National Front leads in the first round of French elections

[Winehole23]

France's far-right National Front (FN) appears to have made big gains in the first round of regional elections, estimates show.

They put the FN ahead in at least six of 13 regions in mainland France.


The elections are the first electoral test since last month's Paris attacks, in which 130 people were killed.


The centre-right Republicans party led by former President Nicolas Sarkozy appeared to be in second place ahead of the governing Socialist Party.
A second round of voting will be held on 13 December.


As the results became clear, the Socialist party said it was withdrawing from the second round in at least two regions, in the north and the south, to try to block a run-off victory for the FN.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35018849

[Winehole23]

Exit polls from Sunday's vote predicted that the FN had won 30.8% of the vote, followed by Mr Sarkozy's Republicans on 27.2% and President Francois Hollande's Socialists with 22.7%.

[boutons_deux]

Muslim extremism is suckering the West into anti-democratic knee-jerking and into being demagogue'd by authoritarian, racist, xenophobe hucksters.

Thanks, Repugs, "helluva job, assholes"

[Winehole23]

Blamiing the GOP for the results of the first round of regional voting in France might be the most idiotic thing you've ever said here, and you've said a lot of idiotic things.

[boutons_deux]

Blamiing the GOP for the results of the first round of regional voting in France might be the most idiotic thing you've ever said here, and you've said a lot of idiotic things.

The surge of the xenophobic, racist, bellicose right in France (against the 6M ethnic Maghrebins there, from the former French colonies) is directly related to the Bataclan slaughter by ISIS terrorists, who were created DIRECTLY by the Repugs invading Iraq, totally botching that disaster, destabilizing the M/E, leading directly to ISIS and Bataclan.

You'd have to be idiotically stupid and ignorant NOT to see the connections, the direct causality.

[Winehole23]

that's a post hoc fallacy, not direct causation. what you're describing is indirect causation at best.

[Winehole23]

wouldn't be like you not to oversell your own point, I guess.

[Winehole23]

tell me boutons, for bad things that happen anywhere in the world, are there any relevant agents besides the GOP?

[boutons_deux]

that's a post hoc fallacy, not direct causation. what you're describing is indirect causation at best.

bullshit. Repugs creating the M/E shitcan led to ISIS led to Bataclan/Petit Cambodge led to the surge of the French right.

[boutons_deux]

wouldn't be like you not to oversell your own point, I guess.

not oversold, JUST THE FACTS

[Winehole23]

bullshit. Repugs creating the M/E shitcan led to ISIS led to Bataclan/Petit Cambodge led to the surge of the French right.led to =/= caused. indirect causation, if it's even that.

you're not very good at this.

[boutons_deux]

tell me boutons, for bad things that happen anywhere in the world, are there any relevant agents besides the GOP?

I don't think the Repugs set fire to the forests in Indonesia, but one can't be sure, maybe Repug businessmen wanting to exploit those lands.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

the 6M ethnic Maghrebins there, from the former French colonies) .

How many terrorist attacks would there have been in France if France got its immigrants from French-indochina instead?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35018849

I like how the tripolar system allows for parties to compromise like the socialists here are doing for what they consider the greater good. A similar dynamic in US politics would have been nice to have say around the time of the 2013 shutdown. It removes brinksmanship from the equation.

The french legislative system is much better than ours.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

led to =/= caused. indirect causation, if it's even that.

you're not very good at this.

Contributing factor is a fair compromise. He has a point. He just has nothing else to say.

[baseline bum]

This is why I wish the Democrats would stop their PC crap about not calling out Islam and wanting to bring in the Syrian refugees just because the Republicans are against it. This fucking PC shit is going to get a Republican elected president, and then he'll sign all the retarded shit coming out of the House into law.

[baseline bum]

LOL if ISIS does an attack here and Repub numbers surge, so that ISIS can get what they really want: war with the US.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is why I wish the Democrats would stop their PC crap about not calling out Islam and wanting to bring in the Syrian refugees just because the Republicans are against it. This fucking PC shit is going to get a Republican elected president, and then he'll sign all the retarded shit coming out of the House into law.

OTOH, the democrats have championed the cause of the minority and the dispossessed since the civil rights era and reagan's dixie migration. This isn't exactly out of character or necessarily contrarian politics unless you want to point to the fundamental divides between the parties in and of themselves.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL if ISIS does an attack here and Repub numbers surge, so that ISIS can get what they really want: war with the US.

