslim men in Germany, in France, in Sweden, in the UK, and elsewhere. And those nations are not the primary focus of jihadist vengeance. We are. And if you are a loyal American, regardless of your moral posture and your sense of right and wrong, the we includes you -- whether or not you despise the Bush crimes as much as I do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tommy Robinson isn't Tommy Robinson. The scumbag that is Tommy Robinson has his name being used by a guy call Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Now, the guy is, first and foremost, a football hooligan. He was locked up for getting into a mass fight, organized, between Luton Town FC ultras and Newport County FC ultras.

He set up the EDL as a reason to go onto the streets, get drunk, get into fights and get away with it. He's a hate filled idiot who wouldn't know sensible arguments if they ripped his ass out and forced them down his throat.

That's what I think this "fellow" has to say, bullshit, nonsense, crap, bollocks, the guy is nothing but a waste of space.

My reference to Tommy Robinson (or whatever his name is) refers to what he has to say in that particular video clip. It is not a character reference. Presuming everything you've said about his character is true, he has addressed what I regard as an extremely serious problem, which is the surreptitious entry into the U.S. and various European nations of military age Muslims posing as minor children. That's all.

I don't care if Tommy Robinson is or was a pimp, a mailbox burglar or a cockfight promoter. What I care about is what he's brought to light. As previously mentioned, I am profoundly concerned about the potential for widespread terrorist activity by Muslims right here in the U.S. -- and the more military-age Muslim males there are here the greater the potential for that.

It would be very nice if such hard-line reasoning were not necessary and if, as Rodney King has graciously recommended, we all could just get along. But unfortunately the die is cast. What I see coming in the future is not good and I am eager to have as many of my fellow Americans as aware as possible of what we are facing.

You've seen the inclination of many of these young Muslim men in Germany, in France, in Sweden, in the UK, and elsewhere. And those nations are not the primary focus of jihadist vengeance. We are. And if you are a loyal American, regardless of your moral posture and your sense of right and wrong, the we includes you -- whether or not you despise the Bush crimes as much as I do.

I understand. But you have to understand what Lennon is. He's a bastard. So anything he says is going to be based on the fact that he's a bastard. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that I will see something different when I understand the intent of the person speaking.

Yes, I've seen that many of these young Muslims are mightily annoyed that their countries are doing things which shouldn't happen, and they're willing to fight against this injustice.

I've also seen many "Second Amendment people" say they'd take up arms and fight if anyone tried to take their guns away. The difference is that the US govt is far less willing to fuck with its own people than fuck with the people in oil rich countries.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.

These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.

Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.

23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.

According to Annalisa Merelli:

Between 1970 and 1994, however, terrorist attacks in Europe were much more common. From Northern Ireland’s Irish Republican Army (IRA) to Spain’s Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) to Italy’s Anni di Piombo (Years of Lead), extremist political groups organized bombings in each of those countries.

In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe, an average of more than 350 per year, according to the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The peak was reached in 1979, when 1,019 attacks were perpetrated in Europe, but all through the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s attacks occurred with an average frequency of about 10 per week. Since 1997, the trend line has been even lower.​

I don't recall in the 1960s and 970s hearing about travel bans -- most especially not religiously themed ones -- and the other foolishness that's been proposed by Trump, and yet the incidence of airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1972 averaged one per week. 1973 marked the start of individual passenger screenings.

England withstood terror attacks from the IRA for decades. The Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims are today. Yet the solution was political not a "ban" on the Irish

Actually, they had a deadlier record, but yes, the solution was not a ban on the Catholics/Protestants.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.

These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.

Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.

23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.

According to Annalisa Merelli:

Between 1970 and 1994, however, terrorist attacks in Europe were much more common. From Northern Ireland’s Irish Republican Army (IRA) to Spain’s Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) to Italy’s Anni di Piombo (Years of Lead), extremist political groups organized bombings in each of those countries.

In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe, an average of more than 350 per year, according to the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The peak was reached in 1979, when 1,019 attacks were perpetrated in Europe, but all through the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s attacks occurred with an average frequency of about 10 per week. Since 1997, the trend line has been even lower.​

I don't recall in the 1960s and 970s hearing about travel bans -- most especially not religiously themed ones -- and the other foolishness that's been proposed by Trump, and yet the incidence of airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1972 averaged one per week. 1973 marked the start of individual passenger screenings.

England withstood terror attacks from the IRA for decades. The Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims are today. Yet the solution was political not a "ban" on the Irish

It takes an especially stupid or myopic person to say that the Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims.

It takes being (1) too damn young (or forgetful) to remember throngs of American Irish Catholics sending money to support the IRA (in much the same way and with the same basic motives as Saudis and other Muslims sending aid to ISIS) and/or (2) just willfully benighted -- insofar as there is over a decade's worth of literature one could have read to have a well informed understanding of the IRA, thus precious little industry would be sufficient to obviate one's being so nescient on the matter -- to think that.

