Jump to content


Photo

Terrorism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
358 replies to this topic

#1 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:39 AM

Ok, so everyone should know the bombing /shooting that happened in France today.

http://news.yahoo.co...-214128710.html

Of course, I'm praying for the victims tonight but this is a debate board so lets debate

 

Basically moving discussion from presidents to a new thread to focus on terrorism vs islam and refugees.

All things terrorism all things islam, basically. 


Edited by Miss.J, 14 November 2015 - 01:40 AM.

"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#2 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:46 AM

I'm guessing this thread will be shut down but I'll bite. 

 

Since this thread is supposedly focused on Islam and terrorism I'll limit the discussion to that and no other problems related to Islam. The main issue is that you have no foolproof way of separating the terrorists, Jihadists, and disenfranchised-by-Islamophibia youth, from peaceful Muslims. 

Because of that, I would argue that the only way to prevent an act of violence within a nation from a Muslim, is to remove all Muslims. 

 

Now we can go into a debate about whether or not that is a morally defensible, necessary, or practical approach, but objectively the only way to 100% guarantee that there will be no acts of domestic terrorism caused Muslims within your borders. 

 

So I'll start the discussion by asking, is it morally defensible/permissible to remove Muslims from Western society? When we've exhausted that discussion, we can talk about whether or not it is necessary and practical (including complications that may arise from resistance both internally and internationally).


Edited by TridentPuff, 14 November 2015 - 02:02 AM.


#3 Narubi

Narubi

    Forever Dreaming

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,041 posts
  • LocationSitting alone in the dark, contemplating life.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:49 AM

Hold on a sec.
 
Muslims and Terrorism?
 
Title comes off as seeming like your grouping all Muslims with and as Terrorists.
 
So probably change it to something like "The World of Terrorism", or something. 


#4 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:50 AM

I'm guessing this thread will be shut down but I'll bite. 

 

Since this thread is supposedly focused on Islam and terrorism I'll limit the discussion to that and no other problems related to Islam. The main issue is that you have no foolproof way of separating the terrorists, Jihadists, and disenfranchised-by-Islamophibia youth, from peaceful Muslims. 

Because of that, I would argue that the only way to prevent an act of violence within a nation from a Muslim, is to remove all Muslims. 

 

Now we can go into a debate about whether or not that is a morally defensible, necessary, or practical approach, but it objectively the only way to 100% guarantee that there will be no domestic terrorism caused by a Muslim. 

 

So I'll start the discussion by asking, is it morally defensible/permissible to remove Muslims from Western society. When we've exhausted that discussion, we can talk about whether or not it is necessary and practical (including complications that may arise from resistance both internally and internationally).

Doing that would literally make Americans the next Nazis, which is a big no no for history.

 

Now, is there a way to figure out who's terrorists or not? It would mean more profiling, but hey, it's make some Muslims inconvenient vs get hundreds of citizens killed. 


 

 

Hold on a sec.
 
Muslims and Terrorism?
 
Title comes off as seeming like your grouping all Muslims with and as Terrorists.
 
So probably change it to something like "The World of Terrorism", or something. 

 

I cna't actually change the title but yeah, something along the lines of terrorism . although not talking about muslims in a discussion about terrorism would be naive. 


"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#5 Nyanko

Nyanko

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • LocationNyah

Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:53 AM

We turn back the clock 110 years... if this forum existed then, the topic would be "Anarchists and Terrorists". We turn the clock back a mere 40 years, if this forum existed then, it would be "Communists and Terrorists". We turn the clock back almost 2000 years; if this forum existed, then the topic would be "Jews and Terrorists"... just sayin'


Edited by Nyanko, 14 November 2015 - 01:53 AM.

  • taichi, tattaslayr and Miss.J like this

The Nominations for OMF Top 20 ongoing Manga for August/September are over. The results can be seen here!

http://onemangaforum...tember-edition/

Don't like the results? Then vote in the 4th Quarter poll in January

 


#6 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:57 AM


Hold on a sec.
 
Muslims and Terrorism?
 
Title comes off as seeming like your grouping all Muslims with and as Terrorists.
 

 

Not necessarily, she could be simply wanting to discuss terrorism specifically related to the faith of Islam and those who identify as Muslim.


Doing that would literally make Americans the next Nazis, which is a big no no for history.
 
Now, is there a way to figure out who's terrorists or not? It would mean more profiling, but hey, it's make some Muslims inconvenient vs get hundreds of citizens killed. 