The CA people pledged to ISIS before the attack and it's being framed as your fear going on day 3. At the end of the day it's still Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush and their still bumbling around in the leadup to the primary. GOP numbers surge means anti-establishments like Trump and Cruz get the bump because that is what those people want. I find the whole dynamic kind of amusing.

I want Cruz to lose to Trump in his own state so that is where I will be voting this Spring if it stays the same.

[Spurminator]

Syrian refugees have nothing to do with any of the recent attacks, and the Republican obsession with calling out "Islamic terrorism" is a semantic argument. I think the Democrats are right not to engage in semantic fear mongering that puts this country in more danger of attacks.

Obama said just the right amount about the relationship between Islam and terrorism in his Sunday address, IMO. I don't expect for Republicans to think he went far enough.

[Trainwreck2100]

Syrian refugees have nothing to do with any of the recent attacks, and the Republican obsession with calling out "Islamic terrorism" is a semantic argument. I think the Democrats are right not to engage in semantic fear mongering that puts this country in more danger of attacks.

Obama said just the right amount about the relationship between Islam and terrorism in his Sunday address, IMO. I don't expect for Republicans to think he went far enough.

which is ironic cause their overlord Bush jr. never actually equated islam with terrorism

[mingus]

Syrian refugees have nothing to do with any of the recent attacks, and the Republican obsession with calling out "Islamic terrorism" is a semantic argument. I think the Democrats are right not to engage in semantic fear mongering that puts this country in more danger of attacks.

Obama said just the right amount about the relationship between Islam and terrorism in his Sunday address, IMO. I don't expect for Republicans to think he went far enough.

How is calling it "Islamic terrorism" semantic fear mongering?

[diego]

im not particularly informed about this, but if elections are around the corner thats a large motive for someone to manipulate the paris attacks... AFAIK theres not much of a direct tie to ISIS or am I misinformed?

[rmt]

So funny - my (retired) aunt and her husband voted for Trudeau and is now complaining about the refugees that he'll letting into Canada and how they can't even take care of Canadians/how are they gonna take care of these refugees. She was previously wondering why her sons voted conservative, and I explained to her that they don't want the govt taking money out of their pockets to fund whatever social program. Be careful what you vote for and who you let into your countries - Canadians, French and soon to be Americans.

[rmt]

Syrian refugees have nothing to do with any of the recent attacks, and the Republican obsession with calling out "Islamic terrorism" is a semantic argument. I think the Democrats are right not to engage in semantic fear mongering that puts this country in more danger of attacks.

Obama said just the right amount about the relationship between Islam and terrorism in his Sunday address, IMO. I don't expect for Republicans to think he went far enough.

This is the great divide. Repubs believe that letting in Syrian refugees (some of whom might be radicalized) might result in Islamic terrorism and put this country in more danger of attacks. They don't believe that it's fear mongering that puts the US in more danger of attacks or being naive enough to think that ISIS is not going to infiltrate the refugees.

[Th'Pusher]

Repubs believe that letting in Syrian refugees (some of whom might be radicalized) might result in Islamic terrorism and put this country in more danger of attacks.

That belief is rooted strictly in emotion and not facts or reality.

[rmt]

That belief is rooted strictly in emotion and not facts or reality.

How about common sense? How about not taking chances? How about not risking our lives doing something we don't have to do? What exactly is driving you to let THESE (mostly Muslim) refugees in? What about the thousands of others who are facing persecution who aren't Muslims? Why not the push to let them in?

[z0sa]

That belief is rooted strictly in emotion and not facts or reality.

Prove it.

[Winehole23]

This is the great divide. Repubs believe that letting in Syrian refugees (some of whom might be radicalized) might result in Islamic terrorism and put this country in more danger of attacks. They don't believe that it's fear mongering that puts the US in more danger of attacks or being naive enough to think that ISIS is not going to infiltrate the refugees.it's much easier to get a tourist visa, like the 9/11 attackers. that's what all of them did. why go through a years long process, risking detection, defection and de-radicalization?

[Winehole23]

How about common sense? How about not taking chances? How about not risking our lives doing something we don't have to do?quanified, terrorism -- of any kind whatsoever -- is a minuscule threat. falling out of bed or in the shower is a bigger threat to your life. so is your dinner plate.

