Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[LoneLaugher]

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."

You should have taken it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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."

They aren't "Liberals" they are Leftists. They are our enemies, just like the child killing ali-babbas are. Make no mistake, they need to GTFO pieces of shit the lot of them.

I pray Shit doesn't hiot the fan, but I have a list.. some people need to die. Make a list and check it twice.

Am I on your list sissy boy?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Actually - that's a myth, they aren't restricted at all.

Unless you are a Buddhist you are restricted.

You speak from a position of ignorance.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No I never said religion. I said all countries that back or harbor terrorists.

Well then, I'm glad you managed to tell the difference between the two.

I have no problem banning any country that has sent us terrorists.

Neither do I.

You lost your way already? And here I thought you were going to finally stand on principle.

 

[Esmeralda]

'Van hits pedestrians' on London Bridge

London Bridge chaos as 'several people mown down' by car sparking station evacuation

They should have put up barriers last time, between the sidewalk and the road. And put speed bumps on the road part so no one could get up any speed. Why didn't they?

 

[Esmeralda]

Van smashing into people, gunmen and knifemen come out of the van and attack pedestrians.

There were no guns.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Van smashing into people, gunmen and knifemen come out of the van and attack pedestrians.

There were no guns.

wow

that certainly makes it better

 

[Esmeralda]

Van smashing into people, gunmen and knifemen come out of the van and attack pedestrians.

There were no guns.

wow

that certainly makes it better

If there were guns, more people would have died, so yes, it is better.

 

[Issa]

And no one opeened a topic about the US bomb in Mosul that killed over 100 civilians.
These bigots, they have to always have something and some group to hate on.
Is the same people that killed the indians, the jews, slaved the blacks and now they think they can take on the Muslims.

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.

 

[Tilly]

Can we ban Pastafarians?
What about creating a religion of those who worship money? Their places of worship would be banks which would make them tax exempt.

Are you being serious?

Are you?
Any form of worshipping can be called religion.
Can we make laws against Quetzalcoatl worshipers who believe in sacrificing virgins to their God?
Just because they call it a religion doesn't make it fall under the definition of the word religion as it pertains to in the constitution.
I doubt any of our fathers considered Satanism a religion.

Oh, but now you get to determine what is or isn't a religion?

Such arrogance.

It isn't a religion if it causes people to turn into mass murdering suicidal zombies.

Then what were the Crusaders? Are we really going to play this game?

They were counter Crusades.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

President Trump sends tone-deaf travel ban tweet amid London Bridge terror
Source: Daily News

President Trump used the occasion of a terror attack in London to plug his proposed travel ban Saturday evening.

“We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!” Trump tweeted as chaos unfolded across multiple sites, with reports of fatalities on the London Bridge.

He seemed to recognize the insensitivity of the post and minutes later tweeted again.

“Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U.K., we will be there - WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!”

Read more: Trump sends tone-deaf travel ban tweet amid London Bridge terror



Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the level of narcissistic rage that this man has when he has to turn every event, every tragedy, every living moment into something about him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No I never said religion. I said all countries that back or harbor terrorists.

Well then, I'm glad you managed to tell the difference between the two.

I have no problem banning any country that has sent us terrorists.

Neither do I.

You lost your way already? And here I thought you were going to finally stand on principle.

Unlike you, my views aren't static and unchanging. It's almost as if you resent me for that.

Well too bad. Something has to be done about terrorism, if that takes banning people from terrorism prone countries, then so be it.

But, however, never will I seek to banish a religion from my country in what would be a blatant disregard of our Constitution.

Now go pick on someone else troll.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No I never said religion. I said all countries that back or harbor terrorists.

Well then, I'm glad you managed to tell the difference between the two.

I have no problem banning any country that has sent us terrorists.

Neither do I.

You lost your way already? And here I thought you were going to finally stand on principle.

Unlike you, my views aren't static and unchanging. It's almost as if you resent me for that.

Well too bad. Something has to be done about terrorism, if that takes banning people from terrorism prone countries, then so be it.

But, however, never will I seek to banish a religion from my country in what would be a blatant disregard of our Constitution.

Now go pick on someone else troll.

Awww. You got triggered? You wish to ban people from countries that have "sent us terrorists".

Name these countries, please. Don't forget any. That could be dangerous.

 

[eagle1462010]

Serious question here.

How would you go about banning Islam from America without violating the Constitution? Specifics if you please.

You can't, because it would be a clear violation of the Constitution. Which is why I voted No. Might surprise some here, but it is not the answer.

You don't have a lot of options against what is going on globally..........And this is a Global Problem.........Terror attacks are increasing in all areas of the World as the world tries to attack the tentacles of a Hydra.........A reactionary strategy versus a proactive strategy...........Nations will eventually be forced to start raiding, arresting, and/or deporting radical elements or those preaching it within their borders...........Which would include Mosques which will inflame even more trending to the Dark Side of Radical Islam. It will take us down the road of the slippery slope of Sedition Laws............which could backfire on us.............But the increasing number of attacks may very well FORCE US THERE.............

In regards to those Muslims who lived near the attackers............who knew they might be a problem............by not turning them in are they not aiding and abetting in a crime.................which might mean starting to charge those who refuse to turn in Radicals with a Crime................

This is all dangerous territory.........but eventually........as the attacks continue......we may very well have to go down this slippery slope.

We are approaching a regional War in the Middle East to end the Caliphate.............Which will only happen after enough have died to say "enough's enough.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Name these countries, please. Don't forget any. That could be dangerous.

Saudi Arabia sent some on 9 11 ....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well then, I'm glad you managed to tell the difference between the two.

I have no problem banning any country that has sent us terrorists.

Neither do I.

You lost your way already? And here I thought you were going to finally stand on principle.

Unlike you, my views aren't static and unchanging. It's almost as if you resent me for that.

Well too bad. Something has to be done about terrorism, if that takes banning people from terrorism prone countries, then so be it.

But, however, never will I seek to banish a religion from my country in what would be a blatant disregard of our Constitution.

Now go pick on someone else troll.

Awww. You got triggered? You wish to ban people from countries that have "sent us terrorists".

Name these countries, please. Don't forget any. That could be dangerous.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran

Should I keep going?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Awww. You got triggered?

Not at all, but you seem to be the one hurling all the insults and attacks here.

Anyway the morning is still young, and I'm most certainly not going to waste it with you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have no problem banning any country that has sent us terrorists.

Neither do I.

You lost your way already? And here I thought you were going to finally stand on principle.

Unlike you, my views aren't static and unchanging. It's almost as if you resent me for that.

Well too bad. Something has to be done about terrorism, if that takes banning people from terrorism prone countries, then so be it.

But, however, never will I seek to banish a religion from my country in what would be a blatant disregard of our Constitution.

Now go pick on someone else troll.

Awww. You got triggered? You wish to ban people from countries that have "sent us terrorists".

Name these countries, please. Don't forget any. That could be dangerous.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran

Should I keep going?

Yes. Please do.

 

[eagle1462010]

Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia

In 1988, President Reagan and the 100th Congress introduced the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, whose purpose amongst others was to acknowledge and apologize for actions of the US against individuals of Japanese ancestry during World War II.[33] The statement from Congress agreed with the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, that "a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese... without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."

In 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump made a proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States (as part of the War on Terror); Roosevelt's application of the Alien Enemies Act was cited as a possible justification. The proposal created international controversy, drawing criticism from foreign heads of state that have historically remained uninvolved in United States presidential elections.[34][35][36][37] A former Reagan Administration aide noted that, despite criticism of Trump's proposal to invoke the law, "the Alien Enemies Act... is still on the books... (and people) in Congress for many decades (haven’t) repealed the law... (nor has) Barack Obama".[38] Other critics claimed that the proposal violated founding principles, and was unconstitutional for singling out a religion, and not a hostile nation. They included the Pentagon and others, who argued that the proposal (and its citation of the Alien Enemies proclamations as authority) played into the ISIL narrative that the United States was at war with the entire Muslim religion (not just with ISIL and other terrorist entities).[39]