Terrorism

Some Terrible Responses To The Paris Attacks

Never let a terrible event got to waste when you've got an obsession, an enemy, or an empty cliche left standing.

|

Any time something as awful and highly charged as yesterday's Paris attacks happen, you can count on an endless stream of hot takes that are as appalling as they are void of knowledge and facts.

Before the body count was finished—indeed, before the perpretators were even accounted for—we saw things such as

  • "And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right's violent language toward activists." Salon's Chauncey Devega gets it, don't you see? The attacks in Paris by jihadists (whose exact affiliations aren't clear) must be linked to Fox News, by any means necessary. "Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris," warns Devega. "The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly."
  • Then there's former Secretary of State and presumed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She didn't inveigh against Americans, but instead chose to rely on a string cliches presumably written by a junior staffer who had spent a semester abroad in France:
Monica Alba
  • Then there's folks such as former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, now at Fox News, who were quick to tell everybody else to STFU already unless they had gotten killed or wounded at the Eagles of Death Metal show:
  • Of course, there were more than a few of exactly those sorts of brats who were ready to play the role Miller cast for them:

  • Ann Coulter predictably used the moment to announce the coronation of Donald Trump: "They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight." Pausing only to express love the Eagles of Death Metal, the rock group playing at Bataclan, the music venue which saw the most carnage, she also got shouty at her TV: "Why does NO ONE say the obvious thing on TV?! It's insane. Don't want terrorism in US? Stop importing Muslims!"

As in our private lives, people in public statements react very differently to tragedy. Some take at least a moment to acknowledge that something horrible has happened and at least shed a tear or take a second to collect their thoughts. Some move immediately to claim whatever happens proves exactly why their obsessions are clearly at play (and their perspective proven totally correct). Others (such as Secretary Clinton) retreat into vacuity and cliche. Still others do what they can to keep themselves at the center of attention, and still others use a terrible event to minimize other problems.

The insta-reactions are worth taking seriously not for what they say but for what they reveal about public political discourse. The immediate politicization of just about everything is understandable—shocking events knock off our feet and we reach for something/anything that will stabilize us. But if the first thing you reach for, even before some gesture toward a common humanity and concern for innocent people who are being killed, is your political obsession, well, as your therapist might say, "You've still got some work to do."

NEXT: Eat Food and Die

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Arab Spring”.

    1. Arab Spring board?

    2. ? ? It’s Springtime for Isis and Bhagdadi,

      winter for Germany and France….

      1. Bombvests, machetes and hijabs
        So, come on and join Mohammad’s Mob

        1. “exactly why their obsessions are clearly at pray”

          say what???

          1. *Lacist joke*

  2. So…”violent” rhetoric against “activists” is related to the Paris attacks…huh?

    1. At least some of the top Facebook comments are good:

      Can you guys stop already. Geez. I’m not a fan of Fox News but Salon seems more outraged at the “violent rhetoric” of Fox News than the actually murder of 100+ innocent people.

      So Salon is using a brutal terrorist attack, as it is happening and as blood is still spilling, to illustrate how conservatives report stories inappropriately and with a lack of sensitivity?… I guess their editor missed the English Lit class where the teacher explained irony…

      It is ironic that Salon accuses the right of exploiting these tragedies yet they are doing the same thing. This massacre is only a few hours old and Salon is already using this massacre by Islamists in Paris to demonize FOX news. I have no love of FOX but you guys may even be more descpicable then them!

      1. Derp has no peak. Salon is just trying to prove that point.

        1. “Derp has no peak.”

          You win the internet for the entire weekend.

      2. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves…

      3. I made the mistake of going to salon.com occasionally during the evening for news, which was a mistake. I really got the idea that they are pretty close to being sociopaths. Their only response to the ongoing terror was to blame everything on the conservatives, and anyone else, but not the Islamic terrorists with the guns and bombs.

        1. Why would you go there ever? Other than to anger yourself.

    2. As against real violent rhetoric, you know, like the kind that some ISIS asshole uttered back in July on a propaganda video in which he threatened, in French, to litter the streets of Paris with dead bodies. He thereupon beheaded a Syrian captive and threw the body off a cliff.

      But, yeah, the violence in Paris is all the fault of “Right-Wing Media.”

    3. Huh? Yesterday it was because of potheads listening to music that was to blame…

  3. I love the Mizzou people, mass murder is totally the same as getting your feelings hurt.

    1. Micro aggressions = genocide

    2. Why, did they say something along those lines?

      1. Bunch of tweets complaining that the press is giving too much attention to Paris while mizzu is equally bad if not worse. Truly epic derp of a level hard to fathom. The stupidity is mind blowing as is their lack of awareness.

        1. And those were actually the better of the social media messages. The worst were open scorn toward Paris for stealing their thunder.

          1. When your primary object of attention is yourself, you don’t understand how ridiculous you look when you try to change to your favorite subject.

          2. I would not mind some links.

              1. Sweet Jesus, that was painful to read.
                I thought I was fairly immune to this crap by now but that hurt.
                I have no words.

                1. Perhaps even worse is that the next story is about IRA bag man Peter King bitching about Obama’s attitude on refugees.

              2. I was having a hard time determining a favorite before I got to

                We can remember the tragedy in Paris and still remember #Mizzou. We are capable of multitasking. Both situations are equally messed up.

                1. Yeah. That’s as close to peak derp as you may get. Awful. Sad.

                  Mizzou = Paris. These people are mental in the head.

            1. And, to be sure, these twits don’t represent all of the protesters any more than the terrorists represent all of Islam. But both larger groups probably need to lock their people down.

              1. Your language is so problematic I can’t even.

              2. But they both repesent the most devout of their religion.

                1. Truly, we all should aspire to be so pure.

        2. We should oblige those students by having the Missouri governor send in National Guard troops with orders to shoot to kill all whiny hippies. Finally give them something tangible to cry about. And something hilarious to watch on TV. Maybe set it to the Benny Hill chase music.

  4. Pausing only to express love the Eagles of Metal, the rock group playing at Bataclan, the music venue which saw the most carnage, she also got shouty at her TV: “Why does NO ONE say the obvious thing on TV?! It’s insane. Don’t want terrorism in US? Stop importing Muslims!”

    Now tell us how she’s wrong. Here’s your “knowledge and facts”.

    1. The cosmos aren’t good for much of anything, except being snarky and bitchily whining about what the people they don’t like say.

      Now, I certainly don’t expect Reason to actually come up with anything remotely intelligent or substantive in the way of a solution as to how to deal with these Islamozani lunatics. They’re completely bereft of anything remotely resembling an idea on the subject.

      You know what would be nice to see though at least? An admission of just how utterly, totally, and laughably wrong they were a few years ago when they actually believed that the “Arab Spring” would be the greatest thing since sliced bread; when they thought that these lunatics were actually just regular folks seeing peace, freedom, and a Jeffersonian style republic/democracy.

    2. Woah that is getting close to commiting thought crime. Now shout 20 “celebrate diversitys” and write me a paper on the contributions of Asian-Americans on rap music.

    3. Now tell us how she’s wrong.

      They know she’s wrong because the feelz it.

      And if you don’t too, you’re just a racist statist slaver.

      1. Projection overload

    4. She’s wrong because stopping Muslim immigration over a terror attack is exactly like taking away people’s guns over a campus shooting. Sorry, it’s not the government’s job to indulge your pants-shitting.

      1. No it is not exactly like that.

        The gun is an inanimate object without consciousness.

        The terrorist is a sentinent being without a conscious.

      2. stopping Muslim immigration over a terror attack is exactly like taking away people’s guns over a campus shooting

        Not sure if serious.

        1. I think it actually is sort of similar (which doesn’t necessarily mean that the people wanting more immigration restrictions are wrong, though I think they are). It is similar because as with the gun control people, the anti immigration people are just using this as a platform to promote what they already believed. Everyone already knew that this sort of thing is possible and probably likely. If an event like this changes your mind about anything, you really haven’t been paying attention. Which is the same as in the case of a shooting that prompts cries for gun control. No one learned anything new. We already know that if guns are readily available, sometimes people will do bad things with them. We already knew that there are Islamic terrorists in Europe willing and able to commit horrible attacks like this. It’s just an opportunity to promote what they already believe about immigration or guns or whatever.
          Of course immigrants with a particular system of belief are a whole different sort of thing to guns. But the way in which tragic events are used to promote a preexisting agenda is quite similar.

          1. The right to own guns, at least in the USA, is constitutional, the “right” to immigrate isn’t.

            1. Unless you think the Declaration of Independence has any weight. Its signers took exception to King George discouraging immigration into These States.
              “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

              1. The founding fathers were referring to the immigration of a very narrow sliver of humanity, namely other British peoples just like themselves. Obviously it doesn’t refer to anyone else because all throughout the colonial period Bantu were coming imported as slaves without limit. The founding fathers were of Germanic stock and never dreamed America would let in anything other than Germanic peoples. And some races they didn’t even consider human at all, as per their line about all men being created equal, while owning Bantu slaves. They didn’t consider the Bantu to be human, and they never considered the possibility of letting in immigrants of a completely different race and civilization that was not part of the Germanic family and who might believe in God only knows what values and customs. Letting in people who not only aren’t Germanic but are not even white and who have an evil religion which compels them to terrorize and wage jihad against Christians until they convey to Islam would have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

                1. Only Germanic. So dirty frenchmen like Apollos Rivoire could get fucked?

                  1. Paul Revere senior was wise to anglicize his name to that from Apollos Rivoire so that his son, who he only spoke perfect English to, could pass as a regular American colonist. Had they not looked like Englishmen and had their new Englishman sounding names, they might have been run out of the colonies and not have been able to help in the war. Such assimilation is impossible among non white immigrants and they should be kept out.

