patrick.net

Ironman says

If the "good" Muslims don't get a handle and rein in the "bad" Muslims, hell will rain down on ALL of them.

Won't happen because the "good" Muslims are terrified of the "bad" Muslims and many "good" Muslims agree in principle. Those who don't agree still want to "keep up appearances" and in some cases, simply stay alive

MMR says

we need to watch those Norwegian Americans like hawks....there is a slight chance that they might be Breivik supporters

Or worse, make Lutefisk and leave the windows open.

So very sad.

Notice how they go after the helpless. Hey, why not a pre-school? I'm sure those little bastard infidels (under age five) have it coming to them.

Cowards attack the weak.

turtledove says

Notice how they go after the helpless

Of course. They want to terrorize.

turtledove says

Cowards attack the weak.

Cowards??

turtledove says

So very sad.

Notice how they go after the helpless. Hey, why not a pre-school? I'm sure those little bastard infidels (under age five) have it coming to them.

Cowards attack the weak.

They need virgins for sex. No bombing pre schools or elementary schools.

FP says

Cowards??

Yeah, cowards. It's easy to go after someone who isn't likely to fight back... Someone who lives in a world where he/she would never expect an attack. You have the full advantage that way. A coward wants to look like someone who won, and they want the path of least resistance. So, they will pick easier targets. Like people in a church.

turtledove says

It's easy to go after someone who isn't likely to fight back

But they invariably end up dead. Clearly they are not afraid of a fight per se (and they do fight elsewhere). Attacking soft targets is simply means to ensure the success or their goals.

turtledove says

Someone who lives in a world where he/she would never expect an attack. You have the full advantage that way.

Why did you change the subject to drone operators now?

FP says

Attacking soft targets is simply means to ensure the success or their goals.

Exactly my point. And that's what a coward would do. Have some balls. Biker bars love good fights. Little old church ladies and men of the cloth... not so much.

FP says

Why did you change the subject to drone operators now?

You're reaching.

turtledove says

And that's what a coward would do.

No, that's what a smart person (albeit a monster) would do.

turtledove says

Biker bars love good fights.

Fighting in a bikers bar would not terrorize anybody.

turtledove says

You're reaching.

I am thinking. You are parroting.

FP says

You are parroting.

Parroting who? I've been at work all day slammed with patients. So, I've not had the chance yet to learn my lines from whomever you think I should learn them from... However, retarded you think my words are, I'm proud to say that they are entirely of my own concoction as I have no time for TV. When I got home, my daughter commandeered the remote. So... Unless I'm getting subliminal messages from the movie Divergent (or perhaps my Cox provider), I'm not sure who I'm parroting, exactly.

@turtledove,

Oh, c'mon. the words terrorist and cowardly are inseparable. Have you ever heard anyone, on any media, say "terrorist" without uttering "coward(ly)" in the same sentence?

FP says

Oh, c'mon. the words terrorist and cowardly are inseparable. Have you ever heard anyone, on any media, say "terrorist" without uttering "coward(ly)" in the same sentence?

People who target the weak do it out of cowardice. It's so obvious. It's much harder to go after someone who is an equal match. You call it strategy... I call it cowardice. But I guess in your world if I'm forced to pick my opponent in a fistfight to the end, it would be perfectly okay for me to pick a ten year old kid. Okay, good to know. I'm sure to win.

turtledove says

But I guess in your world if I'm forced to pick my opponent in a fistfight to the end, it would be perfectly okay for me to pick a ten year old kid.

OK, there's no point continuing this discussion

FP says

OK, there's no point continuing this discussion

Explain why it's brave to target the weak, and perhaps I'll have a better understanding of your position.

turtledove says

Explain why it's brave to target the weak, and perhaps I'll have a better understanding of your position.

FIne. One more attempt.