 

I'm assuming you mean you don't want America to be viewed by future generations the same way people view Hitler and the Nazi party? So the next question would be, are the benefits from removing Muslims form western society greater than the negative effects of gaining that reputation from future generation given that such an action will inevitably result in us going down in history that way (a given that we are assuming  is true by the way). 

 

If there was a way to identify potential terrorists that was 100% foolproof and we were also able to prevent them from terrorist actions 100% of the time, then that would probably be more practical (and more moral as well to most people) than simply removing all Muslims, however my argument was that there isn't any, and that's the main problem. Furthermore, in a culture where excessive patriotism (even of a civic nationalist nature) is heavily demonized by the left, Muslim Americans are unlikely to see racial profiling as a small sacrifice made to keep their country safe from a problem coming from their community (not saying I necessarily think this way but that the argument in favor of racial profiling presupposes this premise) and more of a personal attack on them from a racist society, thus increasing their disenfranchisement and thus increasing the likelihood they will engage in an act of terrorism. 

 

 

We turn back the clock 110 years... if this forum existed then, the topic would be "Anarchists and Terrorists". We turn the clock back a mere 40 years, if this forum existed then, it would be "Communists and Terrorists".... just sayin'

 

The existence of past mass hysteria and the identification of certain groups with terrorism doesn't preclude the potentiality of Islam having an inherent problem with organized violence so it's worth discussing. 


Edited by TridentPuff, 14 November 2015 - 02:17 AM.


#7 kenkage

kenkage

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:03 AM

After the terror attack Francois Holande said that terrorism would be "confronted by a unified France" , when he said "unified" he was probably trying to avoid any escalation between muslim & christian french because muslims are now a very important part of France.. but I highly doubt that he will go as far as staging some sort of unity protests like what happened in the begining of 2015.

PS: @ Miss.J you should have chossen a defferent title.

1Hh3Zj5.png


#8 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:11 AM

After the terror attack Francois Holande said that terrorism would be "confronted by a unified France" , when he said "unified" he was probably trying to avoid any escalation between muslim & christian french because muslims are now a very important part of France.. but I highly doubt that he will go as far as staging some sort of unity protests like what happened in the begining of 2015.

PS: @ Miss.J you should have chossen a defferent title.

 

Why exactly are muslims now an important part of France? Is it simply because they make up a relatively large percentage of the population? Or do they add something indispensable towards French culture and society without taking away something more valuable?  


Edited by TridentPuff, 14 November 2015 - 02:19 AM.


#9 YoWid

YoWid

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:16 AM

First, my deepest condolences to all the victims and their families in Paris, this is an absolutely horrible act of terrorism and there's no denying that. The perpetrators deserve the harshest punishment possible for this crime.

 

Now, addressing the argument in this thread: 

 


All things terrorism all things islam, basically. 

 

Wrong.

 

(I'll speak from the viewpoint of a former-nominal-muslim (muslim in ID only--yes that's a thing where I hail from) turned atheist turned agnostic turned IDGAF-I-just-wanna-make-decent=living and as long as I live here I'll just do all the things that "moderate" muslims do to smoothen my business/startup until I can live abroad indefinitely).

 

You're simply generalizing here.

 

Most of my families from my mother's side are muslims (my granny is a devout muslim--we're almost always at odds when it comes to adherence and devotion to religion, but we're cool and getting on with it), and most of them don't have radical stance when it comes to Islam. In fact, they're more like your usual Christian moderates/conservatives (i.e., not Westboro-Baptist-ish), or even, among the younger populace, simply secular/don't-care about it as long as they follow their civic duty to hold a religion, in this case Islam.

 

That said, about three or four people I know do hold radical view bordering on your familiar /pol/-based view on Islam (taqiyya, thaghut-fighting, USA-hating, you name it). Heck, this is true story, I swear in the name of my hospital-bedridden Granny's name: I once was about to be recruited as a member of the Islamic State of Indonesia back in around 2009; and that's when I found that this is a complex, multi-layered issue, this is a truly grey area--with sound theories and crackpot conspiracies intermingling almost beyond distinction. Even until now I can't really put my hands on what causes some people (who claimed themselves as muslims and following the teaching of Qur'an) to resort to acts of extreme violence. 

