Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[TemplarKormac]

I think we also need to consider how our actions might end up aiding ISIS, rather than protecting us.

As we can see in the UK, in Germany, in France and Belgium, the current approach has failed. Miserably. People are dying because of our overly zealous attitude towards tolerance and acceptance.

What do you suggest we do to protect ourselves? I am quickly losing faith in the diplomatic approach. Convince me that I shouldn't just abandon it right now. These terrorists don't respond to diplomacy, they wish to kill us all. They wish to take over the world and subjugate it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They are citizens, but if naturalized their citizenship can be revoked, through judicial action.

The First was written for US citizens, not for the world.

One of their most ardent and steadfast supporters here even has the audacity to talk about compassion in her siggy line.

and the terrorist supporter has now confirmed her identity.

"Terrorist supporter", eh? That label covers everyone who doesn't agree with you on trashing the 1st Amendment, doesn't it?

What about the US citizens who are Muslim?

But they would have to commit a crime, like a terrorist act, to have it revoked. Surely you wouldn't revoke it arbitrarily...would you?

 

[Roudy]

It is very revealing that none of the anti-Muslim bigots started a topic about the terrorist bombing in Kabul which killed many, many more people.

But the people killed were Muslims, and darnit, that just does not fit the narrative!

One person did start a topic about the protests which took place after the bombing, and again, no one commented on it. And the topic got shoved into the Afghanistan section of this forum. Because it just doesn't fit the narrative.

90 percent of the victims of terrorism are Muslims, you ignorant fucks.

You miss the point dufus, their faith commands that they oppress and kill the non believer. Let them do it there rather than here. They are living in medieval mindset. Do you enjoy living under semi martial law, as France is doing now and probably Britain will as well?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

So, THAT'S why you don't care how many innocent people have to die as long as it isn't you.

That makes you sound so very brave.

Ah. The usual Appeal to Emotion fallacy so popular with rubes and demagogues.


DOOOOMMMM!!

Hey! You are four times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And many thousands more likely to be killed by a friend or relative. Better cancel your Thanksgiving plans!

Using your own TardLogic, you should never leave the house, pants shitter!

You bigots need to man up and walk upright.

Support Islamic terrorism or be called a bigot.

My goodness, you are stupid.

No one here is supporting islamic terrorism. But there are some here supporting flushing our Bill of Rights down the toilet because they are terrified.

Those who have allowed the enemy in the gates and who continue to advocate on their behalf will suffer the fate reserved for all traitors.

And what would you actively do? Be specific.

Je Suis Breivik!

Death to Muslim murder monkeys.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What the Pope said: "Dear friends, let us ask the Lord, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, for the grace to never fall into the temptation of thinking we can make it without others, that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves alone, of being Christians of the laboratory. On the contrary, you cannot love God without loving your brothers, you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church.”

Pope said Catholics are different. Says they are the only Christians.

No, he did not say that. He said that all Christians need 'the church', i.e. other people of the faith. When we are saved, God adds us to His church, Act 2:47, and whether we think we have joined a church or not is not how He sees it. We are in the Body of Christ if we are saved from the moment we are saved.

And since they worship Mary and not Christ, that makes them a cult.

Roman Catholics do not 'worship' Mary like we worship God. We adore and venerate Mary and only 'worship' her as a man would 'worship' his wife as was once expressed in traditional wedding vows.

Marriage vows - Wikipedia

Pope Francis Decrees That Christian Salvation Is Only Through The Roman Catholic Church

That is an anti-Catholic religious source that is not objective or accurate in its statements about the church.

Why do you hate Catholics so much?

A. You validate my point that Catholiicis are a cult with Mary worship. And not one mention of Jesus
B. The thief on the cross went to Paradise with Jesus. His only act was to believe. Wow, just as Jesus said.

Pope said only Catholics are Christians - it's a cult.

Leave the Catholic cult and they say your not saved.

Bunch of cultist lunatics

The Pope said no such thing and for you to keep repeating that lie is slander.

Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Pope: Only One "True" Church - CBS News
Catholic Church is a lunatic cult.

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church believes that it best represents God's Will on Earth, much like almost every other church also believes about itself or they would not exist.

It is like that old rebutal to the charge of intellectual pridefulness; 'Tell me what you are wrong about.'

And when a rifle does not hit its target from a bench rest when sighted in, it is often said to not have true aim, so these other churches are less 'treu' than the RCC since they do not reflect the more accurate version of God's Will.

What is next? you going to lecture about how the seven hills of Rome are proof that the Pope is the AntiChrist?