First, I did not say that it is brave to target the weak. In this context, it is neither brave nor cowardly. Their choice of who to target is not motivated by fear of the consequences; they die (sacrifice themselves) regardless. They choose the weak not because they are afraid to take on the strong (they do it in fact in the middle east), but because doing the latter would not accomplish what they are after. Their goal is to disrupt/destroy the lives of the regular folks (the weak) and this can be accomplished by targeting these people.

It is true that by targeting the weak their actions bear similarity to the actions of people who are afraid to take on the strong, i.e. cowards. However, this is coincidental. The distinction is the underlying motivation.

Now, if you want to define coward to mean a person who targets the weak, then you are certainly right. But since English is not my first language, I tend to stick to the dictionary definition of words.

I don't think what we're saying is all that dissimilar. I was just concise about it. My economy of words, however, doesn't mean I can't see that targeting the weak is a strategy.... It is just one that has no honor, irrespective of the cause. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

turtledove says

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

yeah, very effective, isn't it

Trying to shame them will not succeed. Guerrilla warfare (this is similar) can be sustained as long as it has substantial support from the population. In this case it is the muslim population. The question is how to remove this support. Maybe only carrot does not work and is time for some stick as well.

And, BTW, we have our honor, they have their honor. There's no right moral system. However, there is self interest. It it in my self interest that these killings are stopped.

The goal of Islam is get to paradise, and the only sure way to get there is to die fighting for Islam. Describing what to do in war (and remember, Islam is always at war, especially when NATO and the Saudis are actually waging war in Syria and other Muslim countries) Chapter 8 of the Koran says:

"12...instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
***
55 For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
***
60 ...strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.

Respectfully, it isn't really about cowardice or courage; devotion to the delusion of Islam produces a parallel world similar to schizophrenia, complete with delusions of grandeur about becoming the sword of Allah. Churchill acknowledged the apparent bravery of Muslim soldiers, saying they "all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it." Churchill wrote further, "Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness." Jihadis attack churches and rival mosques with equal ferocity, and schools, airliners, office towers, the Pentagon, anything they can reach.

As per 8:60, the strategy is to strike terror. To do that, the jihadis must attack as many different types of targets as possible, so the enemy (that's us) can't feel safe anywhere. The violence will continue as long as Islam continues. Although most Muslims don't personally participate in terror attacks, they believe in a doctrine that commands them to do so, and wherever possible they elect politicians who believe in the same doctrine. The initially sporadic jihadi attacks mark the first wave of Islamization, followed by destabilizing the government and imposing Sharia. In most countries with Muslim majorities, a majority of Muslims support Sharia. Note that submitting to Islam is no defense, either, because it subjects you and your family to all sorts of penalties including the death penalty for apostasy. The terror attacks are the first symptoms that should warn you of a potentially terminal disease.

Little glitch in the translation. Religion of "Pieces" not "Peace".

Ceffer says

Little glitch in the translation. Religion of "Pieces" not "Peace".

Religion of Piss. Now it's fixed.

Murderer of Priest in France passed Security Check to work at an Airport.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/29/isis-teen-who-killed-priest-passed-background-check-for-airport-job/

#Vetting

thunderlips11 says

Murderer of Priest in France passed Security Check to work at an Airport.

He must have been a nice guy.

FP says

The question is how to remove this support

No, the question is how to remove the Muslim population. As long as they are there, the attacks will continue. Seems fairly obvious, don't you think? Scorpions make poor bedfellows.

Quigley says

No, the question is how to remove the Muslim population.

No, this is not the question. This may be a solution. But is it (1) realistic and (2) a good one?

You're right, there's one other possible solution: give the resident Muslims a choice. Convert to a different religion or be immediately deported. No worry about them returning to Islam since they'll be enemies of the religious state as apostates. The converts might just become the most devoted Christians in France! The objectors will be far away in countries nobody cares about living lives similar to their religious progenitor.
And the important bit: no more terrorists.

FP says

But is it (1) realistic and (2) a good one?

Curbing future immigration to makers and producers and establishing measures to minimize ghettoization is though ....basically about 180 degrees opposite of Europe