• List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain - Wikipedia
  
• List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process - Wikipedia
  
• Terror in the UK: Decades of deadly attacks - CNN.com
  
• Manchester faced terror attacks before
  
• Patterns of Global Terrorism
• The IRA
• LONDON ISN'T BURNING: HOW BRITAIN'S HISTORY WITH THE IRA MADE IT RESILIENT IN THE FACE OF ATTACK
  
• The Westminster attack was not new. London has faced far worse | Frank Foley
  
• Special Reports - America And The Conflict | The Ira & Sinn Fein | FRONTLINE | PBS
  
• BBC News | AMERICAS | Rich friends in New York
  
• Irish Republican Army Collaboration with Nazi Germany in the United States
  
• NORAID
• Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA
  
• From IRA to Islamic State: The UK's age of 'unprecedented terror'
  The incoming independent reviewer on terrorism, Max Hill, told the media that “Islamic extremists were targeting UK cities”. Hill, a former prosecutor who’d helped convict the failed 21/7 bombers, added that the threat was “at least as great as the IRA threat to London 40 years ago”.
• BRITAIN AT RISK: ISIS threat 'as SEVERE as IRA's bombing campaign', terror chief claims
  

While Muslim terrorists have claimed more lives and caused more casualties overall, the death and infirmity has largely been limited to Muslim countries. That was not the case with the IRA which overwhelmingly killed Britons in the UK.

 

[Mac1958]

All deflections aside, if we just honestly focus on the religion itself for a change, most reasonable people would agree that Islam is in desperate need of a modern Reformation. There are Muslims who are trying to create the momentum for this (such as Mr. Nawaz, below), but they are being impeded by those in the West who have a vested political/ideological interest in delaying that Reformation for at least a while.

The least liberal, most regressive religion on the planet needs to be held accountable for what it is, and until those who are tolerating and enabling its more destructive behaviors agree to do this, nothing of lasting, positive substance can be achieved.
.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

If one of the 23 was your child you would be thinking differently. There is no good reason to argue in favor of continued Muslim migration into this Country.

We already have too many of them. What we need are more Europeans and Scandinavians.

If one of the 23 was your child you would be thinking differently.

You dissemblingly inveterate philistine!

1. I gave credence to the fact that were one among the aggreived, one might not see the loss as a "pinprick."
   

   I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;"

   Naturally, of course, you omitted that remark in quoting me, thus discarding part of the contextual tenor in my response to the question that was posed.
2. I am among neither the suborned nor bereaved; thus I can consider the matter with due disinterest. People who can do that are whom are most needed when the pangs of loss jaundice the hearts and minds of those more closely associated with the matter and who thus have only a choleric eye to give.

 

[FJO]

The Manchester bomber was home grown 2nd generation British with Libyan roots.

These self radicalized criminals will continue to be a problem for the next 50 or so years.

Fortunately their attacks are only pinpricks and can and should be ignored.

23 dead, mostly children is not a "pinprick" and can't be ignored.

What makes 23 out of 2.55 million be anything other than a "pinprick?"

I realize that to the families who lost loved ones, it's not a "pinprick;" however, in the context of managing a nation or city, what you fail to realize is that people and public policies are considered in terms of measurable risks and impacts.

According to Annalisa Merelli:

Between 1970 and 1994, however, terrorist attacks in Europe were much more common. From Northern Ireland’s Irish Republican Army (IRA) to Spain’s Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) to Italy’s Anni di Piombo (Years of Lead), extremist political groups organized bombings in each of those countries.

In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe, an average of more than 350 per year, according to the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The peak was reached in 1979, when 1,019 attacks were perpetrated in Europe, but all through the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s attacks occurred with an average frequency of about 10 per week. Since 1997, the trend line has been even lower.​

I don't recall in the 1960s and 970s hearing about travel bans -- most especially not religiously themed ones -- and the other foolishness that's been proposed by Trump, and yet the incidence of airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1972 averaged one per week. 1973 marked the start of individual passenger screenings.

England withstood terror attacks from the IRA for decades. The Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims are today. Yet the solution was political not a "ban" on the Irish

It takes an especially stupid or myopic person to say that the Irish were as big a threat as the Muslims.

It takes being (1) too damn young (or forgetful) to remember throngs of American Irish Catholics sending money to support the IRA (in much the same way and with the same basic motives as Saudis and other Muslims sending aid to ISIS) and/or (2) just willfully benighted -- insofar as there is over a decade's worth of literature one could have read to have a well informed understanding of the IRA, thus precious little industry would be sufficient to obviate one's being so nescient on the matter -- to think that.

• List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain - Wikipedia
  
• List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process - Wikipedia
  
• Terror in the UK: Decades of deadly attacks - CNN.com
  
• Manchester faced terror attacks before
  
• Patterns of Global Terrorism
• The IRA
• LONDON ISN'T BURNING: HOW BRITAIN'S HISTORY WITH THE IRA MADE IT RESILIENT IN THE FACE OF ATTACK
  
• The Westminster attack was not new. London has faced far worse | Frank Foley
  
• Special Reports - America And The Conflict | The Ira & Sinn Fein | FRONTLINE | PBS
  
• BBC News | AMERICAS | Rich friends in New York
  
• Irish Republican Army Collaboration with Nazi Germany in the United States
  
• NORAID
• Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA
  
• From IRA to Islamic State: The UK's age of 'unprecedented terror'
  The incoming independent reviewer on terrorism, Max Hill, told the media that “Islamic extremists were targeting UK cities”. Hill, a former prosecutor who’d helped convict the failed 21/7 bombers, added that the threat was “at least as great as the IRA threat to London 40 years ago”.
• BRITAIN AT RISK: ISIS threat 'as SEVERE as IRA's bombing campaign', terror chief claims

While Muslim terrorists have claimed more lives and caused more casualties overall, the death and infirmity has largely been limited to Muslim countries. That was not the case with the IRA which overwhelmingly killed Britons in the UK.

Well researched and well presented argument.

One thing, though: The Irish are not and never were MUSLIM.

When ISIS is as dead as the IRA, come research and report again.

Mean time study the difference between apples and oranges.