                    1. People with French names would have been run out of the colonies and unable to help with the revolution? Citation, please.

                    2. This really is too stupid to deserve comment or response, but New Rochelle, New York was founded by French Huguenots. Lewis Pintard, who did not anglicize his last name, organized the defense of New York. Nor is this an unusual example of French immigrants coming to the US and not having to “pass” as “Germanic.” In addition to French immigrants throughout the colonies, you had French ships off the coast of Yorktown, boxing in Lord Cornwallis while the Marquis de Lafayette was one of the primary leaders of the land campaign.

                      My point being that, even in 1776, your racial theories about the need to protect America from insidious French influence (because when have the Germans ever been a malign influence?) would have sounded provincial.

      3. Except that we know that the terrorists said they were going to use the open borders to move terrorists and their tools into Europe and we know that at least two of the attackers in Paris came over during the current mass immigration. I guess since they came to kill people, they are neither refugees nor immigrants, but an invasion force.

      4. Right, because the solution to stopping Muslim terrorist attacks is to import as many of them as humanly possible.

        This is why your worldview is so fucking contradictory, and you’re too childish to realize the cognitive dissonance. You promote wars that create refugee populations, then argue that allowing the people whose country you just bombed will make them forget it was you that did it, and they surely will not project their hatred of your country and your culture after they migrate.

        “LIve and let live” is not in ISIS’ playbook. They don’t give a shit how magnanimous you are. And the last thing a country that actually wants to survive should do is import more people with a significant minority who will cheer your murder.

      5. I know you favor open borders beyond all sense of sanity or sense of self preservation, but seriously, that is one dogs hit analogy.

      6. Gun ownership is a constitutional right; migrants have no constitutional rights to immigrate to America. The majority of the Muslims in the ME while not terrorists themselves, support the imposition of Sharia law. We should take in much fewer, and focus on the single women, elderly women, gays, non-Muslims, orphans, etc.

        1. More importantly, studies show that the vast majority of Muslims support jihad against the West and jihad to spread Islam until it is the only religion in the world. Very scary indeed.

    5. Um… I’ve only seen about 30 seconds of Coulter and mebbe two paragraphs of her screed–enough to predispose me to disagree with anything she belches up. This one is a real stumper to find fault with, but here goes: a mohammedan with a box of matches and memories of US bombings can light large wildfires, which are now 500% more common than when the Nixon admin. was bombing ‘Nam. These produce CO2 and lend weight to econazi claims that industry is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. OK then… when mohammedans knocked down buildings and holed the Pentagon, the Republican moron got reelected in time to have bombs dropped on bystanders far from Saudiland and Mecca, and even destroy the economy by using asset forfeiture to increase government share of GDP by 3% in 2 years. The GOP likes CO2 hysteria, war hysteria, GOP victories and economic collapse. Therefore importing suicidal fanatics is a good thing. Coulter was being ironic but nobody caught it for lack of the /sarc tag. What are police shootings of teenagers but religious fanatic terrorism in These States?

      1. You sound like a conspiracy theory nut job who thinks that both they and ad hominem attacks are persuasive. They are not.

        Ann Coulter is right all the way.

  5. I jokingly told friends that Obama is now busily trying to figure out how to blame the Paris attacks on the Republican congress, George W. Bush, and the Koch Brothers. Apparently I joked too soon.

    1. The truth is often first spoken in jest.

  6. Re: The refugees/migrants. Just heard a bizarre Smerconish/Huckabee exchange which exposed the divide. Huckabee went on about desert people relocating in Minnesota make no sense while Smerconish spoke – remarkably – as though (or at least implied) there were/are no terrorists among the refugees. He made no effort to consider this could be the case pleading America should take them in ‘because’.

  7. As for my country, my God. My worst fears have been realized. Zoolander is clueless.

    Wrong guy to be at the helm of this. We saw what ‘on the job training’ leads to with the USA under Obama.

    1. I’d take Zoolander over Jihad Justin.

      I wasn’t pleased with the response of our new ‘Baaadasss’ Defense Minister either. He said we need diplomatic solutions to these problems. Really? Who can we talk to that isn’t insane?

      1. It’s a Shiny Toy government.

        Harper was better on such issues.

        /looks around nervously for Cytotoxic.

        1. No he wasn’t. He was an anti-freedom asshole, and apparently so are you.

          1. Yes. I’m anti-freedom.

            /rolls eyes.

            C-51 was awful. I agree. My point is Harper didn’t talk derp, Cytotoxic and I’VE ALREADY MADE THIS DISTINCTION.

            1. Wasting your time, Rufus – he has gone full tilt lately.

          2. When people want to kill you, the best solution is to kill everyone who wants to kill you.

  8. And a really terrible response:

    “ISIS claims responsibility for the deadly attacks in Paris and called them ‘the first of the storm'”
    http://www.pri.org/stories/201…..ages-taken

  9. Where’s Richman in all of this? Jews won’t blame themselves, you know.

    1. He’s busy reading the Protocols of the elders of Zion for insight

    2. As Shelly is Jewish, they sort of can do that.

  10. Islam has some work to do. Terrorists are ruining the brand for most Westerners.

    1. Yes we need some progressive types to go to the middle east and explain to the Muslims that it’s a religion of peace. Perhaps one day they be able to get them to understand their own religion.

      1. By the radicals’ own account, they’re a minority, otherwise why would they keep denouncing the backsliding of their coreligionists – “backsliding” in this case meaning not being as bloodthirsty as the radicals want.

        Of course, most of the “moderate” Muslims will be keeping their heads down, not exactly helping out the war on the radicals.

        And there are some radicals who pose as moderates, making things much more exciting.

        But there are some Muslims who fight the radicals. I hear the Kurds are doing some work in that direction.

        1. I agree about the Kurds. But where are all the moderate Muslims in Paris?
          All these “moderates” are either liars or cowards. The world has something like 13 million Jews. One right wing Jew says or does something, the left Jews (admittedly the majority outside of Israel) marches and makes a stink. Likewise a lefty Jew does something, the right leaning Jews go crazy.
          But I have yet to see the “Million Moderate Muslim” March. Are there some, absolutely. But if even half of the worlds Muslims were truly adamantly opposed to this murdeous ideology, they could crush it.

          1. It;s not even radicals vs moderates, but rather radicals vs lay muslims.

            Just like how a lot of Christians call themselves Christians because they were born into Christianity, they never actually go to Church, or know anything about the bible. A lot of Muslims are the same way.

            Make no mistake the “radicals” are following the teachings of the Quran.

            1. The terrorist are not redical Muslims.

              They are the most devout Muslims.

              The only moderate Muslim is one who is surrounded by non Muslims.

              When that same Muslim is surrounded by other Muslims he is no longer moderate, at least outwardly, either through fear or empathy.

            2. But religions change. Under one interpretation, the bloodthirsty Muslims may be the most devout and authentic. But I would hope that the mainstream of the religion is or can moderate.

              Look, Islam is not going to go away if enough people just “tell it like it is”. I agree that it is a pretty terrible religion in its fundamentals. We shouldn’t be telling the Muslims who don’t approve of the radical/fundamentalists who do terrorism that they aren’t really following their religion properly. To the extent that it is possible, we need to be encouraging those people. Just saying “Islam sucks” may be accurate in many ways, but it is useless as a guide to how to deal with it. Unless you are prepared to just nuke a billion people, you need to be thinking about how to get to a situation where Islam can coexist with other cultures in a better way.

              1. A lack of correctly identifying the problem makes it harder or even impossible to solve. Obama can’t even admit that it is a Islamic related problem. Telling it like it is is essential to having a hope of solving the problem without just getting lucky.

                Why do I have to do either of the two things you say ?

                Why can’t I think that they need to stay where they are ? I don’t have to nuke them nor do I have to get to a solution where I can coexist with people devoted to an ideology that instructs them to kill me simply because I’m not one of them ?

          2. I think something lost in this ongoing saga is the false equivalency of saying “moderate Muslims” and expecting to mean something. Are they moderate because they don’t accept the calls for beheading infidels, stoning gays, etc? Is there a reason we never get real condemnations of terrorist attacks from islamic leaders in the US or Europe other than empty platitudes?

            Technically denying anything in the koran would make them apostates like Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Walid Shoebat.

            Of course the exception for that is the taqqiya doctrine which states it’s allowed to lie about your intentions/beliefs in order to deceive the enemy and allow you to get stronger before attacking.

            I think the best summary I’ve come across – albeit a little long – is this thesis: http://www.aina.org/reports/iwesaj.pdf Of course it got the author fired from his day job, but I guess that’s what happens when you go for accuracy. “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad”

            1. I don’t like the idea that fighting evildoers makes you a moderate.

              Are the Kurds moderates for fighting ISIS?

              Was George Washington a moderate for fighting George III? (and in that case you could say that George represented The Real Teachings of English-ism]

              Was Eisenhower a moderate for fighting [Godwin edit]?

              “On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; ? but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present.” – William Lloyd Garrison

            2. You realize that Jewish (and by extension, Christian) scriptures also command the stoning of homosexuals.

              1. Except that Judaism is not “solo scriptura”. Jewish law is created from the Jewish bible, the Talmud and even modern rabbinical decisions. It is not what was written 3000 years ago as much as what is the accepted understanding. No religious Jew believes that Jewish law today calls for killing gays, nor Sabbath violators, nor idolaters.

                Christianity mostly believes that when Christ came, non-Jewish believers were not bound by Jewish law anyway, except perhaps for the Ten Commandnents which Jesus(mostly) reiterated in his teachings.