 

What I can add into the discussion now is merely that I truly believe that there need be serious reinterpretation on the sacred texts done by foremost muslim and non-muslim scholars alike. Reformation is gradual, but possible if we can keep clear head when doing potentially-emotionally-loaded debates and discussions like this (though that's my idealistic side speaking, in reality, I doubt it will work out, at least not in a few decades)

 

Why do we need such reinterpretation? Because some parts of Qur'an (e.g., waging war with the infidels) are, indeed, prone to be taken literally, or be used as a pretext for mindless destructions by the desperates or the brainwashed. The result: people are beginning to throw the baby out with the bathwater--being religious, i.e., being a Muslim, for some people that I know in this country, gives them a purpose, a sense of belonging to a community that, however controversial, still can do good (providing healthcare, philantrophy) for many people. (I speak for the pacifistic kind of muslims, for the aforementioned terrorists, see my writing above)

 

I wish I could post more on this, but I only have around one to two hours a week for writing here, so I will stop right here and let the discussions/arguments roll on for now.


  • waleuska, Narubi and tattaslayr like this

Spoiler Music by Gazillions

 

 

another story for another day

 


#10 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:17 AM

Why exactly are Muslims now an important part of France? Is it simply because they make up a relatively large percentage of the population? Or do they add something indispensable towards French culture without taking away something more valuable?  

This is why the french gets attack so much. They treat the Muslims as outsiders. Compare it to American. Do we have a Muslim problem? Do Mullins run around and teach the Koran in schools?


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#11 YoWid

YoWid

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:19 AM

In case anyone's wondering, it's the NII/KW9 with connection to Jama'ah Islamiyah.

 

(I'm grateful that I was an ultra-cynic in my early 20s, at least I could play along to see how they use the lure of sex and money to recruit their members. From then on, I stayed away from any proselytizing cult-like religious movement of whatever denominations.) 


Spoiler Music by Gazillions

 

 

another story for another day

 


#12 Nyanko

Nyanko

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • LocationNyah

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:21 AM



The existence of past mass hysteria and the identification of certain groups with terrorism doesn't preclude the potentiality of Islam having an inherent problem with organized violence. 

 

Wait, didn't you just delete the last line of that post? Modern study of Terrorism usually regards the Sicarii Zealots of First Century Judea as amongst the first organized terrorists in the world. Anyway its not like Islam has the monopoly on organized violence, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonization of America (conquer by the sword or book), the 30 year war... all done in the name of the Christian God. If you let terror rule your lives, then the terrorists win. Don't be afraid, just live as you do; else the terrorists win. 


  • tattaslayr likes this

The Nominations for OMF Top 20 ongoing Manga for August/September are over. The results can be seen here!

http://onemangaforum...tember-edition/

Don't like the results? Then vote in the 4th Quarter poll in January

 


#13 kenkage

kenkage

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:21 AM

Why exactly are Muslims now an important part of France?

Cheap labour=bigger GDP.

Also there are already millions of muslims in France and there isn't really much that the Elysèe can do to change it.

Unfortunatly Islam isn't the most stable kind of religion but France has already chosen to become half muslim half christian and there is no turning back for them.

Edited by kenkage, 14 November 2015 - 02:26 AM.

1Hh3Zj5.png


#14 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:32 AM

Removed
 

I'm assuming you mean you don't want America to be viewed by future generations the same way people view Hitler and the Nazi party? So the next question would be, are the benefits from removing Muslims form western society greater than the negative effects of gaining that reputation from future generation given that such an action will inevitably result in us going down in history that way (a given that we are assuming  is true by the way). 
 
If there was a way to identify potential terrorists that was 100% foolproof and we were also able to prevent them from terrorist actions 100% of the time, then that would probably be more practical (and more moral as well to most people) than simply removing all Muslims, however my argument was that there isn't any, and that's the main problem. Furthermore, in a culture where excessive patriotism (even of a civic nationalist nature) is heavily demonized by the left, Muslim Americans are unlikely to see racial profiling as a small sacrifice made to keep their country safe from a problem coming from their community (not saying I necessarily think this way but that the argument in favor of racial profiling presupposes this premise) and more of a personal attack on them from a racist society, thus increasing their disenfranchisement and thus increasing the likelihood they will engage in an act of terrorism.

Yes. The thing with Hitler and the Jews was Hitler had the idea of making Germany a great country, and most likely there were very corrupt Jews that ruined Germany. But there are also lots of innocent Jews that got put into the mix. Same thing is going on with Muslims. So simply picking out all Muslims would not be a great thing to do morally. 
 
Also, there are moderate Muslims, which could be allies of Americans. It's dangerous to get rid of them based on religion when fighting against a common enemy.


Edited by azer_moli, 14 November 2015 - 05:29 AM.

"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#15 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:33 AM

This is why the french gets attack so much. They treat the Muslims as outsiders. Compare it to American. Do we have a Muslim problem? Do Mullins run around and teach the Koran in schools?