[Winehole23]

electrocution, drowning, the drive to work, being struck by lightning. the threat of terrorism is way down the list of things likely to happen to you.

[Winehole23]

what is it that makes Syrian refugees so threatening? what have they done to provoke the latest round of bedwetting and cowardly carping about Muslims?

[Winehole23]

let's make no bones: anyone afraid of terrorism is an idiot, a bigot or a coward or some combination of all three.

[Winehole23]

and anyone who thinks that bombing Muslims "over there" is a solution -- rather than a cause -- is a moron.

[SnakeBoy]

and anyone who thinks that bombing Muslims "over there" is a solution -- rather than a cause -- is a moron.

What is the solution?

[Spurminator]

How is calling it "Islamic terrorism" semantic fear mongering?

I'm saying that standing on a podium and saying the President can't fight the enemy effectively if he doesn't call the enemy by name by specifically saying the words "Islamic Terrorism" is semantic fear mongering. It's suggesting that political correctness in our language is somehow limiting the war on terror.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks, Repugs!

Fucking up the world for fun and profit!

[rmt]

electrocution, drowning, the drive to work, being struck by lightning. the threat of terrorism is way down the list of things likely to happen to you.

It's not my individual chance of being killed in a terrorist attack that I'm worried about. About the only public place I go with lots of people is AAA when the Spurs come to Miami. It's what the threat of terrorism does to the country/world - people avoiding traveling if they don't have to. People putting off that vacation trip and staying close to home. What do you think has happened to tourism in France/Belgium since the terrorist attack? Do you think it's booming? Do you think Russians are thinking twice about getting on a plane and vacationing in Egypt? It affects major parts of the world's economy - air travel, hotels, car rentals, restaurants, shopping, and everything related to it. And like it or not, it affects our freedom - people think twice about going to the mall just to hang out, etc.

[Th'Pusher]

Prove it.

No acts of terrorism executed by refugees in the U.S.

[Th'Pusher]

It's not my individual chance of being killed in a terrorist attack that I'm worried about. About the only public place I go with lots of people is AAA when the Spurs come to Miami. It's what the threat of terrorism does to the country/world - people avoiding traveling if they don't have to. People putting off that vacation trip and staying close to home. What do you think has happened to tourism in France/Belgium since the terrorist attack? Do you think it's booming? Do you think Russians are thinking twice about getting on a plane and vacationing in Egypt? It affects major parts of the world's economy - air travel, hotels, car rentals, restaurants, shopping, and everything related to it. And like it or not, it affects our freedom - people think twice about going to the mall just to hang out, etc.

Wow. You actually do live in fear. What a sad way to live.

[SnakeBoy]

Always fun to see the people who are afraid of law abiding gun owners pull the "why are you afraid" card.

[lefty]

How many terrorist attacks would there have been in France if France got its immigrants from French-indochina instead?
French Indochinians would have been in power. since they did rape both France and Murica :lol

[rmt]

Wow. You actually do live in fear. What a sad way to live.

I live in Florida which is highly dependent on tourism. When 9/11 happened, livelihoods here were seriously affected. Pilots lost jobs, hotels, restaurants, etc lost business.

I don't know why people keep making derogatory personal comments - you have no idea what my life is like except what I choose to share.

[elbamba]

quanified, terrorism -- of any kind whatsoever -- is a minuscule threat. falling out of bed or in the shower is a bigger threat to your life. so is your dinner plate.

I spilled liquid soap in my shower last night and slipped. Thought I had a concussion my damn head hurt so bad.

[Winehole23]

Always fun to see the people who are afraid of law abiding gun owners pull the "why are you afraid" card.who's afraid? gun violence is a statistically significant public safety issue; terrorism isn't.

[baseline bum]

I don't want Muslim culture getting a foothold in this nation as 100,000 refugees becomes a million and then two million and so on. It's so backwards and has destroyed the middle east. I hate the idea of a culture that puts women in niqabs and the like growing large here where it's going to have strong constitutional protection. I don't want people just fleeing a war, I'd much rather be admitting Arab and Persian immigrants fed up with their backward religion who would be eager to assimilate into our culture.

[Winehole23]

Muslim culture already has a foothold here. Has for quite some time.

[Winehole23]

What is the solution?bombing sure isn't

[Winehole23]

invasion and occupation doesn't seem to work so well either. quite the reverse, judging from recent results.