                1. Let’s just say I haven’t always been a pagan and leave it at that………

                  1. Yea you have, it’s just now you realize and embrace that fact.

                2. Not only that, but in no case does Jewish law apply to non-Jews anyway.

                3. “Except that Judaism is not “solo scriptura”.”

                  Neither is Islam. Violent Islamism is a modern development of the last several decades, not something consistent through the history of Islam. People like ISIS want to “go back” to the “purity” of fundamentalism and apply Quranic law to the letter, and feel that 99% of modern Muslims fail to do this.

                  This is why ISIS is primarily killing people who consider themselves Muslims, but whom ISIS does not consider Muslim.

                  And this is also why just about every Muslim country in the region is united in war against them.

                  1. Perhaps you should read Kipling if you think that Islamism has only been violent within the last couple of decades.

                    The Barbary Pirates regularly attacked Christians and enslaved sailors from non Muslims lands.

                    Also read about the history of wahhabism. They were killing other Muslims and infidels since their inception.

                    What makes you think that the border of Islam hasn’t always been bloody other than maybe you have just become aware of it.

                    1. Yes, the Barbary Pirates, the once and eternal example of the universality of Muslim violence. The fact that they were pirates is not the explanation for their violence, it was the fact that they were Muslim. Christian pirates were kind and gentle and never enslaved anyone, especially not Muslims.

                      And the Wahhabis. As you say “killing other Muslims and infidels since their inception.” Another grand example of universal Muslim violence.

                      Of course, even within the Islamic world, the Arabs (in the narrow sense of occupants of the Arabian Peninsula) have always been seen as backward and violent, primarily toward each other.

                      “What makes you think that the border of Islam hasn’t always been bloody”

                      Um . . . it hasn’t been? Tough to prove a negative, but can you show me this 1400-year blood bath that has gone on at the borders of the Islamic world?

                    2. The Barbary Pirates were only Pirates and enslavers to non Muslims. Jihad is righteous and the booty of the unbeliever is the earthly reward of the jihadist. Read their book. It’s in their almost word for word as I have paraphrased it here.

                      Expansion of the Islamic World , using violence if necessary, is one of the tenents of Islam. It’s in their book and it is taught to the students of their book.

                      To claim otherwise is either ignorance or ignorant.

                      Islam spread though violence for the majority of those 1400 years.In the years it didn’t it wasn’t because the religion underwent an enlightenment, they simply were beaten into submission but not eradicated. In 1683 the Islamic Army was so throughly defeated in Vienna that they withdrew and it has been quite by necessity until the Saudi’s oil money has refilled their coffers that Islam has had the means to resume it’s quest for submission. In order to retain power the Saudi Royals have funded madrass school throughout the Muslim world teaching the Wahhabi School of International Relations and Conquest ™ and we are currently reaping the results.

                      You might enjoy reading about the History of the Island of Zanzibar. During the Age of Sail it was once ruled by a Muslim Prince who today we would call a moderate because he made serious bank being a stopover for traders between the East and West. He was under constant attack from the Wahhabbis on the mainland because he allowed non Muslims to live and do business there.

                    3. You need to read ‘The politically incorrect guide to Islam and the crusades’ by Robert Spencer. Islam is a religion of evil and violence and always has been. The middle east was 99% Christian when Islam was born, and through nothing but warfare and subjugation of non believers it is now 99% Muslim. It is written and repeated over and over in the Koran to kill non Muslim leaders, take over non Muslim peoples and subject then to horrendous second class injustices to pressure them to become Muslim. That is the game plan they have been following some their inception. Since in the West we are democratic republics and thus we are all in a way responsible for our policies, and since they cannot openly her armies to our countries to fight us, terrorism is the version of jihad against the non believer they currently fight against us in our countries. The solution, as Ann Coulter says, is to stop letting them into our countries in the first place. America was originally intended only for Germanic peoples anyways. We have no mandate to be letting these people in in the first place. Just imagine how peaceful a country we’d be right now if we’d remained 90% white and 98% Christan.

              2. Thank you for today’s Bible Study Moment.

                But, irrespective of scriptures, Jews and Christians don’t stone homosexuals or anyone else these days and would bring down the law on any of their coreligionists who did such a thing.

                So what is your point?

                1. My point is that wiping out all 1.4 billion Muslims in the world may be an unworkable plan, and setting up tribunals here to purge ourselves of the wrong type will probably cost us more freedom than we stand to lose.

                  Why, what was *your* point?

                  1. My reply was to Equinsu Ocha.

              3. Not the New Testament.which is Christ’s covenant with man.

                It was kinda like Obama and Hilliary’s reset button with Russia except that it worked.

              4. Those laws pertained to the state, not to individuals.

          3. “But if even half of the worlds Muslims were truly adamantly opposed to this murdeous ideology, they could crush it.”

            If half the world’s Muslims truly supported this murderous ideology, hundreds of millions would be dead and there would be global war to make WWII look like Gulf I.

            1. give it time

          4. Yeah, and don’t you hate it when some black guy who says he’s a Christian kills somebody, and all the other blacks and Christians don’t condemn the guy and fall all over themselves to tell people that they aren’t like that black Christian guy? Or I guess these are special rules for Muslims…

  11. But if the first thing you reach for, even before some gesture toward a common humanity and concern for people who are being killed, well, as your therapist might say, “You’ve still got some work to do.”

    That’s interesting. Because the way most of us are, there are 1 or 2 things that we do reach for first. What are they? Simple: our own safety, and that of our families. We’re selfish in some ways – but you can’t blame us for it.

    So we’re afraid – of course we’re afraid. And it leads us to concentrate our minds rather on what to do about problems. And of course we have different views on that. But you can’t accuse people of pure, inhuman political opportunism just because they start to say the same old political views…

      1. Good. I wasn’t the only one. /wipes maple syrup from mouth.

      2. Random quote generator?

      3. The first paragraph is quoted from Gillespie and should have been italicized or blockqutoed. The rest, I believe, is a response to that.

        1. Thanks, FoE.
          Not going for the defense of, oh, the Mizzou idjits. I sure can accuse them.

  12. Nick’s hot take is so hot he can’t even proofread it or check the formatting.

    At least he criticized Salon and Hillary, that should limit some of the whining.

    1. Yeah that will cost him at least two cocktail parties. But I am sure he will redeem himself on Monday and come out arguing againstthe “war-mongers” and “anti-immigration” folks and he will be sipping his slippery nipple up on 83rd and 5th.

  13. If it’s ISIS, at least they have a territorial base which can be attacked.

    What else can I say?

  14. Islam is not just a religion,but ab political and eonomic system.It has always been spread through conquest.It has never had a refromation or an enlightenment.Government and Islam are one. .Add in the fact that many in the Aarb world are illiterate and know only what they are told and you have a population more suited to the ‘dark ages’.

    1. “Islam is not just a religion,but ab political and eonomic system”

      Oh this canard again. ALL RELIGIONS become political systems. The Catholic Church came close to running Europe under Pope Innocent the 3rd.

      1. Yes, and Charlemagne took the crown from the pope’s hands to crown himself. Adan it’s right though; the pope no longer has any power over Europe’s heads of state.
        And the economic system is strictly enforced, and helps prevent economic growth.
        But, it is also true that local traditions are more to blame than Islam for some problems. Malaysia seems to be working on becoming a modern nation, for instance.

      2. So what if the Catholic Church or Christain in general did something centuries ago.

        We live in the present Obama.

      3. No need to dig into the history of the European Middle Ages for that. There is some fucked up history right in your backyard:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplessis_Orphans

  15. Terrible responses prediction: UN demands Israel stop the occupation because look what happens!

    1. Too easy, cousin. That’s not a prediction, that’s a lock.

    2. Further prediction: Israel sends those UN resolutions to Venezuela to alleviate its toilet paper shortage.

    3. Prediction : The usual PC assholes will talk about the need for dialogue, and like a battered wife will publicly ask “Why did we make our immigrant community do this to us.”

      1. There are plenty of those on the CBC site but are getting beaten back.

  16. I see Marine Le Pen has suspended the National Front’s local campaigns for office. Will be interested to see if Reason suspends it’s campaign for open borders.

    1. Has Reason taken a position re: borders in France? I hope (perhaps in vain) that you’re not ignorant enough to believe that France and the US are somehow equivalent.

      1. I believe that “freedom of movement” is an official libertarian position, and as such is to be applied universally. So within the ideology, there’s no way to object to immigration, even by millions of Third World poor people with a problematic religion. (Plus, of course, we’re supposed to believe in “freedom of religion” for everyone, which gets tricky when one religion wants to destroy the others.)

        Those are the two main reasons I am not a pure libertarian. Those ideals sound nice, but don’t work well in the real world.

        1. I believe that “freedom of movement” is an official libertarian position, and as such is to be applied universally.

          I guess the italicized part is what disqualifies me from being an official libertarian.

        2. They work perfectly fucking fine in the real world. You are the last person to know anything about ‘the real world’. Tell us how Muslims are the same as plague victims.

          This attack, while awful, is but a pinprick in the grand scheme of things. Closing off immigration because of it would be immoral and about as sensible as chopping of your nuts to prevent testicular cancer.

          1. You do understand how analogy works, right? Because religions (and other ideas/ideologies) are memes that spread in similar ways to diseases. So it’s not inapt to compare Muslims to plague victims, because their religion made their native countries hellholes, but as they leave they are still carrying their religion with them. Hence the Muslim ghetto hellholes of Europe, where women and gays and Jews are often unsafe.

            It’s not “immoral” to not want dangerous people to enter your country, regardless of your dogmatic and irrational commitment to “freedom of movement.”