 

Well there certainly are a fair share of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim Americans and many more foiled. Let's say hypothetically though that the reason these attacks are occurring is because of disenfranchisement of French Muslims. The next question is, are the French justified in such xenophobia? And if not, are the terrorists justified in retaliating against it in such a matter. I would hope that we all agree the answer to the second question is no. In which case, answering the first question boils down to a matter of practicality as opposed to morality. 

 

Wait, didn't you just delete the last line of that post? Modern study of Terrorism usually regards the Sicarii Zealots of First Century Judea as amongst the first organized terrorists in the world. Anyway its not like Islam has the monopoly on organized violence, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonization of America (conquer by the sword or book), the 30 year war... all done in the name of the Christian God. If you let terror rule your lives, then the terrorists win. Don't be afraid, just live as you do; else the terrorists win. 

 

I deleted it because I don't think the same analogy applies. Also the short term goal of a terrorist (spreading fear to aid in the pursuit of some objective) may never succeed if you are not afraid, but if you are stupidly complacent they will win when they achieve the objective they are fighting for. 

 

 

Cheap labour=bigger GDP.

Also there are already millions of muslims in France and there isn't really much that the Elysèe can do to change it.

Unfortunatly Islam isn't the most stable kind of religion but France has already chosen to become half muslim half christian and there is no turning back for them.

 

Do you have evidence to back the claim that cheaper labor results in a higher GDP? And even if it is the case, I would argue that only a few capitalists at the top (like owners of the businesses employing Muslims) benefit from the cheap labor at the expense of the native french labor pool that could be employed instead of a Muslim immigrant in those positions. 

 

For starters, they can close the borders and impose a one child policy on the Muslims already there (just some simple ideas since you claim there isn't much the Elysee can do about it). 

 

They are only 6% Muslim, there is a LOT of room left to change, I think you're being a bit too cynical here. 

 

 

Seriously?

 

This sounds something out of the contexts for a Race War.

Or just racism in general. 

 

You can bet there will be a race war in western Europe soon. It's almost undeniable. 



#16 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:46 AM


Yes. The thing with Hitler and the Jews was Hitler had the idea of making Germany a great country, and most likely there were very corrupt Jews that ruined Germany. But there are also lots of innocent Jews that got put into the mix. Same thing is going on with Muslims. So simply picking out all Muslims would not be a great thing to do morally. 
 
Also, there are moderate Muslims, which could be allies of Americans. It's dangerous to get rid of them based on religion when fighting against a common enemy

 

So let's say hypothetically that the holocaust actually happened, yes killing all Jews I would argue was morally wrong, even if it would guarantee that no more Jews to create the bad ones. But that's a much more complicated topic when we simply evaluate the idea of removing the possibility of a tribe producing parasitic entities within the host nation.  

 

So then I would ask, is the benefit of allied Muslims worth opening up the risk of being attacked by a bad Muslim mistaken for a good one? from the standpoint of eliminating the threat of muslim involved violence, it may be a more practical to assume they are all enemies as in practice, the allied Muslims may turn into a new forest producing and hiding poisonous trees itself. 

 

 

 


that there need be serious reinterpretation on the sacred texts done by foremost muslim and non-muslim scholars alike. Reformation is gradual, but possible if we can keep clear head when doing potentially-emotionally-loaded debates and discussions like this (though that's my idealistic side speaking, in reality, I doubt it will work out, at least not in a few decades)
 

 

Yes, reformation obviously needs to happen and it will take time, but until that happens, who should have to pay the price for tolerating the flawed parts of Islam? (sometimes fatally as we observed in Paris today). 


Edited by TridentPuff, 14 November 2015 - 02:56 AM.


#17 kenkage

kenkage

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:55 AM

For starters, they can close the borders and impose a one child policy on the Muslims already there (just some simple ideas since you claim there isn't much the Elysee can do about it).

They are only 6% Muslim, there is a LOT of room left to change, I think you're being a bit too cynical here.

well this would get us in Europian politics, I'm not sure but I believe that Merkel & Holande want to creat some sort of a United states of Europe but there are dozens of ethnicities & nationalities in Europe and the only way to truely unify them is by eleminating these boundaries by using multiculturalism and having more Muslims/ Christians/ Jews/ Africans/ Asians to live together and at the same time to tell those people to accept each other would help in eleminating those boundaries but apperantly some Eastern Europian countries (like Hungary) aren't OK with this plan.

Edited by kenkage, 14 November 2015 - 02:57 AM.