[SnakeBoy]

bombing sure isn't


invasion and occupation doesn't seem to work so well either. quite the reverse, judging from recent results.

So you don't have any answers?

[SnakeBoy]

who's afraid? gun violence is a statistically significant public safety issue; terrorism isn't.

As long as you aren't in certain neighborhoods the risk of gun violence is on par with the safest places in the world. The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero.

[Th'Pusher]

Always fun to see the people who are afraid of law abiding gun owners pull the "why are you afraid" card.

Who's afraid of law abiding gun owners?

[boutons_deux]

Who's afraid of law abiding gun owners?

a white guy with a rifle walking around a black neighborhood scares black people (happened a couple weeks ago)

[Th'Pusher]

I live in Florida which is highly dependent on tourism. When 9/11 happened, livelihoods here were seriously affected. Pilots lost jobs, hotels, restaurants, etc lost business.

I don't know why people keep making derogatory personal comments - you have no idea what my life is like except what I choose to share.

My observation that you live in fear was not a derogatory personal comment. I just took my pre-teen daughter to New York to see the city at christmastime. Terrorism didn't cross my mind. If you're thinking twice about going to a mall, you live in fear.

[Spurminator]

The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero.

It's a good thing we make people register as Law Abiding before we let them purchase a gun.

[boutons_deux]

I don't want Muslim culture getting a foothold in this nation as 100,000 refugees becomes a million and then two million and so on. It's so backwards and has destroyed the middle east. I hate the idea of a culture that puts women in niqabs and the like growing large here where it's going to have strong constitutional protection. I don't want people just fleeing a war, I'd much rather be admitting Arab and Persian immigrants fed up with their backward religion who would be eager to assimilate into our culture.

Too late, there is already 6M, about 2%, Muslims in USA. They're annulling all US law and installing Sharia everywhere.

[rmt]

I don't want Muslim culture getting a foothold in this nation as 100,000 refugees becomes a million and then two million and so on. It's so backwards and has destroyed the middle east. I hate the idea of a culture that puts women in niqabs and the like growing large here where it's going to have strong constitutional protection. I don't want people just fleeing a war, I'd much rather be admitting Arab and Persian immigrants fed up with their backward religion who would be eager to assimilate into our culture.

Ditto. Assimilation is key. IMO, the US needs to close its borders and assimilate all the immigrants. It probably takes 1-2 generations to fully assimilate. I've noticed that no matter how much one speaks to a child in a native language, once the child goes to public school, English becomes the language of choice. Then the next generation significantly loses the language. Here in Miami, there are so many Spanish speakers that there is no need (for the older people) to ever learn English.

As far as the Muslims are concerned, a lot depends on where they settle. If scattered, assimilation is easier, but if they settle in large pockets or one place, keeping the culture/religion is much easier.

[Winehole23]

So you don't have any answers?of course not. there are no easy answers to stuff like this.

do you think it's a good idea to do stuff in response just so we can say we did something about it, even if it does no good, or in fact makes things worse, like the last decade and a half of US invasion, occupation and war in the middle east and south Asia?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As long as you aren't in certain neighborhoods the risk of gun violence is on par with the safest places in the world. The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero.

You can say that about Sao Paulo too. That crime is segmented socioeconomically doesn't mean its valid to just bias like that when discussing policy.

[SnakeBoy]

of course not. there are no easy answers to stuff like this.

do you think it's a good idea to do stuff in response just so we can say we did something about it, even if it does no good, or in fact makes things worse, like the last decade and a half of US invasion, occupation and war in the middle east and south Asia?

Well what you are really asking when you reference the last decade and a half is if I think half measures are a good idea and of course the answer is no. I don't agree that there are no easy answers because the question for the West is pretty simple. Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action or not?

If the answer is yes then we have to accept military action is war and that the only way to win a war is through overwhelming force and brutality. History shows that this is the only way to win a war against an ideology. If we choose yes, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

If the answer is no we need to stop using "limited" military operations and interventions because history shows they cannot defeat an ideology. If we choose no, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

I don't know which answer we should choose but if we don't make a decision to either shit or get off the pot then we'll be having this conversation for generations.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs started this Middle East disaster, stirred up a hornet nest, and they have no fucking idea of how to stop it, even in USA.

