True, but the overwhelming attitude is that it cannot happen here. Unless somebody is personally effected by an act of terror, we are happy to go on in our attitude of tolerance, inclusion and elimination of sovereign borders..

 

I view each of those issues as separate issues rather than "all or nothing."

 

"Tolerance" should never be the issue. "Religious Liberty" should be the issue. That's the tenant of the First Amendment.

 

"Inclusion" is a good start but the real aim is "assimilation." In the past history the immigrants of this nation "assimilated" into the culture and the best traditions of their old culture became a part of the fabric of the US. That's why the idea of partitioned enclaves of Muslim controlled areas/government is wrong and I've spoken out against such before. I think American Societal tendencies have long been to "partition" the alien and the different. It never works well until the "melting pot" assimilates immigrants into the culture that exists and creates an even stronger culture.

 

As for "sovereign borders," I think the US has to "shore up" those entry points and invest as much in those "defenses" as in the military expansion of global presence and protection. I'm not saying we should be isolationists but find new ways to be involved in foreign affairs rather than constantly sending our military presence so fluidly and readily throughout the world.

 

Just my take Pioneer. :thumb:

The fact that "they" know most Americans are shoot first citizens, is why I believe it isn't as perelevant here. I acknowledge we are buffered by two huge oceans, but we also won't put up with the bull. Europe for some reason has just let it happen. Until 100% of Muslims openly denounce these PSYCHOS!!! I feel zero sympathy for them.

 

I don't see our well armed populace as a deterrent. The deterrent is the difficulty in which these terrorist cells have in finding their way into the US, setting up their plans and network and funding them without being noticed or spotted. That's the real reason we have had fewer events.

 

As to your "line in the sand" about 100% denouncing of terrorism from Muslims, so we lend suspicion to the Egyptian Muslims that came to the aid of and poured sympathy on the Coptic Christian community that was recently massacred?

 

To brand a whole "people" based on the lunatics is like saying that every white person was guilty of the institution of slavery in this country prior to 1865. It's just not true. In fact, some 300,000 lives revealed such.

This is not an isolated incident. This is not just a crazy lone wolf. No, not every religion does this. Wake up.

 

I totally agree. Of course the same could be said about a Dylan Roof or a Timothy McVeigh or Westboro. Not every Christian is like them. Nor was every Christian like Andrew Jackson or Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest in the 19th Century.

I totally agree. Of course the same could be said about a Dylan Roof or a Timothy McVeigh or Westboro. Not every Christian is like them. Nor was every Christian like Andrew Jackson or Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest in the 19th Century.

 

We don't have Christians, Buddhists, Hindu's, etc. escalating these terror attacks. These terrorists all belong to one group. That is the reality.

Pretty true in every scenario Jesse. The problem becomes when we lump all ethnic and individuals of a particular religion/region as terrorists and/or violent radicals.

 

Thats true. I just heard on the news a guy who has close contacts with someone who works anti terrorism in Europe and he said the guy laughs at our line of thinking on this. His case in point? After every terror attack the only people on the streets? You guessed it. All Muslims.

I totally agree. Of course the same could be said about a Dylan Roof or a Timothy McVeigh or Westboro. Not every Christian is like them. Nor was every Christian like Andrew Jackson or Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest in the 19th Century.

 

This theory looks good Hatz to people who have no real understanding of the Bible and Christianity. You know as well as I do the people you mention were no more of a Christian than Ghenis Khan was.

 

However the same people who use this argument also know as much about Islam as they do Christianity. Which is enough to make them look really stupid to the people who really have studied it. Unfortunately these are a lot of the people making and setting policy and the people who are the talking heads on the 24/7 news who feed their vile garbage to thousands who know the same as them and like little birds in a nest wake up every morning, mouth wide open for the worm, to get the daily dose of this take.

 

Till we we address this for what it is we will continue to chase our tails and watch people die. The answer will be ugly and Americans won't have the stomach till it's here.

Pretty true in every scenario Jesse. The problem becomes when we lump all ethnic and individuals of a particular religion/region as terrorists and/or violent radicals.

 

Show me another religion whose holy book commands the execution of Jews and Christians?

I view each of those issues as separate issues rather than "all or nothing."

 

"Tolerance" should never be the issue. "Religious Liberty" should be the issue. That's the tenant of the First Amendment.

 

"Inclusion" is a good start but the real aim is "assimilation." In the past history the immigrants of this nation "assimilated" into the culture and the best traditions of their old culture became a part of the fabric of the US. That's why the idea of partitioned enclaves of Muslim controlled areas/government is wrong and I've spoken out against such before. I think American Societal tendencies have long been to "partition" the alien and the different. It never works well until the "melting pot" assimilates immigrants into the culture that exists and creates an even stronger culture.

 

As for "sovereign borders," I think the US has to "shore up" those entry points and invest as much in those "defenses" as in the military expansion of global presence and protection. I'm not saying we should be isolationists but find new ways to be involved in foreign affairs rather than constantly sending our military presence so fluidly and readily throughout the world.

 

Just my take Pioneer. :thumb:

 

So if Fascism and Nazism were branded religions, you would be ok with their practice in the US?

Do people still have issues with the US vetting process? These things seem to happen in Europe almost weekly/monthly at this point. It can definitely happen here in the US but IMO we need to acknowledge that the vetting process has been successful for the US as well as the great work of Homeland Security protecting our country.

These terrorists also kill a large number of Muslims. I don't label the terrorists as practitioners of Islam just like I don't label the Westboro Baptists or members of the KKK as Christians.

The Nation of Islam here in America studies and lives by the Quran as well. How come they aren't running around killing people here in America if that is what the Quran instructs them to do?

This may be a huge leap, but it seems that some on here are hinting at eradicating followers of a religion as the solution to terrorism.

That is scary to me.

 

I expect more of these types of attacks as the noose tightens around ISIS.

Report: Citizens had to throw chairs at the jihadists -- because the unarmed police ran away.

 

Moments ago: The London Metropolitan Police tweeted the message: "Run, Hide, Tell."

 

The country that brought us Henry V, Richard Francis Burton, Florence Nightingale and Winston Churchill has been reduced to this.

Edited June 4, 20179 yr by John Anthony

This may be a huge leap, but it seems that some on here are hinting at eradicating followers of a religion as the solution to terrorism.

That is scary to me.

 

I expect more of these types of attacks as the noose tightens around ISIS.

 

Do you still support open borders in England and the US at this point?

Do you still support open borders in England and the US at this point?

 

Are these attackers refugees or immigrants? I haven't heard.

 

The Manchester attack was a citizen.