Pope ranting about Mary while not even mentioning Jesus says it all.

The denial of the teachings of Jesus simply validates the Catholic Church is a cult.

 

[Roudy]

I look over at the TV........they have British Citizens marching down the street with hands on head? huh? something seems wrong with that picture.

Fruits of Islam.

 

[Dsc]

 

[Igrok_]

Why we do not hear about something like that in Japan or Korea? Because there no muslims there.

 

[DarkFury]

Getting back to topic England have better start vetting and killing terrorists before the people do!
Because the people will not take as long or be so through. It has not been that many years since dealing with the IRA.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

And I don't support islamic terrorism. I don't support any terrorism. I know you just say that because it's your fear talking...I forgive you.

If you didn't support Islamic terrorism, you would not be attacking those who oppose it with every dirty little rhetorical trick in the book.

Mass murder is not enshrined in the first amendment. You are simply too utterly stupid to understand that.

"attacking"? You call a dialogue on an anonymous message board an "attack"? Oh boy.....you really need to be made of sterner stuff. You're a cream puff.

Do you really think that nobody notices how you, Coyote and the rest of your repulsive ilk never spend so much as a nanosecond expressing any disapproval at all for the actions, yet have endless time devoted to posting reams of invective against those who do?

You are even less intelligent than I imagined.

 

[Roudy]

As usual the liberal trolls try to minimize terrorist attacks..........

typical.............and as expected.

Witness: Truck driver in Texas crash that killed 13 was texting

Thank goodness you didn't minimize this horrible event.

When you figure out an accident versus a planned attack......get back to me.

Both are tragedies....both have victims....and we have a heck of a lot more texters out there on our roads even tho it's against the law. Are you quivering in fear over them?

It didn't take this lunatic long to compare a cowardly act of barbaric terrorism, to accidents involving people texting.

This is why....Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why we do not hear about something like that in Japan or Korea? Because there no muslims there.

Some things are simply too obvious for these low life defenders of Islamism.

 

[DarkFury]

Why we do not hear about something like that in Japan or Korea? Because there no muslims there.

They have Muslims in Japan but they are very restricted.

 

[Roudy]

Death to all pedophile worshipping muslim murder monkeys.

Ok. When will you be taking action?

Got some more of that invisible red ink Hussein Obama used with Assad?

 

[Coyote]

I think it's more about real risk assessment rather than perceived risk - especially risks who's simplest solutions seem to involve conveniently scapegoating minorities for complex problems.

I didn't say anything about scapegoating minorities. In fact you've seen me defending them. There are people on this thread who want to take overly simplistic, blatantly unconstitutional measures against them. All I want is a rigorous vetting system, which I view is well within the bounds of our Constitution.

I agree - I was speaking broadly and partially in response to a lot of what is being said in this thread. And I agree about a rigorous vetting system, though I think we have a one in place that has been quite rigorous.

But what is the real risk that you will be involved in something this terrible? Chances are more likely you will be injured by a drunk driver or a random shooting then by a terrorist.

Sigh.

Coyote, nothing in life is a certainty, not even your safety. I can't take the "this will never happen to me" approach. Those people on that bridge didn't think they'd be mowed down by terrorists today. But they were.

Exactly! That's kind of the point I was making. It's not "this will never happen to me" - it's how likely is something to happen and how much should I worry about it? It means you take common sense security measures to protect our citizens, but it also means you look at how much of a threat it actually is when weighing the possible curtailment of people's rights and liberties.

I think we have to be careful. Look at all the rhetoric abounding. Look at people actively calling for totally innocent citizens to be rounded up, shot, expelled (never mind they've lived generations in the land of their citizenship) to foreign nations.

For the record, I am not one of those issuing such rhetoric. However, I think we're being TOO careful. We throw caution to the wind in order to be more accepting and tolerant of other people. That's what Europe is doing and it is suffering dearly for it.

[/quote]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwelmed by huge numbers of migrants, assylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

By all means, let's let more unvetted Muslims in.

Where are the libs?

"more unvetted"? Who's been let in unvetted already?

There is no vetting to get into this country, they'll let just about anybody in

False.

Yes, under Obama let in 1500 known terrorists under asylum, it would appear there is vetting and they prioritize terrorist entry.

"1500 known terrorists"...what are their names...or at least some of them....

Eat dicks treasonous scum.


U.S. Gives 1,519 Engaged in Terrorism “While Under Duress” Residency, Asylum
September 09, 2015

As if the President Obama’s sweeping amnesty measures haven’t compromised national security enough, the administration let 1,519 “inadmissible” foreigners embroiled in terrorism into the U.S. last year because the crimes were committed “while under duress.”