There was nothing "limited" about US military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even in VN, hit them with all they could. Still lost.

The only American winner in this shit is the MIC pocketing $Ts. The Repugs, as they are paid to be, are vehemently, corruptly pro-MIC-business.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well what you are really asking when you reference the last decade and a half is if I think half measures are a good idea and of course the answer is no. I don't agree that there are no easy answers because the question for the West is pretty simple. Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action or not?

If the answer is yes then we have to accept military action is war and that the only way to win a war is through overwhelming force and brutality. History shows that this is the only way to win a war against an ideology. If we choose yes, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

If the answer is no we need to stop using "limited" military operations and interventions because history shows they cannot defeat an ideology. If we choose no, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

I don't know which answer we should choose but if we don't make a decision to either shit or get off the pot then we'll be having this conversation for generations.

The whole game changed when the Russians became involved. I see no problem with the multilateral approach. Keep working with the French, British and Turks in the south. Leave the Germans, Poles, etc to hold the northern flank.

[SnakeBoy]

There was nothing "limited" about US military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even in VN, hit them with all they could. Still lost.


lol every example you named required a "surge" which means they were limited operations.

[SnakeBoy]

The whole game changed when the Russians became involved. I see no problem with the multilateral approach. Keep working with the French, British and Turks in the south. Leave the Germans, Poles, etc to hold the northern flank.

"We" = the West = multilateral

Russia has nothing to do with the "War on Terror". Their interest is limited to Syria and supporting the Assad regime. Something I think they are right about.

[boutons_deux]

lol every example you named required a "surge" which means they were limited operations.

the surges weren't limited. The Iraq surge got a lot more US military killed and the only way it was successful was in lying Petraeus padding his career.

It's very obvious that fighting a state-less terrorist war in unwinnable, and not because mighty USA isn't seriously trying to win.

Thanks, Repugs. y'all the best

[SnakeBoy]

The whole game changed when the Russians became involved. I see no problem with the multilateral approach. Keep working with the French, British and Turks in the south. Leave the Germans, Poles, etc to hold the northern flank.

It doesn't matter if it's multilateral or not. At best dropping bombs or even using limited forces will only drive radical Islamists from one area to another. ISIS already controls part of northern Afghanistan and is waging a brutal war against the Taliban. Afghanistan is a perfect example of how we went in with half measures and then compounded the problem by forgetting who our enemy was. We are doing the same in Syria by deciding that Assad is our enemy.

[Winehole23]

Well what you are really asking when you reference the last decade and a half is if I think half measures are a good idea and of course the answer is no. I don't agree that there are no easy answers because the question for the West is pretty simple. Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action or not?

If the answer is yes then we have to accept military action is war and that the only way to win a war is through overwhelming force and brutality. History shows that this is the only way to win a war against an ideology. If we choose yes, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

If the answer is no we need to stop using "limited" military operations and interventions because history shows they cannot defeat an ideology. If we choose no, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

I don't know which answer we should choose but if we don't make a decision to either shit or get off the pot then we'll be having this conversation for generations.If the longest war in US history (Afghanistan,) the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the ongoing drone wars in half a dozen countries at least, and the proxy wars in Yemen and Syria are half measures, what would a comprehensive military effort look like, and why do you think it wouldn't incubate generations of backlash in all the countries we attack?

[Winehole23]

Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed. Does that seem a deterrent to radicalization, in your view?

[Winehole23]

Also, is our own military ready for such an effort and will the country support it? Leaving aside the question of whether a purely military response is strategically wise, whether it is logistically and more importantly, politically sustainable, are important questions.

[Winehole23]

If the so-called half measures of the longest war in US history, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the ongoing drone wars and proxy wars -- a dozen years of intense and continuous war -- have been inadequate, why do you place faith in the effectiveness of more of the same?

[Winehole23]

Nazism wasn't defeated, btw. It lives in France and the USA -- and many other places -- today. The ideology wasn't defeated in WWII -- only the contemporaneous exemplars were.

So much for defeating ideologies with warlike brutality.

[Winehole23]

As long as you aren't in certain neighborhoods the risk of gun violence is on par with the safest places in the world. The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero.That's false. Accidents happen and violence doesn't restrict itself to dangerous neighborhoods.

[boutons_deux]

"The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero."

:lol

According to data (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html) collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an average of 62 children aged 14 and under die each year in the United States as the result of unintentional shootings.