          2. Cato, you are really not one to assert how the ‘real world’ works. Your ideas are frequently a distortion of the real world or completely antithetical to it.

      2. Are YOU ignorant enough to believe that ISIS isn’t working aggressively to do the same thing in the US? Are you counting on the US to be your “Safe Space’ where Reality can’t sneak in? If so, I hate to break the bad news to you, but…….

  17. This post must have been rushed because the whole thing needs to be reedited. In addition to typos, the quote tags are in the wrong place and everything.

    The content itself is fantastic.

    Terrorism is intended to cause rage and fear in the public, and it’s shameful when journalists, political candidates, and/or regular people jump online and do the terrorists dirty work spreading rage and fear.

    Fear is the mind-killer. There isn’t any politician or policy we should support now that we didn’t support before the attacks in Paris last night.

    And I’d encourage my fellow libertarians to remain ashamed of their fear. Nothing as pathetic as people who are proud of being afraid–and right now the internet is swimming with such people. Before 9/11, I had never seen men boast of how afraid they were. If you can’t sleep at night because you’re afraid of Muslims, don’t scream online about it. Go get yourself some psychiatric help.

    And if you’re so afraid of Muslims that you want to ignore the First Amendment? Take a deep breath, think about all the things you say to people about the Second Amendment after a school shooting, and have some ice cream.

    1. Some of us always thought importing 3rd world Muslim savages into Europe was a bad idea, but I suppose the occasional terrorists attack is the price other people have to pay for our new diversity.

      1. That definitely seems to be the response of liberals and Reasonoids. Welp, this is just the price of freedom. Nothing to do about it.

        1. I think it’s true that freedom always, necessarily comes with some risk attached, and I think it’s true that libertarians tend to prefer freedom despite those risks for qualitative reasons–in addition to whatever other reasons. Yeah, freedom probably requires a certain amount of bravery.

          It’s certainly true that libertarians don’t support doing stupid, expensive, and wasteful things that won’t solve the problem or will make it worse–just so that we can say we’re “doing something about it”.

          1. Except that mass Third World immigration (especially by Muslims) into broke welfare states is “stupid, expensive, and wasteful,” won’t solve any of our problems (or Europe’s), and in fact will make them worse. It’s fine to have idealistic principles, but when you find those principles not working in reality, it’s time to reconsider.

            1. Let’s take the oft-noted fundamental incompatibility between “open borders” and “welfare state” as a given.

              Now, that leaves two solutions–abolish (or, at least, substantially curtail) the welfare state, or close the borders. The only one ever considered seriously is the latter, due to “political reality”. There is apparently little popular support for ending welfare but enough political support to close the borders.

              In order to “close the borders”, you have to make common cause with people who support the welfare state (do the math). In other words, you have to make a political alliance with people who aren’t libertarian and don’t support the objectives of libertarians. The net result is a less libertarian society.

              Now, the reason this is proposed as the best alternative is because otherwise you would face the aforementioned incompatibility (open borders + welfare state). The end result of which, I am often told, is an ever less libertarian society (either due to increased taxes or less freedom as voted on by welfare recipients, 6 of one/half-dozen of the other).

              So basically, libertarianism is fucked either way (surprise!).

              Not exactly the most convincing argument (for either position).

              1. Much the same way that libertarians were happy to make common cause with supporters of the CRA? Plenty of libertarians are comfortable with utilitarian arguments in other areas. So, yes, libertarianism is fucked, frequently by itself.

                1. Much the same way that libertarians were happy to make common cause with supporters of the CRA?

                  It’s tu quoque all the way down, I see.

              2. There is no connection between increased immigration and welfare spending. Cato crunched the numbers and the correlation just isn’t there.

                1. You are immensely thick. It has little to do with increased spending directly on immigrants and everything to do with their majority support for increased welfare spending in general. And the Cato report shows a marginal economic gain while missing some improperly documented welfare spending.

                  1. Part of the Cato b.s. on immigration is that as soon as an immigrant has an anchor baby who gets welfare, they count it as “welfare for a native-born American” and don’t the costs on the immigration side of of the ledger. But half of immigrant families get some form of welfare, much higher than non-immigrants.

                  1. True.

            2. “Except that mass Third World immigration (especially by Muslims) into broke welfare states is “stupid, expensive, and wasteful,” won’t solve any of our problems (or Europe’s), and in fact will make them worse. ”

              No they won’t and it hasn’t yet. Border walls OTOH fit that description to a T.

              Again: Europe needs all the immigrants it can get.

              1. “All immigrants” aren’t equal. No advanced country needs more unskilled labor. No country needs more religious fanatics who hate Jews and gays and rape women.

              2. Again: Europe needs all the immigrants it can get.

                Bullshit. The only reason the European ruling class has supported high levels of immigration is because their low native birthrates won’t sustain their generous welfare states, which rely on exponential population growth to sustain them. You’re basically arguing to maintain a welfare state ponzi scheme. What a shallow, stupid person you are.

              3. Why does France with it’s high welfare and high unemployment rate need a bunch of unassimilating unemployable immigrants ?

                Immigration can be good. It is not automatic.

                What is going on on our Southern border and in Europe isn’t good.

        2. It is. Life in a free society has risks, and freedom of movement is a part of a free society. There are things government can do to mitigate the risks, but compromising freedom is not an acceptable one.

          1. But the Earth is not one “society.” It’s absurd to believe that anyone on Earth has the right to move to anywhere else on Earth, especially at someone else’s expense.

          2. Life in a free society has risks, and freedom of movement is a part of a free society.

            Yep, those kids won’t rape-gang themselves.

          3. Life in a free society has risks, and freedom of movement is a part of a free society.

            What is “freedom of movement”? Does it confer a right to other people’s property? Does it confer a right to stolen property? Does that right belong to everyone everywhere?

      2. I don’t have a problem with people choosing their own religion. Other people don’t exist to suit my preferences–and neither do their rights.

        If you were also irrational about Muslims even before the attacks last night, I’m not sure that’s an exception, really. Certainly not if you’re still using it as an opportunity to tell everyone about how frightened you are.

        It’s probably the worst thing the George W. Bush administration ever did–was make it seem manly to be afraid in public. If you don’t support warrantless wiretapping, torture, denying hearings to American citizens, or squandering American lives and treasure in a pointless and eternal occupation–then you’re not scared enough!

        Puh-lease.

        Everyone who’s proud of their fear should be ashamed of themselves, and any libertarian who wants to violate people’s First Amendment rights out of fear should rethink what it means to be a libertarian.

        If the shoe fits, wear it.

        1. This is a common left wing tactic your using, where you label anyone who disagrees with you as being basically mentally ill so you don’t have to consider their point of view, and certainly don’t have to dignify it by making a counter argument. Just label them irrational, or fearful, or phobic.

          Disagree with Muslims colonizing Europe your Islamophobic
          Disagree with gay marriage you’re Homophobic
          etc etc etc.

          It’s a tired old game.

          1. You think I’m left wing?

            I’ve been posting here daily for more than ten years. No one thinks I’m left wing.

            Hell, I’m practically a Reaganite.

            Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have encouraged anyone to be afraid. Men didn’t used to act like that in public.

            “I’m so scared I’m willing to wipe my ass with the First Amendment” isn’t what it means to be right wing–and it certainly isn’t libertarian.

            Besides, I wrote, “If the shoe fits, wear it”.

            1. Blah blah blah, yes we’re all so scared and frightened and irrational, it’s up to brave and rational minds like yours to show us irrational people the way.

              Get off your high horse.

              You have a group living in France wanting to impose sharia law on the country, and are willing to use violence to achieve it, you have your usual PC nutters and the political class who demonizes anyone that criticizes this group as racists and bigots, and you have a bunch of fringe nationalist groups who want to deport these people.

              Add in a large French population thats growing tired with the Muslim and PC bullshit, and you tell me what thats going to look like in 20 years.

              Do you think the new diverse multicultural France is going to be a beacon of liberty?

              1. “Blah blah blah, yes we’re all so scared and frightened and irrational, it’s up to brave and rational minds like yours to show us irrational people the way.”

                Oh, the rest of us aren’t anywhere near as scared and irrational as you are.

                You’re not typical at all.

                Average Americans aren’t anywhere nearly as easily frightened as you are. If you think average Americans want to start ignoring the First Amendment because of some terrorist attacks in Paris, you really are out of your mind.

                1. Other people aren’t proud of being afraid like you seem to be either.

                2. But Ken, it’s not irrational to be afraid of Muslims, when scores of polls over decades have found that there are always significant percentages in every country that support death for blasphemy, death for apostasy, death for being Jewish, death for being gay, etc., etc.

                  One poll found that 13% of Syrian refugees admit to liking ISIS, so why is it irrational to not want Syrian refugees?

                  1. OMG! Polls! Fill your pants because POLLS.

                    And yet almost none of those who claim to love Sharia actually do anything to achieve it.

                    1. Christ, what as asshole you are. You’ve got one biased Cato study you cling to like a security blanket, and any form of evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you just dismiss.

                      It doesn’t take many people who claim to love Sharia to cause massive destruction, as Paris just found out.

                    2. OMG! Polls! Fill your pants because POLLS.

                      And yet almost none of those who claim to love Sharia actually do anything to achieve it.

                      Except to provide popular support to those who do something to achieve it.

                  2. “But Ken, it’s not irrational to be afraid of Muslims, when scores of polls over decades have found that there are always significant percentages in every country that support death for blasphemy, death for apostasy, death for being Jewish, death for being gay, etc., etc.”

