[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I was thinking about Israel this morning. They used to have a similar problem with people ramming cars into bus stops about 10 years ago. So they put big concrete and steel posts around the stops. They also post IDF forces nearby, so if anyone take a run at them, they die half a block before they get to the bus stop.

Suddenly, that kind of attack went out of fashion.

In Canada and the US we'd have no end of Quislings arguing that steel posts and armed resistance to terrorism violates the rights of Muslims to kill people. They'd also call you a racist for not wanting to get tortured, mutilated, and beheaded by a Muslim like the martyrs who died at Bataclan.

Israel also made all security a government and military responsibility, and part of the military and police budget. In North America we'd farm it out for-profit, like franchises for a McDonald's or a gas station, with our Austerity Hero politicians giving the job to the cheapest bidder.

[N_Fiddledog]

Newt has some ideas about how to deal:



Go Newt.

[xerxes]

Idiotic ideas is what they are.

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

Idiotic ideas is what they are.

Typically Regressive. Create a problem then reject the solution.

[N_Fiddledog]

Myself, I would prefer the French solution, pre-Prog.



Aux armes citoyens!

Translation

[xerxes]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

xerxes xerxes:

Idiotic ideas is what they are.

Typically Regressive. Create a problem then reject the solution.

The only regressive thing is what Newt is proposing. It's the exact shit the puritans left England for back in the 17th century. Not only is it unconstitutional and illegal but completely unworkable. Does he think potential terrorists will say yes? And how do you define Sharia Law?

It's not a defined set of laws like the Ten Commandments. It's like asking a Christian how do you worship God on a daily basis? Ask 50 people and you'll get 50 different answers.

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

The only regressive thing is what Newt is proposing. It's the exact shit the puritans left England for back in the 17th century. Not only is it unconstitutional and illegal but completely unworkable.

You mean the 'test everyone of a Muslim background' thing?

Yeah, that might be a little much, but he's pissed. Might be hyperbole. I'm for the spirit of the suggestion though.

For instance, if he was talking test as a condition of immigration, I'd go for that. If you can't reject Sharia publically and as signed testament you're not ready for the West. We have a system of law. Don't like it. Fuck off.

Steve Crowder has a humor tinted solution that's similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3LXFv2RyTM

"Want entry into our country?

Draw Mohammed."

[Canadian_Mind]

I think it's pretty easy...

Do you believe in the separation of religion and state, whereby the state dictates the law of the land, and religion dictates a spiritual code which it's practisers follow voluntarily?

If you answer is "no," you don't belong in the west, regardless of whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, etc. You either believe that religion should dictate the law of the land, and/or that people shouldn't be allowed the freedom to choose their faith and how they practice it.

[Strutz]

martin14 martin14:

And,

$1:

Two victims were from Switzerland: a woman of 54.....

Who just happens to be the wife of an HR guy who works in the same department as my wife.

Made for a very shitty day at work.


But, hey, thanks Mohamed, you fucking scumbag.

My condolences to you and to your wife martin.

[maldonsfecht]

Are you kidding? We have a system where people can hold their nose and leave out any oath of allegiance to the Queen, our Head of State, if they so choose... Canada's recent leanings will not tolerate any sort of forced patriotism if it makes a poor desperate MAKE ME A CANADIAN, BUT NOT REALLY actually Canadian. Our land. Our Ruler. Love it or leave it time.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

xerxes xerxes:

The only regressive thing is what Newt is proposing. It's the exact shit the puritans left England for back in the 17th century. Not only is it unconstitutional and illegal but completely unworkable.

You mean the 'test everyone of a Muslim background' thing?

Yeah, that might be a little much, but he's pissed. Might be hyperbole. I'm for the spirit of the suggestion though.

For instance, if he was talking test as a condition of immigration, I'd go for that. If you can't reject Sharia publically and as signed testament you're not ready for the West. We have a system of law. Don't like it. Fuck off.

Steve Crowder has a humor tinted solution that's similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3LXFv2RyTM

"Want entry into our country?

Draw Mohammed."

[shockedcanadian]

[quote="maldonsfecht"]Are you kidding? We have a system where people can hold their nose and leave out any oath of allegiance to the Queen, our Head of State, if they so choose... Canada's recent leanings will not tolerate any sort of forced patriotism if it makes a poor desperate MAKE ME A CANADIAN, BUT NOT REALLY actually Canadian. Our land. Our Ruler. Love it or leave it time. [quote="maldonsfecht"]



I understand history, but why in 2016 should we be required to pledge allegiance to a figurehead who is an ocean away? Has anyone even asked if the Queen even wants this commitment from Canada any longer?

I prefer someone plead an allegiance to their fellow Canadians, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and laws. Someone should be willing to fight for Canada if needed and be committed to justice and other moral principles. Nothing against the Queen, I'm sure she is a great lady, she in on our currency, that's great. It's time Canada cut the cord, no?

[maldonsfecht]

the idea is that that is what we have had from the beginning of this country and what we have to this day... if eventually changed from top to bottom (hopefully not) then leave out the oath. For now, THAT is the law, and giving certain people the option to refuse sets a terrible precedence in their integration when at point 1 of being Canadian they reject the principles and history of the nation.

Bringing it to the topic at hand; Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité is the cornerstone of the modern French Republic; it seems many who have recently come to that country do not hold that ethos to their hearts and therefore should not be in France permanently.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

NICE, France— The Islamic State on Saturday claimed responsibility for an attack that killed 84 in this coastal French city, according to the organization’s news agency, as France’s top cop announced for the first time that investigators think the attacker had been “radicalized.”

It remains unclear whether the Islamic State directed the attack, was taking responsibility for an assault it inspired or was simply seeking publicity from an event that it had no direct hand in.

“It seems” that the attacker, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, “radicalized his views very rapidly. These are the first elements that our investigation has come up with through interviews with his acquaintances,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Saturday, without offering further details. So far, five people have been detained for questioning in the case.

“We are now facing individuals who are responding positively to the messages issued by the Islamic State without having had any special training and without having access to weapons that allow them to commit mass murder,” Cazeneuve said.

The Islamic-State-connected Amaq news agency, citing an “insider source,” said Bouhlel “was a soldier of the Islamic State.”

“He executed the operation in response to calls to target citizens of coalition nations that fight the Islamic State,” the news agency wrote.

Separately, the Islamic State al-Bayan radio station said Bouhlel used “a new tactic” to wreak havoc. “The crusader countries know that no matter how much they enforce their security measures and procedures, it will not stop the mujahideen from striking,” the station said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/is ... story.html

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

French Lesson: Guns not Critical To Jihadi Violence

After San Bernardino and then Orlando, Obama, Chuck Schumer and others have been citing jihadi terror attacks to support their domestic legislation agenda.

France is about as close to a national gun-free zone as you can get. Lesson number one from France is that gun laws will not stop jihad terror.

There are no gun show loopholes in France, because there are no gun shows. There are no mandatory waiting periods, and there is no debate about gun control. Everybody agrees that guns are bad, so only the police have them. Or at least that was the plan. But of course the people who don't obey laws have guns. They are called criminals. Lately a lot of them happen to be Jihadis.

http://www.meforum.org/6116/french-lessons

[BRAH]

ISLAMIC STATE SAYS ITS 'SOLDIER' BEHIND NICE TRUCK ATTACK

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FRANCE_TRUCK_ATTACK_ISLAMIC_STATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-07-16-04-51-34
______________

Obama is still looking for a reason why this happened meanwhile Hollywood celebrities will release another video saying LOVE conquers all because LOVE is LOVE is LOVE.