The CDC number was tragic enough. It already meant that U.S. children are 16 times more likely to be unintentionally shot to death than children in other high-income countries.

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/06/more-us-children-killed-accidental-shootings-you-might-think

[SnakeBoy]

what would a comprehensive military effort look like, and why do you think it wouldn't incubate generations of backlash in all the countries we attack?

I’m not a military scholar but I’ll just guess…Probably a million+ troops required to secure the peace throughout the middle east/northern Africa. Of course there would be backlash…those would be the people to kill...there would be a lot of them.


Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed. Does that seem a deterrent to radicalization, in your view?

Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed without securing the peace is the opposite of a deterrent, that’s basically the point you've been making which I agree with. It’s the result of half measures.


If the so-called half measures of the longest war in US history, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the ongoing drone wars and proxy wars -- a dozen years of intense and continuous war -- have been inadequate, why do you place faith in the effectiveness of more of the same?

I’m not talking about more of the same. You’re right that the actions to date have been inadequate but you have to ask why they were inadequate.

Afghanistan – CIA led operation attempted with an insufficient number of forces to secure the country. The people of Afghanistan were going to be so pleased with our invasion that they would secure the peace for us.

Iraq – Attempted using Rumsfeld’s vision of modern warfare, small rapidly moving force with superior firepower. Insufficient number of forces to secure the country. The people of Iraq were going to be so pleased with our invasion that they would secure the peace for us. Wiser military minds suggested 300,00 to 500,000 troops would be required, they were ignored.

Drone wars/proxy wars – in response to the failure of using an insufficient number of troops to secure the peace the new military strategy is to try using even less (or zero) troops.


Also, is our own military ready for such an effort and will the country support it? Leaving aside the question of whether a purely military response is strategically wise, whether it is logistically and more importantly, politically sustainable, are important questions.

No and No but that is what a military solution looks like imo.

I didn’t say this is what we should do. I said this is what a military solution looks like and we have to live with the consequences of it if we decide military action is the solution. If it sounds like I’m describing WWIII it’s because I am. The reality is if you list all of the countries actively using military force to defeat radical Islam then you see we are already in WWIII. We are just trying to do it without getting ours hands too dirty so we can call ourselves the good guys but there are no good guys in war. There’s just a winner and a loser, the winner gets to call himself the good guy.

So Winehole, you correctly pointed out that what I call half measures (small scale invasions/occupations, drone wars, proxy wars) are inadequate and only exacerbate the problem. From your responses it’s clear you are opposed to the full scale WWIII approach. So it seems your answer to the question “Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action?” is No. Can you describe what that approach looks like? Serious question, I would like to hear what a non military solution looks like. Like I said I don't know if the correct answer to the question is yes or no but if it is no then I have no clue what the solution looks like. To me answering no just means we accept the current situation as the norm, perhaps that is the best approach idk.


Nazism wasn't defeated, btw. It lives in France and the USA -- and many other places -- today. The ideology wasn't defeated in WWII -- only the contemporaneous exemplars were.

So much for defeating ideologies with warlike brutality.

lol

[SnakeBoy]

That's false. Accidents happen and violence doesn't restrict itself to dangerous neighborhoods.


"The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero."

:lol

According to data (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html) collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an average of 62 children aged 14 and under die each year in the United States as the result of unintentional shootings.

The CDC number was tragic enough. It already meant that U.S. children are 16 times more likely to be unintentionally shot to death than children in other high-income countries.

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/06/more-us-children-killed-accidental-shootings-you-might-think


Ahhh...the goal of gun control is to prevent accidental shootings. I did not know that.

[boutons_deux]

Ahhh...the goal of gun control is to prevent accidental shootings. I did not know that.

well, there's lots of stuff you don't know

severe gun control would mean fewer guns, which means less gun violence.

more guns means more gun violence.

[SnakeBoy]

well, there's lots of stuff you don't know

severe gun control would mean fewer guns, which means less gun violence.

more guns means more gun violence.

lol severe gun control

strengthen background check laws isn't all that severe.

[boutons_deux]

lol severe gun control

strengthen background check laws isn't all that severe.

I didn't say it was, and b/g checks obviously are weak gun control (NRA blocks it anyway)

[z0sa]

No acts of terrorism executed by refugees in the U.S.