                    Fundamentalist Christians can’t even get enough support in this country to get a moment of silence for kids in public schools to pray if they want to–and you’re afraid that our tiny Muslim minority is going to take over the country, make Jennifer wear a burka, and put people to death for apostasy?

                    Try meditation and deep breathing exercises.

                    1. No, our Muslim population isn’t a problem for America. For France, it’s a different story. They have a not-small population of Muslims. France also don’t have birthright citizenship, which causes generations of second class non-citizens.
                      You say Europe needs immigration to survive. I agree, unless their birthrate increases. But importing, by the millions, the very same people that you have been fighting to keep from invading, for the last 800 2600 yrs is insane. Europe needs lots of people in the coming years, and if they recruit all those people from the Levant and Northern Africa, it will be the death of Western Civilization in Europe.

                    2. I read your comments downstream which stores answer this post. I will consist your arguments.

              2. It makes no sense to discuss with Ken anything related to Islam. He’s incapable of rational thinking on the subject. He will forever screech “islamophobia” and “you’re scared of Muslims.” That’s all he can do.

                1. If you’re scared of Muslims, I might point that out–yeah. And if you’re bragging about how scared you are and how your fear somehow justifies attacking our First Amendment rights, then, yeah, I’m going to call that out for what it is, too.

                  Just like I would if you were calling for gun control in the wake of a school shooting.

                  I see progressives do that all the time. “I’m so scared that we have to violate the Second Amendment” is what it boils down to. I’m not about to treat those who would violate the First Amendment any differently than the progressives when they’re arguing to violate our Second Amendment rights.

                  Incidentally, when George W. Bush was trying to scare us into accepting violations of our Fourth Amendment rights, I didn’t buy that either.

                  Far as I’m concerned, defending the Constitution from its enemies, both foreign and domestic, is what I’m talking about when I talk about patriotism. And the biggest domestic enemy of our constitutional rights is fear. That’s one of the reasons why the terrorists try to inspire it. Can’t say I’m completely immune to fear myself, but hell if I’ll ever brag about being so afraid that I’d sell our constitutional rights short.

                  I’d also like to think that my fellow Americans aren’t cowards. My fellow libertarians, too. We should be the last ones to sell individual rights short out of fear.

                2. grizzly: Yeah, pretty much.

              1. Retard alert.

            2. You think I’m left wing?

              The preceding comment of yours absolutely was.

              1. There wasn’t anything left wing about it.

                George W. Bush was an idiot shithead because he embraced left wing ideology.

                George W. Bush was no more of a conservative than Lyndon Johnson–who doubled down on a war to spread Democracy in Vietnam and gave us the Great Society.

                Where Lyndon Johnson gave us the Great Society, George W. Bush gave added the prescription drug “benefit” to Medicare. Where Johnson unnecessarily doubled down on Vietnam, Bush fought a completely elective, non-defensive war to bring democracy to Iraq.

                George W. Bush was not a conservative–not by Goldwater or Reagan standards. And he completely abandoned the pragmatism that Shultz and Baker used to win the Cold War–in favor of a foreign policy philosophy they called “neo-conservatism” because saying they were new to conservatism sounded better than admitting that they used to be Marxists.

                Fuck George W. Bush–from the right.

                1. I agree, fuck GW Bush.

                  Which does not negate the fact that you used left wing tactics. Maybe you’re not fully left wing, yet, but your definitely heading in that direction.

                  1. There isn’t any part of anything I wrote that is in any way left wing.

                    “If you don’t support warrantless wiretapping, torture, denying hearings to American citizens, or squandering American lives and treasure in a pointless and eternal occupation–then you’re not scared enough!

                    Puh-lease.”

                    Not one thing in any of that is left wing.

                    I opposed invading Iraq for the same reason George Bush Sr. didn’t invade. I opposed invading Iraq for the same reason Reagan didn’t invade Lebanon.

                    Do you know anything about the Weinberger Doctrine?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine

                    Served under Nixon, Ford, and was Reagan’s Secretary of Defense.

                    There wasn’t anything left wing about Weinberger.

                    I opposed invading Iraq in 2003 for the same reason Scowcroft opposed invading Iraq.

                    There wasn’t anything left wing about Scowcroft.

          2. If you think Muslims are colonizing Europe then you are in no position to be lecturing anyone about anything.

            1. Just close your eyes, if you don’t see then it isn’t real.

              1. My eyes are open and it’s still just a fantasy.

        2. Other people don’t exist to suit my preferences

          Rachael Price exists to suit my preferences.

      3. I can’t begin to understand why so many here have such a huge fucking boner for importing millions of uneducated people of no means (now including hundreds of thousands of bloodthirsty muslims) when our economy is shit and we’re a welfare state. All for the dream of ‘open borders’.

        All I can say is when the horrific attacks come, I can only hope that it’s YOUR families that are brutally maimed and murdered, not mine.

      4. It’s a bad thing to bring 3rd world muslim savages out of their native 3rd world muslim savage habitat. They are a curse upon the earth.

    2. By the way more response after a school shooting is that gun control doesn’t work. The same cannot be said about not letting in millions of savages who hate everything about your society move in.

      1. Millions of the Muslims you’re talking about France “letting in” are the descendants of people who were guaranteed to be “let in” by the treaty ending the Algerian War in 1962–maybe before you were even born.

        “Algerians were permitted to continue freely circulating between their country and France for work, although they would not have political rights equal to French citizens.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?vian_Accords

        The recent surge of immigrants were coming whether France let them in or not.

        1. Ah yes because nations never change their minds. We agreed to let in the Chinese, and then we changed our mind, and didn’t let them in, and then we changed our minds again and decided that they could come in.

          But I suppose a man made treaty is the will of God right? They never get broken.

          1. The point is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            “By the way more response after a school shooting is that gun control doesn’t work. The same cannot be said about not letting in millions of savages who hate everything about your society move in.”

            That’s what you said–but millions of them were already in France–for 40 years before 9/11.

            “In 2008, the French national institute of statistics INSEE, which has a more restrictive definition of immigration than Eurostat, estimated that 5.3 million foreign-born immigrants and 6.5 million direct descendants of immigrants (born in France with at least one immigrant parent) lived in France representing a total of 11.8 million and 19% of the total population in metropolitan France (62.1 million in 2008). Among them, about 5.5 million are of European origin, 4 million of Maghrebi (either Arabs or Berbers) origin, 1 million of Sub-saharan African origin and 400,000 of Turkish origin.[5][6]”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Immigration_to_France

            Discriminating against new immigrants from Algeria–and in violation of a specific treaty–because of their religion is one thing.

            What do you plan to do with the 5.4 million cited above? We’re talking about a lot of French citizens. Are you going to strip them of their citizenship because of their religion and deport them . . . somewhere?

            Are you suggesting we do the same thing to U.S. citizens here in America–despite the First Amendment?

            What are you talking about?

            1. First France needs to admit it has a serious problem

              Then they can stop letting any new ones settle in France. Second take a hard stance against Sharia, and bullshit multiculturalism. I don’t care if you have to make the history books in school so pro-french that it would make Napoleon blush, but make these people want to be French. Stop subsidizing their lifestyle with welfare, and make it so these people have to fully integrate in society. Make French society so uncomfortable for the nutters they want to leave, even if you have to put of billboards for gay brothels outside of every mosque.

              Basically do everything possible to assimilate these people, and if that doesn’t work, well then they might not have much choice in the deportations. The French are not going to tolerate living under Sharia law, nor will they tolerate daily terror attacks. How long can that last until they elect someone like Le Pen?

              Basically multiculturalism has failed in Europe, and nothing good is going to come from any of this.

              1. “Basically multiculturalism has failed in Europe”

                There isn’t anything multicultural about France’s efforts for assimilation.

                You’re projecting blue state politics and American university politics on France.

                You’re talking out of your ass.

                1. Except assimilation has failed in France, and Britain, and Denmark, and Germany, and Spain, Sweden, and Norway, in the Netherlands, etc etc.

                  Unless you’re going to argue that multiculturalism has not been tried in these places too. In which case you’re talking out your ass.

                  Face it Islam is the problem.

                  1. “assimilation has failed in France, and Britain, and Denmark, and Germany, and Spain, Sweden, and Norway, in the Netherlands, etc etc.”

                    Not really. Assimilation is working just fine in most of those places particularly Britain. Your Sharia fantasies are always going to be just that so sorry.

                    1. Cyto………….delusional as always.

                2. For reference, France’s “multiculturalism” has already banned face coverings, with 80% popular approval, in 2010. And Europe’s top courts have upheld the ban.

                  France, (and Europe in general) have already taken steps that would be flat out unconstitutional here.

        2. how’s it working out, Ken?

          1. France could have had plenty of problems in Algeria if they hadn’t ended that war. And the terrorist threat then wasn’t from the Muslims. It was from the French in Algeria who thought they were being abandoned.

            Algeria recently went through as nasty a civil war as can be imagined, and terrorist activity directed at France was . . . minimal.

            In any case, ISIS attacking France from Syria and/or Iraq is not an excellent indication that the descendants of Muslims from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, let in some 40 years ago, are the problem.

            I will say that keeping those people as resident aliens without any political rights was a problem. One great way to disenfranchise the youth is to keep them disenfranchised. The other problem is that France is so unionist/socialist–especially in regards to its employment laws. Capitalism does a much better job of generating opportunities and a quality of life, and that’s the secret to dealing with disenfranchised youth whether it’s in a Muslim slum outside of Paris or a crip in South Central Los Angeles.

            1. If you think this attack is the only Islamic problem France has had you are mistaken.

            2. another way of disenfranchising the youth is not working to assimilate them into the broader culture. This is not people moving from one form of representative govt to another, this is people moving from an autocratic theocracy mired in the 13th century to a modern world where people can pursue their self-interest.

              It’s not just France. The name Londonistan is not a punch line, it is the foreseeable consequence of an action. Multi-culturalism is a failed concept and that’s not a knock on the taqueria down the road or some neighborhood that has an ethnic flavor. Countries have their own unique culture, whether it reflects the blending of other cultures or not.

              1. “Another way of disenfranchising the youth is not working to assimilate them into the broader culture.”

                France’s assimilation polices are the exact opposite of what you seem to think.

                It’s not like in the U.S., where Cubans, Armenians, Vietnamese, and Serbians all keep their own cultures–and add American. In France, it’s like forced assimilation. The laws against wearing veils in school, for instance, are one symptom of that.

                Don’t project a belief in diversity on the French. They don’t believe in diversity. They expect you to give up whatever you were to become French. The difference between the French model, on the one hand, and the American/British models on the other are often referred to as assimilation vs. integration.

                In America, you aren’t really forced to give up anything cultural in order to do well in school, at work, etc. Not coincidentally, the biggest opponents of bilingual education in the U.S. are immigrants. They still speak Spanish (or whatever) at home, but they want their children taught in English, so that they can be successful Americans. The American model of diversity–that’s called “integration”.

                1. The French version is assimilation–and it’s more like joining the Borg. The French are immensely proud of their language and culture and widely convinced of its superiority. Ultimately, it ends up being less tolerant. They’ll tolerate anybody of any color–but you must abandon your old culture and become French.

                  http://blogs.reuters.com/great…..ty-behind/

                  1. As it should be. It’s their house, not the fucking Muslim’s. Don’t want to be French? Don’t live there. And I say that as someone who looks down on the French.

                    1. “As it should be. It’s their house, not the fucking Muslim’s. Don’t want to be French? Don’t live there.”

                      The government has no business trying to force people away from their religious beliefs.

                      I hope you’re not one of those people who thinks the government shouldn’t violate the rights of Christians who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings…

                      Because that would make you a giant hypocrite.

                2. if French policy is so geared toward assimilation, then why the stories about cops not exactly enthused about going into Muslim neighborhoods? Why the perception that Muslims are far more frequent perpetrators of crime than French citizens? Conflating a ban on burqas for ID photos with assimilation is a reach.

                  If you prefer calling it integration, okay, but that does not appear to be happening, either. These people are nothing like Hispanics coming to the US for economic opportunity. Real or perceived, the Muslim tack is not one of melding into a society, it is one of taking it over and doing so by using classical liberal sensibilities against the host nation.

                  1. “then why the stories about cops not exactly enthused about going into Muslim neighborhoods? Why the perception that Muslims are far more frequent perpetrators of crime than French citizens?”

                    Because Muslims in France have this idea that their religion and their ways are not really accepted there and that the government is actively trying to stamp them out, or at least keep them separate and impoverished until they Frankify.

                    The fact that we just don’t have the same problems with Muslims here that they do in France has a lot to do with our society being much more tolerant of diversity than theirs.

                    And I don’t mean militant PC diversity that demands that everybody fetishize their own cultures and never change them, I mean the diversity that doesn’t regard one elite culture as the only acceptable one for signaling inclusion in society.

                    They have one of the those in France, and in most European (and Asian) countries. Here, not so much.

                  2. “If French policy is so geared toward assimilation, then why the stories about cops not exactly enthused about going into Muslim neighborhoods? Why the perception that Muslims are far more frequent perpetrators of crime than French citizens?”

                    The same reason cops are unenthusiastic about going into certain neighborhoods in our inner cities here in America. Disenfranchised youth form gangs, deal drugs, and commit violent crimes–everywhere in the world, including Paris.

                    If France is less successful at handling its disenfranchised youth than the U.S. is, maybe it’s because assimilation is a failure.

                  3. “Conflating a ban on burqas for ID photos with assimilation is a reach.”

                    I’m not conflating anything. France banned headscarves in public schools and government offices, and they banned the wearing of veils anywhere in public.

                    And I wasn’t saying that was just the means of assimilation; I was saying it’s one example of the pervasive assimilation attitude.

                    Just like with the Borg, the French say to immigrants, “You will be assimilated”. They expect you to drop everything else and become French. And as the socialist government becomes more and more of your life over there, from education to employment, the expectations to drop everything that isn’t considered French about yourself becomes a major determinant in your life.

                    1. Here’s a crazy idea if you don’t want to be French then don’t move to fucking France.

                    2. Here’s another crazy idea.

                      If you don’t like freedom of religion and the First Amendment, then why don’t you move to France?

                    3. “Here’s a crazy idea if you don’t want to be French then don’t move to fucking France.”

                      It started with France bringing itself to North Africa, not vice-versa.

                  4. Meanwhile, the more you force people to assimilate, the more resistant they become to assimilation.

                    I remember when there were laws under consideration in LA saying that all public signs had to be English. Spanish speaking business owners started putting up signs in Spanish that had never been there before. Meanwhile, like I said, when LA Unified School District started funneling Spanish speaking kids into bilingual classrooms, it was those kids’ immigrant parents that put a stop to it. They wanted their kids to learn to fit in–not be separate.

                    Act like immigrants have to give up their Muslim identity, and girls who never wore scarves or veils before will suddenly decide they can’t leave home without them. It’s human nature to assert your identity.

                    And why would the government want to convince Muslims that they can’t be both Muslim and French anyway? If you make them choose between the two, is it any wonder that some of them get radicalized?

                    Forced assimilation fails. Why would it succeed? Why would libertarians think that using the government to make people change their culture would be successful? There isn’t any good reason to believe that will work–much less solve any problem.

                    1. Ken, you make an excellent argument for closing the borders. We need more of that here in the US.

                    2. I’m all in favor of keeping track of who comes across our borders–that’s why I support open borders.

                      Just like these terrorists used refugees as a screen to come across our borders, terrorists could use illegal immigrants to get into the United States and do the same thing. Opening our border with Mexico would put a stop to that.

                      If people from Mexico could just show some valid ID and come across, because they were looking for work, or whatever, they wouldn’t come by the thousands and walk dozens of miles through the desert in the dark–where they provide great cover for terrorists, smugglers, and other undesirables. They’d just show some ID and walk or drive across.

                      The key is that Mexico needs to come up with an ID program that we could live with. They’d have to show legitimate ID, show that they’re vaccinated against certain diseases, their ID would have to show that they haven’t been convicted of a felony, and apart from that, they should be able to come across just as easily as I go across in the other direction.

                      It’s closed borders that makes the security risk. If it weren’t for closed borders (and the Drug War) the only people running around out there in the desert in the dark would be terrorists and bad guys. They’d be easier to identify–and it would increase American security dramatically.

                    3. Rather than the straw man in your head, here’s what open borders really means:

                      “A policy of borders without visas would in fact be more restrictive and formal than the system that applied through much of American history because it would depend on proper identification — either a passport or some other recognized papers — to cross from one country into the other.

                      There are two objections to an open border policy: national security and economics. One is specious; the other is based on ignorance of the way free markets work and free people behave.

                      First, national security. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this line of thinking goes, we cannot afford any laxity at our borders. This case breaks down on logic, facts and history. We already have laxity at both our northern and southern borders. If you believe undocumented immigrants are a security threat, things could not be more dangerous than they are now, because the near-impossibility of entering the United States legally drives thousands of people to cross the border in secret.

                      Free movement would be more secure than our current system, removing Mexican workers’ incentive to swim across the Rio Grande and allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to track everybody who’s entering the country legitimately, with 100% assurance that anybody who crosses the border in secret is up to no good.”

                      http://articles.latimes.com/20…..avanaugh23

                    4. You know, sometimes I wonder if you pay attention to yourself.

                      This–

                      I remember when there were laws under consideration in LA saying that all public signs had to be English. Spanish speaking business owners started putting up signs in Spanish that had never been there before.

                      contradicts this–

                      Meanwhile, like I said, when LA Unified School District started funneling Spanish speaking kids into bilingual classrooms, it was those kids’ immigrant parents that put a stop to it. They wanted their kids to learn to fit in–not be separate.

                      The Spanish speaking folks were against official monolinguism and against official bilingualism at the same time? Damn.

                      And you misunderstand the French. They are saying that you can be muslim AND french so long as your Islam does not run afoul of our frenchness. Which is not unreasonable.

                    5. Yeah, those things do seem contradictory on the surface, and guess what? Sometimes people believe and act in contradictory ways!

                      There is one consistency there, however, which is that they don’t want the government dictating to them how their language should be treated. They don’t want the government telling them they have to use English–and they don’t want the government dictating which language their children will learn in either.

                      If the government passed a law dictating that all classes MUST be taught in English, I bet they’d be against that, too.

                      Why is it so hard to imagine that people don’t want the government dictating things like this–either way?

                      Our First Amendment freedom from establishment and free exercise religious rights are written specifically to accommodate both sides. No, just because I want free exercise for Christianity doesn’t mean I want the government establishing Christianity as the official religion in law. What’s inconsistent about that?

                    6. Dictating to people about their religion just creates resentment. Why wouldn’t it? Leave people free to make these choices for themselves, and like Mexican immigrants, they’ll probably want their children taught to speak English French. Like I said, I am sure there are plenty of Muslim women in France who never wanted to wear a headscarf to school or a veil in public–right up until the moment the government said it was illegal. If they’d made a law making headscarves and veils mandatory, plenty of Muslim women would never want to wear them again.

                      That’s the way people work–government oppression breeds resentment and revolt. If you want Muslims to resist becoming more French, by all means–continue with the forced assimilation. That’s a sure way to fail.