1Hh3Zj5.png


#18 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 14 November 2015 - 02:59 AM

well this would get us in Europian politics, I'm not sure but I believe that Merkel & Holande want to creat some sort of a United states of Europe but there are dozens of ethnicities & nationalities in Europe and the only way to truely unify them is by eleminating these boundaries by using multiculturalism and having more Muslims/ Christians/ Jews/ Africans/ Asians to live together and at the same time to tell those people to accept each other would help in eleminating those boundaries but apperantly some Eastern Europian countries (like Hungary) aren't OK with this plan.

 

To be honest I believe it isn't Merkel and Hollande but the Marxists of the world united in that vision but that's a different topic that I won't go into this time. 

 

It's my understanding that the vast majority of western Europeans are opposed to mass immigration of muslims and the liberal elites in the government are forcing it upon them (in my opinion also because of the cultural marxists controlled dominated and created by a certain tribe). That would mean the people would rebel eventually like they are in Germany with people attacking refugee camps. I see it's entirely possible for the French people to reduce the proportion of Muslims and prevent more from entering if they choose to do. 



#19 DrugzRule

DrugzRule

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,134 posts
  • LocationExiled in Iceland

Posted 14 November 2015 - 03:01 AM

Blaming Muslims for all the terrorism that happens in today's world is not only horribly generalizing but also spews antagonism that will only be met with further antagonism, which will only cause wars and the innocent civilians will be forced to relocate to various places where they can hope for bette life, usually in the western world as we have much more generous system to help people to get off their feet.

 

Also, by killing those extremists it will only cause to make the fallen to look like martyrs which will be used to recruit even more cannon fodders for the terrorists to fight a nonsensical "holy war".

 

And this thread is horribly misleading as you are just assuming every modern terrorist is a muslim when we have plenty of terrorists that aren't associated to the Islam religion in any way. Look at Breivik. He killed 77 people to get attention and spread the word about the "horrors of muslims and immigrants". Honestly, I believe the Norway government handled the aftermath in the best manner possible. Arrested the terrorist, locked him up in prison for who-knows long and prevent him from getting much media exposure. When I was younger I believed he should have been executed for his crimes but after learning about martyrdoms and that terrorists who believe they are fighting for causes can be regarded as heroes by terrorists spreading false propaganda I came to realize putting a stop that kind of thinking comes first to prevent future terrorism.

 

And so, generalizing all muslims as terrorists and is like generalizing all honey bees as hornets. It's incredible unproductive and downright incompetent thinking that benefits no one.

 

And to answer your question @ TridentPuff . Removing all muslims to get rid of muslim terrorists might be the absolute worst way to cleanse the world of terrorists. It doesn't solve the problem why terrorism exist nor does it make anyone look in positive light and will set a horrible precedent for future generations that will risk people's lives that are in no way associated with criminals just because they share the same religion.

 

This tread has gotten messy already so I wouldn't mind it getting locked or at the very least cleaned. Let's focus on general terrorism or the terrorism in France specifically so we can have a focus point and making the thread readable for people.


Edited by DrugzRule, 14 November 2015 - 12:45 PM.

  • Narubi, tattaslayr, YoWid and 1 other like this

#20 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 03:08 AM

Removed
 

So let's say hypothetically that the holocaust actually happened, yes killing all Jews I would argue was morally wrong, even if it would guarantee that no more Jews to create the bad ones. But that's a much more complicated topic when we simply evaluate the idea of removing the possibility of a tribe producing parasitic entities within the host nation.  
 
So then I would ask, is the benefit of allied Muslims worth opening up the risk of being attacked by a bad Muslim mistaken for a good one? from the standpoint of eliminating the threat of muslim involved violence, it may be a more practical to assume they are all enemies as in practice, the allied Muslims may turn into a new forest producing and hiding poisonous trees itself. 
 
 
Yes, reformation obviously needs to happen and it will take time, but until that happens, who should have to pay the price for tolerating the flawed parts of Islam? (sometimes fatally as we observed in Paris today).

There are Syrians that side with Assad who want ISIS to be taken down. So getting on the good side of those Muslims for now would be good in taking down the biggest threat which is the radicals. Getting Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, other Muslim counties on our side will make it easier for taking them down without wasting away so many US soldiers. 
If we blindly stereotype Muslims it will automatically tun those countries against us. 
 
Then again, accepting refugees is NOT something we can afford to do. Neither is creating a blind sympathy towards Muslims, since any Muslim American could be a terrorist. It's really impossible to tell. Hell, if Obama was an idiot and let clock boy Ahmed in the white house, there may not be a white house today. so yes. the pandering and stupidity of the liberal left needs to stop. But kicking out all Muslims isnt' the answer either.


Edited by azer_moli, 14 November 2015 - 05:31 AM.

"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users