And that accounts for the 25000 others how? You have one belief, the other poster has a contrasting one. Neither one is rooted in facts.

[Th'Pusher]

And that accounts for the 25000 others how? You have one belief, the other poster has a contrasting one. Neither one is rooted in facts.
My opinion is absolutely rooted in fact. Refugees taken in by the US have not posed any significant terror threats in the U.S. Undeniable fact. RMT's position that Syrian refugees in the US pose a terror threat is rooted in irrational fear. Sorry, but that's reality.

[rmt]

My opinion is absolutely rooted in fact. Refugees taken in by the US have not posed any significant terror threats in the U.S. Undeniable fact. RMT's position that Syrian refugees in the US pose a terror threat is rooted in irrational fear. Sorry, but that's reality.

Did you miss this from the refugee thread? They are trying.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-chairman-says

"The NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center) has identified “individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria attempting to gain entry to the U.S. through the U.S. refugee program,” the intelligence agency told McCaul in a letter.

[z0sa]

My opinion is absolutely rooted in fact. Refugees taken in by the US have not posed any significant terror threats in the U.S. Undeniable fact. RMT's position that Syrian refugees in the US pose a terror threat is rooted in irrational fear. Sorry, but that's reality.

:lol you cant use other people when were talking about 25 THOUSAND completely different individuals. Your "facts" are actually an opinion based on statistics, not any real vetting of the 25000 refugees. For all you REALLY know, there could be a thousand radicals, or absolutely zero. Youre just making an educated guess.

Once again, an opinion.

[rmt]

Now ISIS can make fake Syrian passports.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-passports-idUSKBN0TV02820151212#0t8YE3C6jWmeswLY.97

[Th'Pusher]

Did you miss this from the refugee thread? They are trying.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-chairman-says

"The NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center) has identified “individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria attempting to gain entry to the U.S. through the U.S. refugee program,” the intelligence agency told McCaul in a letter.
Did they gain entry to the U.S? Did they execute a terrorist attack?

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't say it was, and b/g checks obviously are weak gun control (NRA blocks it anyway)

So what is the "severe" gun control you speak of?

[Th'Pusher]

:lol you cant use other people when were talking about 25 THOUSAND completely different individuals. Your "facts" are actually an opinion based on statistics, not any real vetting of the 25000 refugees. For all you REALLY know, there could be a thousand radicals, or absolutely zero. Youre just making an educated guess.

Once again, an opinion.

Mine is an educated guess based on facts. RMT's is an emotional response based on fear.

[rmt]

Mine is an educated guess based on facts. RMT's is an emotional response based on fear.

It's so nice to know that you have such detailed knowledge of my emotions.

[Th'Pusher]

It's so nice to know that you have such detailed knowledge of my emotions.
You've lain your emotions out for all to read. You parrot AM radio talking points with little to no critical thinking or analysis of your own. You seem to be a nice enough lady, but I don't think you've come to many conclusions on your own. You clearly have an axe to grind with Obama specific to the ACA. Just my opinion.

[rmt]

You've lain your emotions out for all to read. You parrot AM radio talking points with little to no critical thinking or analysis of your own. You seem to be a nice enough lady, but I don't think you've come to many conclusions on your own. You clearly have an axe to grind with Obama specific to the ACA. Just my opinion.

Well, thank you for the nice compliment buried among all your educated guesses.

[mingus]

Well what you are really asking when you reference the last decade and a half is if I think half measures are a good idea and of course the answer is no. I don't agree that there are no easy answers because the question for the West is pretty simple. Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action or not?

If the answer is yes then we have to accept military action is war and that the only way to win a war is through overwhelming force and brutality. History shows that this is the only way to win a war against an ideology. If we choose yes, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

If the answer is no we need to stop using "limited" military operations and interventions because history shows they cannot defeat an ideology. If we choose no, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.

I don't know which answer we should choose but if we don't make a decision to either shit or get off the pot then we'll be having this conversation for generations.