              2. “The name Londonistan is not a punch line”

                Yes it is. There is no ‘Muslim takeover’ happening anywhere in England. More nutbar fantasy.

                “Countries have their own unique culture”

                And it is not the job of government to preserve that culture.

                1. Nor is it the job of government to import millions of illiterate indigents to poison our culture. But you support that with every functioning neuron in that deranged mind of yours.

            3. “Capitalism does a much better job of generating opportunities and a quality of life, and that’s the secret to dealing with disenfranchised youth whether it’s in a Muslim slum outside of Paris or a crip in South Central Los Angeles.”

              Well said.

              1. I don’t know that much about Paris, but I do know there’s a lot of capitalism within easy reach of South Central Los Angeles so it’s a mystery why the disenfranchised youth therein don’t get their asses to where the capitalism is and start getting some of those capitalistic benefits.

                1. The disenfranchised in South Central LA did exactly that.

                  They run an international industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and take care of everything from production and importation to (and especially at the street level) distribution. Both the crips and bloods started when blacks were largely disenfranchised, and the Mexican mafia, and all the Mexican and Central American street gangs that started were started for the same reason by kids with the same problems. Immigrants are especially vulnerable to that–it doesn’t matter what country they come from.

                  Immigrants are especially entrepreneurial. Even the enfranchised ones are opening restaurants, markets, watching people’s kids, cleaning houses, doing landscaping, and construction work, etc.

                  Cambodian kids in Long Beach started some of the scariest gangs around. There’s the Sons of Samoa out of Long Beach, too.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Samoa

                  There are Armenian gangs in Glendale.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Power

                  Show me disenfranchised kids anywhere in the world, and I’ll show you something that looks like a street gang.

                  1. There’s no mandatory 3-year training and $250,000 liability insurance for becoming a drug dealer.

                    1. There are many capitalists building houses, pouring sidewalks, raising apples or wine grapes and repairing buildings and you don’t need $250K of liability insurance or 3 years of training to work for them and start into the system. Immigrants can pile on a freight train and travel across Mexico to get work in the USA. So why don’t our own folks could get themselves to the Central Valley or
                      Eastern Washington and pick up a hammer or drive a tractor?

                    2. WA state is working on that requirement for the marijuana industry. So, it’s coming.

                  2. Yes, to a certain type of mind, gangbanging is cooler than, say, construction labor or farm work, but that type of mind doesn’t go in much for the productive work required for capitalism.

                2. “I do know there’s a lot of capitalism within easy reach of South Central Los Angeles”

                  Funny how CA suddenly becomes libertarian capitalist paradise when there are minorities to trash.

                  1. Yeah, it’s always personal responsibility and initiative unless you’re a minority. Then it’s the gummint’s fault if things don’t go well for you.

        3. Millions of the Muslims you’re talking about France “letting in” are the descendants of people who were guaranteed to be “let in” by the treaty ending the Algerian War in 1962–maybe before you were even born.

          Treaties can’t be changed, or even ignored? What’s Algeria going to do if France just decides to say, “Fuck off, we’re not taking any more of you”?

          1. Well, their courts are going to have something to say about the legality of that when someone challenges them in court.

            Read this:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Organisation_de_l’arm?e_secr?te

            Those guys were doing terrorist bombings and tried to assassinate De Gaulle.

            The problem at the time, 1962, was that the French in Algeria thought they were being abandoned by France. It would be like if the English turned their backs on the Unionists in Northern Ireland and just left them there to let the Irish Republican Army deal with them however they wanted–and so the Unionists turned their sites to going after the Prime Minister and the British government rather than the Irish.

            France needed to extricate themselves from Algeria, and guaranteeing access to the French mainland was the price of getting the Algerian independence movement to guarantee the rights of French citizens who decided to stay in Algeria–where they’d been since 1840.

            1. Would there be any repercussions now? Maybe. They had another nasty civil war recently in Algeria. It’s a miracle they didn’t get caught up in the Arab Spring. Most people think that may have been because so many Algerians have an escape valve to France…

              Regardless, I hope my larger point is getting across. Keeping million of Algerians out of France is a moot point–that ship done sailed 40 years ago. Meanwhile, these terrorists don’t appear to have been Algerian. Preliminary indications are that the attack was ISIS with attackers from Syria–a continent away.

            2. Well, their courts are going to have something to say about the legality of that when someone challenges them in court.

              Even assuming the judge comes out on the Algerians’ side, if French leaders simply decide not to enforce it there’s nothing the courts can do about it.

              Ask the Cherokees how effective the courts were after Worchester vs. Georgia.

              1. The Fifth Republic had its origins in the Algerian crisis, when the French Army backed the French fighting in Algeria over the French government.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ French_Fifth_Republic#Origins

                The French have a Constitutional Council that has to okay laws and such to make sure they conform to their constitution and their treaties, etc. And they make their decisions–before–the laws are enacted.

                http://tinyurl.com/ozs59gl

                Not a bad idea if you ask me.

                Anyway, if the executive simply ignored the decision of the Constitutional Council, I suppose that might mark the end of the Fifth Republic and the beginning of the Sixth.

                All of this is theoretical, of course, because there is no reason to think that the French are about to suddenly exclude people of Algerian ancestry (if they’ve been free to come to France for [50] years) simply because jihadis from Syria and/or Iraq attacked them.

                …although I suppose that would be better than America invading Iraq because we were attacked by a terrorist group based in Afghanistan.

      2. Actually the exact same thing can be said.

  18. But if the first thing you reach for, even before some gesture toward a common humanity and concern for people who are being killed, well, as your therapist might say, “You’ve still got some work to do.”
    .
    What? If the first thing you reach for is what?

  19. France calls it WWIII. I’m hearing possibilities of a coalition. Although not sure or convinced the U.S. and Russia will cooperate. They may just agree to terms as to where they attack – if they attack.

    1. Yeah, who are they attacking? What will make it any bigger than what the US has been doing for over a decade?

      1. Dunno. France has called it ‘an act of war’ but what they will do is unclear.

      2. The United States is history’s hyperpower. France doesn’t possess the military capabilities to do much of anything in this case.

        1. ‘We will attack!’ /nudges Americans forward.

        2. France has nukes:

          French law requires that at least one out of four nuclear submarines would be on patrol in the Atlantic Ocean at any given time, which coincides with the UK’s policy.[30]

          In 2006, French President Jacques Chirac noted that France would be willing to use nuclear weapons against a state attacking France via terrorist means. He noted that the French nuclear forces had been configured for this option.[31]

          On 21 March 2008, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that France will reduce its aircraft deliverable nuclear weapon stockpile (which currently consists of 60 TN 81 warheads) by a third (i.e. 20 warheads), thus bringing the total French nuclear arsenal to fewer than 300 warheads.[32][33]

          1. Same question: what are they going to nuke?

            1. Disclaimer: Not endorsing this

              Raqqa and other cities under ISIS control. You’d depopulate the areas enough that ISIS would no longer have the logistical support to hold the territory.

              If you’re willing to throw all concern for civilians aside, it’s workable.

    2. Coalition to do what? The calls are coming from inside the house!
      http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw…..deTheHouse

    3. We have been gearing up for sometime, the US that is.

    4. Starting WW3 over 120 deaths?

      1. WW1 started over 1 death (among other things).

      2. 120 deaths in this attack, but there have been lots of other attacks in France. This was the last straw, because they finally realize, I hope, that there is no solution to Islamism but death.

    5. McCain is getting a tingle up his leg at the idea of attacking someone.

    6. Attack? Seriously? We in the west have no clue as to how to fight a war against those in the mid east. We cannot fight with a western mindset. We knew that against Japan and drops two nukes on them. We are not willing to do what is required to suppress this aggression. It is an ideology, unless you wipe out every thought of this ideology it will not be destroyed. Just as nations tried to destroy the Israelites and could not, Islam too cannot be totally wiped out. We can make it so they will not have the will to attack us, but no one is willing to do what it will take for this to happen. Even the idea of it is offensive to the western mindset. Want to stop the aggression? Do it how it was done in the Old Testament. You will have to kill the terrorists, their children, their parents, their wives, and anyone related to them. You will have to make it so they know even if they win, none of their family will reap any rewards, that their actions will cause the annihilation of their complete blood line. If we aren’t willing to do that, and we aren’t, then we need to stay out of their business and out of their country. Arm Israel and release the hounds. They know how to do this, they have a history of it. The attacks and murders that are being perpetrated against them now is because of the restraints we have put on them from retaliating.

      1. The factions there have been at war amongst themselves for thousands of years, what makes us think we can settle that.

    7. Obama will engage in much hand writing and empty promises with extremely short shelf lives.

  20. Your response is terrible and predictable.

  21. Hobbyhorse Cavalry, MOUNT UP!

  22. I have been adamantly opposed to involvement in Syria has there are no “good guys”. And if they just kill each other, to hell with all of them and good riddance (though I feel very sorry for the women and children).
    But I propose that we go to Assad (yes he is a brutal thuggish butcher and dictator)with the following:
    1. Give up your ridiculous claim to the Golan Heights
    2. Stop funding Hezbollah
    3. Dismantle the chem weapons under US supervision

    If he does these, we assist him and Russia in bombing the ever loving shit out of every fucking hides hole in both Syria and Iraq where these pieces of shit are hiding.

    1. “Stop funding Hezbollah”

      Yeah… Good luck with that one. Why don’t you stop giving money to your Israeli allies that build illegal settlements in the West Bank, terrorist asshole.