Before the Obama administration tweaked a federal law last year, these foreign nationals would have been banned from the country for supporting terrorist causes. But under the changes the Secretary of Homeland Security has “discretionary authority” to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility relating to terrorism. We’ve seen this discretionary authority abused in the last few years and in fact, the administration has eliminated a zero tolerance policy for granting asylum or residency to individuals who have provided any sort of terrorism-related support.

The government’s latest available figures for granting asylum or residency to individuals embroiled in terrorist causes are incredibly disturbing, especially since the agency charged with keeping the nation safe, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), appears to downplay the seriousness of the crimes. Judicial Watch obtained the numbers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) annual report to Congress on the DHS secretary’s application of discretionary authority.

The biggest chunk of exemptions was processed for refugee applicants and lawful permanent resident status, with 806 and 614 respectively. The rest were processed under other DHS programs such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), asylum and relief through a Justice Department initiative. The bottom line is that the U.S. government is allowing them all to stay in the country with rights and benefits afforded to legal residents despite their terrorist connections and associations.

More than half of the candidates rewarded by DHS last year provided material support to terrorist organizations, according to the DHS report. The others received military-type training from a terrorist organization, voluntarily provided medical care to members of a terrorist group and solicited funds or individuals for membership in a terrorist organization. After a case-by-case review, Obama’s DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, determined that the recently admitted terrorists only participated in these activities “while under duress.” So, welcome to America!


U.S. Gives 1,519 Engaged in Terrorism “While Under Duress” Residency, Asylum - Judicial Watch

Je Suis Breivik watch your back!

 

[Roudy]

This is the third terror attack in the UK since March.

Not bad huh?

The globalists, open borders, Islamic loving terrorists European leaders must be proud.

They have a habit of waiting to be saved by the US.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Freedom of religion is foundational...like free speech...start chipping away at it, and we're all in trouble.

So THAT'S why you have devoted so many tens of thousands of postings to serving those who see their mission as destroying every other religion but Islam -- it's because of your strong belief in freedom of religion.

What's next -- your claiming you support Islamic fgm due to you deep sense of feminism?

 

[DarkFury]

I think it's more about real risk assessment rather than perceived risk - especially risks who's simplest solutions seem to involve conveniently scapegoating minorities for complex problems.

I didn't say anything about scapegoating minorities. In fact you've seen me defending them. There are people on this thread who want to take overly simplistic, blatantly unconstitutional measures against them. All I want is a rigorous vetting system, which I view is well within the bounds of our Constitution.

I agree - I was speaking broadly and partially in response to a lot of what is being said in this thread. And I agree about a rigorous vetting system, though I think we have a one in place that has been quite rigorous.

But what is the real risk that you will be involved in something this terrible? Chances are more likely you will be injured by a drunk driver or a random shooting then by a terrorist.

Sigh.

Coyote, nothing in life is a certainty, not even your safety. I can't take the "this will never happen to me" approach. Those people on that bridge didn't think they'd be mowed down by terrorists today. But they were.

Exactly! That's kind of the point I was making. It's not "this will never happen to me" - it's how likely is something to happen and how much should I worry about it? It means you take common sense security measures to protect our citizens, but it also means you look at how much of a threat it actually is when weighing the possible curtailment of people's rights and liberties.

I think we have to be careful. Look at all the rhetoric abounding. Look at people actively calling for totally innocent citizens to be rounded up, shot, expelled (never mind they've lived generations in the land of their citizenship) to foreign nations.

For the record, I am not one of those issuing such rhetoric. However, I think we're being TOO careful. We throw caution to the wind in order to be more accepting and tolerant of other people. That's what Europe is doing and it is suffering dearly for it.

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwelmed by huge numbers of migrants, assylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.[/QUOTE]
Isolation is always the first thing immigrants do from the Irish in the 20s to the Vietnamese in the 70s. The difference was they did not bring the violence with them. Now the Cubans did but they were from Castro's prisons and mental hospitals.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwhelmed by huge numbers of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

You have precisely diagnosed the problem.

And yet I see some liberals on this board wanting to take the European approach to immigration. Just look at how that's turning out thus far. Instilling quotas would ensure that a country could vet asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants properly. Trump's travel ban, regardless of whether you think its a "Muslim ban" or not is what I see as an attempt to do just that. However, some believe that we are being bigoted and intolerant if we do.

I got some simple advice as a brash young teenager "don't bite off more than you can chew."