There's different brands of Muslim extremism. There's extremism based largely on our meddling over there. They re-interpret the Quran to validate martyrdom to fight for that cause. We can "get off the pot"--abandon Saudi Arabia, abandon Kuwait, abandon Israel, and in essence abandon any kind of issue over there for which there might just cause for intervention (i.e. humanitarian crisis, which the ME is no stranger to, what with Christians, Jews, women, gays and even their own having been subject to persecution over the centuries). If we we claim to stand for democratic & humanitarian principles, we'll always be over there to some extent tho--it's a cesspool of oppression. Then they'll attack us on those grounds, they already do. Additionally, they'll attack because of our cultural influence--these mongrels hate the fact that our technology, entertainment and way of life reach and influence people over there. They'd attack us for exporting our culture, they already do.

The other brand of Muslim extremism, Wahhabism, is based on attacking us only for our democratic & secular principles. We're infidels and deserve to die.

What I'm saying essentially is they'll attack us no matter what we do. And we have to respond to that in some way. So we'll always "meddle". We have no choice, there's no getting off of the pot. We can choose either to take a big shit or small shit.

Also, I believe we can respond forcefully without being stupid (i.e. operation Iraqi freedom). We don't need nor should we try and go all one man army. Requires an expansive global effort.

[boutons_deux]

"If we we claim to stand for democratic & humanitarian principles"

:lol you simpleton mofo.

America doesn't give a shit about other peoples' forms of govt or principles or democracy in other countries.

America only cares about America's on power and wealth.

America DESTROYS other countries' democracies if they don't serve America's power and wealth.

America ALWAYS supports, has for many decades, the NASTIEST, authoritarian, murderous mofo dictators if they support American power and wealth.

"I'm saying essentially is they'll attack us no matter what we do"

You're essentially a stupid flag waving mofo.

Muslims are attacking America anywhere because America FIRST attacked, invaded, occupied their countries to support America's empire, power, wealth.

March 2003 led directly to Bataclan and San Bernardino.

OBL himself said, America military occupying Saudi Arabia lead DIRECTLY to 9/11.

[Winehole23]

Fascists lose in the second round, center right surges, Socialist trail:


France's far-right National Front (FN) has failed to win a single region in the second round of elections, exit polls indicate.


Early results suggest the party was beaten into third place, despite leading in six of 13 regions in the first round of votes a week ago.


The polls predict Nicolas Sarkozy's centre-right Republicans will win most seats ahead of the ruling Socialists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35088276

[Winehole23]

France's FN accused tactical voters seeking to block its path to power in two key regions of 'intellectual terrorism'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358109/Marine-Le-Pen-s-National-accuses-France-s-tactical-voters-intellectual-terrorism-ditch-bid-stop-taking-power-two-key-regions.html#ixzz3uEgfYWLb

[mingus]

"If we we claim to stand for democratic & humanitarian principles"

:lol you simpleton mofo.

America doesn't give a shit about other peoples' forms of govt or principles or democracy in other countries.

America only cares about America's on power and wealth.

America DESTROYS other countries' democracies if they don't serve America's power and wealth.

America ALWAYS supports, has for many decades, the NASTIEST, authoritarian, murderous mofo dictators if they support American power and wealth.

"I'm saying essentially is they'll attack us no matter what we do"

You're essentially a stupid flag waving mofo.

Muslims are attacking America anywhere because America FIRST attacked, invaded, occupied their countries to support America's empire, power, wealth.

March 2003 led directly to Bataclan and San Bernardino.

OBL himself said, America military occupying Saudi Arabia lead DIRECTLY to 9/11.



Not saying the U.S. hasn't been hypocritical in who we've supported. We've certainly supported the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe, Korea, Palestine/Israel, and before that Germany, Italy, and Japan while turning a blind eye and allying to a country like Saudi Arabia.

Regardless, we've helped spread democracy, and we've only been able to do that by doing what's in our best interest. A strong U.S. is what influences it. They are not mutually exclusive goals, in fact the opposite.

Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have said a lot of things. It doesn't start and end with Saudi Arabia. It's Israel, it's Saudi Arabia, it's our humanitarian efforts there, our "heathen" culture seeping into and "polluting" theirs (bin Laden talked about that, too), and religious fundamentalism that calls for the extermination of infidels aka Wahhabism.

BTW, I take no offense to being called a "flag waver", it's complimentary. We're far from being a perfect country, but no country is. But there's a lot to like and respect about it. If you don't find that to be the case, then what's keeping you from packing your shit and leaving?

[boutons_deux]

"we've helped spread democracy"

where?

Iran, Meso-America, Philippines, Greece, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Egypt, etc. America has destroyed democracies it didn't like, created/supported authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes.