TheReal_ND wrote:
We don't have to go to war with Islam. Just quit importing them like they are the world's Mexicans. Why is that so hard to do? Why do you object to immigration reform?
Because immigration reform has nothing to do with the issue. Muslim terrorists aren't going through a decade of vetting and procedure to get here - they fly in, and do their shit, or they are batshit-crazy citizens, looking for an excuse to do batshit-crazy things.
Let's try a thought experiment out so we can get on the same page. Put aside all the other extenuating factors that could be involved in the scenario, let's just see if we are even on the same page for a moment;
Culture A: Accepts Culture B in
Culture B: terrorizes Culture A
Culture A: acts like a cuck and takes even more of them in like they are ho hos.
Culture B: Does X
What do you think X is commie cat face?
X = a culture change for those that came in, and even more fury from those that are left out. Inevitably, Culture A will either stick to it's ideals (unlikely), or will radically change itself, in the name of imagined security, and become exactly what the nutballs from Culture B were calling them all along.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Because immigration reform has nothing to do with the issue. Muslim terrorists aren't going through a decade of vetting and procedure to get here - they fly in, and do their shit, or they are batshit-crazy citizens, looking for an excuse to do batshit-crazy things.
Let's try a thought experiment out so we can get on the same page. Put aside all the other extenuating factors that could be involved in the scenario, let's just see if we are even on the same page for a moment;
Culture A: Accepts Culture B in
Culture B: terrorizes Culture A
Culture A: acts like a cuck and takes even more of them in like they are ho hos.
Culture B: Does X
What do you think X is commie cat face?
X = a culture change for those that came in, and even more fury from those that are left out. Inevitably, Culture A will either stick to it's ideals (unlikely), or will radically change itself, in the name of imagined security, and become exactly what the nutballs from Culture B were calling them all along.
They're winning.
So...the more they blow us up...the more we win? But only if we don't retaliate.
Whom? Why would they be left out if culture A accepts them like candy? A culture change may be prevalent but what will stop Culture B from running rough shod over the cucks that bend over backwards for them?
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
And I say that the act of 'submitting to terror' would be exactly what you propose - giving in to base fear and anger, lashing out, and going to some kind of idiotic war with 1 billion humans scattered around the planet. We would become the Great Satan that they are trying to paint us as. That's my point - your becoming a fanatic....containment is the best solution IMHO as it preserves the most rights for the kids who don't throw poo in the sandbox
We pooed in their sandbox, and have been doing so for 60 years. It's completely predictable that some of them would go nuts.
Also, who the hell is 'in constant danger', outside of an ISIS-controlled city? You know as well as I do that you're more likely to get hit by lightning while being eaten by a bull shark, than encounter a terrorist.Check your numbers foo http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml
There's twenty dead in this attack alone - not even counting the 3000K dead on 911, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, all the slaughtered Christians in Syria....the numbers simply don't support you.
...which amounts to a grand total of what - 10,000 dead? 10s of millions died last year from heart disease and cancer.
Seriously, you're too smart for this.
You miss the point -it doesn't matter that the percentage of durka durks is less than 30% of the total mussie population, attacks at the rate we're having them are simply unacceptable in a civilized society. The best way to stop those attacks would be to commit religious genocide on Islam - but I don't have the stomach for that, so containment is the best option.
TheReal_ND wrote:
Let's try a thought experiment out so we can get on the same page. Put aside all the other extenuating factors that could be involved in the scenario, let's just see if we are even on the same page for a moment;
Culture A: Accepts Culture B in
Culture B: terrorizes Culture A
Culture A: acts like a cuck and takes even more of them in like they are ho hos.
Culture B: Does X
What do you think X is commie cat face?
X = a culture change for those that came in, and even more fury from those that are left out. Inevitably, Culture A will either stick to it's ideals (unlikely), or will radically change itself, in the name of imagined security, and become exactly what the nutballs from Culture B were calling them all along.
They're winning.
So...the more they blow us up...the more we win? But only if we don't retaliate.
Correct.
Remember, Germany was one of the worlds' great civilizations before WW1. The people were abused, slaughtered, and humiliated, and became monsters. Now, they bear the stain of their wrath for decades, maybe centuries to come.
It would not take much to garner general support in this country for a mass slaughter of Muslims.
Okay, do you realized that they are not going to release anything right away and/or at this stage, a lot of hot noise over how many dead, how many bombs were planted, etc...?
Whom? Why would they be left out if culture A accepts them like candy? A culture change may be prevalent but what will stop Culture B from running rough shod over the cucks that bend over backwards for them?
We don't accept them like candy, and we don't bend over backwards. Never have, never will.
Look up the visa process for anyone trying to come over here. It's ridiculous.
And even Deerborne, MI flies American flags, celebrates American holidays, and hasn't suffered a single attack that I'm aware of. Integration is inevitable.