      1. Anti-Semitic pinko miscreant enraged and spouting horseshit. News at 11.

      2. What exactly makes a settlement illegal?

        1. If it’s Jewish. You do know Islam predates the Jews thus should own all of the middleast, and diversity and shit.

      3. Yup, building houses is totally the same thing as throwing grenades and shooting up night clubs and soccer fields. And shooting children.
        You are a moral idiot, and if you can’t understand the difference than there is no hope for you.

      4. Here we go. Left-winger going after Israel.

        It’s not possible progressives actually believe Israel is the problem.

        1. It’s entirely possible, and factually speaking, it’s precisely the ludicrous notion a great many progressives cling to. These walking, talking moral absurdities genuinely believe that Israel bears responsibility for the foundational characteristics of one of the most barbaric, developmentally retarded, morally depraved cultures in the history of the world.

          There’s no remedy for this sort of lunacy. Pinkos aren’t known for their intelligence. In fact, I’m starting to doubt American Socialist’s sentience.

        2. Are you kidding me? I hear this horseshit almost daily. It’s all Israel all the time.

          Why are we in the ME? Israel.

          Who is keeping the scrappy Palestinians from self-actualization? Israel.

          Who is the US beholden to in all things? Israel.

          Fucking dolts.

          1. It’s amazing the depths of their ignorance, eh?

            1. in a sense, it’s not ignorance, it’s an example of politicizing the personal. Because the right tends to be supportive of Israel, the left must be against it. Just because. No matter that the Middle Eastern people – particularly Arabs – with the most freedoms are the ones in Israel. No matter all the atrocities committed by the Islamists against the left’s favored groups.

              If the right supports something, then the left must oppose it. The left is driven by hoping its political opponents lose than by anything else.

              1. Indeed. These are damaged people they’re far more happy when their perceived enemies lose then when they win.

      5. How are they illegal? Are San Francisco and Las Angeles illegal? What about NYC and Boston? Perhaps Paris is illegal since the Franks don’t originally hail from France. Maybe we should stop supporting England because neither the Angles or Saxons are natives there.

        What about any city in northern Japan. I could keep going but when exactly does someone get a claim on land? Is it after 10 years, 100 maybe?

        1. Because they were built in lands acquired in a military campaign and that settlement building was a deliberate attempt to pacify said region by an occupying army. All completely illegal by international law.

          1. Has anybody ever told you you’re fucking retarded? Because you are.

            Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of Israel’s modern history, or are you just trying to further reinforce my belief that leftists are hapless retards?

            1. He isn’t trying man.

          2. All of the cities that I listed above come from military campaigns. They were either built or expanded after military campaigns by the victors of said campaigns.

            How are the settlements in Israel any different? Because at some arbitrary date, it was decided by a few countries that conquering land is no longer OK, even though every country that originally wrote that was guilty as hell of the same thing?

          3. Cripple fight!

          4. Um. So what? Israel got attacked and liberated a bunch of land. ‘International Law’ can fuck itself.

            1. The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are far from free. Does that mean that it’s OK when Hamas and Hezbollah set off bombs in the name of liberating them?

          5. Taken from evildoers when defending themselves against an act of war. Evildoers with the intent of exterminating them. That is who you have endless sympathy for.

        2. Unrelated to the topic, but i always thought it would be an epic troll if netanyahu announced return to the ’67 lines.

          After the world applauds, he casually mentions that he meant the June 11, 1967 lines.

      6. Even if we took your take on the settlement situation for granted, this is still a non-sequitur.

      7. Maybe he’s just racist.

        We can’t fault him for PC nonsense, now, can we?

      8. Why don’t you START giving money to your mortgage company, you fucking deadbeat?

    2. I sincerely doubt anything but total warfare would suffice for the eradication of this scum — the cultures that breed their ilk would have to be erased. But that entails massive, ruinous war.

      1. Or we could just leave this scum to wallow in their own 7th century wasteland of a region instead of letting them immigrate to the west.

        1. That’s exactly right. Let them slaughter themselves to extinction.

      2. It doesn’t take that. We really didn’t have attacks like this until we started allowing state sponsors of Islamic terrorism to exist. Get rid of them and most of these problems evaporate. Hopefully the fall in the price of oil and the imminent Saudi-Iran war clears up a lot of crap.

    3. “Give up your ridiculous claim to the Golan Heights”

      I get that the Israel vs. surrounding Arabs thing is contentious and non-simple, but how is Syria’s claim to the Golan Heights, which it owned before Israel took it by force, “ridiculous?”

      1. Losing wars has consequences.

        1. Yes, but “ridiculous?”

          Syrians only 5 years older than me were born into a Golan Heights that was part of Syria. Now it’s part of Israel due to an act of military aggression that most of the world regards as unjustified.

          Is their claim a lost cause? Maybe. Ridiculous seems a stretch.

          1. Yes, but “ridiculous?”

            Yes. Start a war, lose it, then ululate.

            1. Israel lost a war roughly 1,949 years ago. Shouldn’t they have just said “oh well” and gotten over it, then?

              1. Yes, I remember them trying to invade Rome.

                1. Are we really pretending that the situation is as simple as “Israel was just sitting there minding their own business when Syria up and attacked them for no reason at all?”

                  1. Who cares, the Arabs should have fought harder, they didn’t thus Israel took their shit. Tough shit that the Arab armies suck.

                    Life can be hard and brutal. We hanging out in the US can pontificate on human goodness as we have no real existential threats to our existiance.

                    At some point things get decided in a fight and the guy who wants it more wins.

                    Not saying it’s right or wrong, just life.

                    1. Yes – if someone stronger than me comes into my house, kicks my ass and throws me out on the street, absent some even stronger friend to help me get my house back, I no longer have a house.

                      But that doesn’t make that just, and it doesn’t mean I’m just going to go live in the gutter and say “oh well, I guess all’s fair when brute force is involved.”

                      I might actually even start doing things like throwing rocks through “his” window, or setting “his” garage on fire, because why shouldn’t I if we all agree that brute force is the only law?

                      My comment was only this: is it really fair to call Syria’s claim on the Golan Heights “ridiculous?”

                  2. “Israel was just sitting there minding their own business when Syria up and attacked them for no reason at all?”

                    That is pretty much what happened. Repeatedly.

                    1. Where was Israel sitting in 1947?

                    2. Take it up with the UN.

                    3. “Take it up with the UN.”

                      Precisely my point. I don’t blame the Israelis for Israel and I don’t entirely blame them for the last 60+ years of history.

                      I blame the UN.

                      People on both sides of this issue want to pretend it is simple and has clear villains and easy answers. It doesn’t. If it did, it would have been resolved a long, long time ago.

                    4. I blame the UN

                      Better yet, blame Britain, which took the land in a power grab and then completely fucked up the transition of the territory being a province of the Ottoman empire into a self-sustaining nation.

          2. These assholes attacked the peaceful Israelis and lost. Israel took some of their shit as part of their victory. Why the fuck should they ever give it back? I wouldn’t.

        2. Would that apply to the Mexican-American war and the ensuing borders as well?

      2. It’s ridiculous because Syria is an unfree aggressor nation and has no right to that land. Israel, being a free nation, has every right to annex lands from the unfree.

        1. What is with this bizarre sort of libertarian colonialism you seem to believe in?

          Oh well Syria could just move a bunch Syrians in there because open borders are a fundamental right and just have them vote to rejoin Syria.

          1. Two nations being at war may be the one time where the borders should constrict.

            “What is with this bizarre sort of libertarian colonialism you seem to believe in?”

            What’s ‘with it’? What are you even asking?

        2. “It’s ridiculous because Syria is an unfree aggressor nation and has no right to that land. Israel, being a free nation, has every right to annex lands from the unfree.”

          That is an exceedingly bizarre assertion.

          What constitutes “free” vs. “unfree” such that the former has the right to invade and plunder the latter? Is it a relative thing? Does the most free country in the world have the right to invade and conquer everybody else?

          Once the “unfree” are conquered by the “free,” what do they become? Do they become “free,” to? What if they don’t want to?

    4. Yeah that’s not going to happen. He’s too dependent on Iran. Syria is done as a cohesive whole anyways. The Kurds are our only real friend. Some of the Syrian rebels are not too evil but they suck at fighting.

  23. I was reading through the comment last night, but didn’t respond because they were so appalling. I come to reason.com for reason not War Dicks.

    Nick, here’s my cliched reaction. So what?

    I ran the numbers this morning. Here are my assumptions… There are about a billion people living in the West. Let’s say there’s a marked and sustained increase in terrorism and that 1,000 people/yr are killed by Islamic douchebags AND that I live a very long time. That means for my entire lifetime my chance of dying in an instance of Islamic violence is 6-in-100,000. This is the predominant reason for spending $600 billion dollars on the military? Sorry, I don’t feel that unsafe.

    1. Are twisted, retarded canards a specialty of yours? Because it seems that way.

    2. Who are you arguing against exactly?

      1. The straw man he just constructed rather flimsily.

    3. “Sorry, I don’t feel that unsafe.”

      Typical lack of privilege checking.

      1. You are the PC expert so you would know. Maybe you should write an advice column.

        1. Maybe. My first article would be called:

          “You should really check yourself for racism before going off on PC rants about ‘bad whites’ who don’t like the Obama administration, lest you come across as a crass hypocrite who’s PC one minute, and a racist the next. Case in point: am soc”

    4. That means for my entire lifetime my chance of dying in an instance of Islamic violence is 6-in-100,000.

      But the chances of the people in the thread last night harming you are far lower and you are worried about them. Seems your math is slanted.

      Look, what most people last night was doing was venting. It is a perfectly normal, human response. Your response is … not.

    5. That’s not the reason for military spending. The military exists regardless. If you aren’t for fighting Isis you could probably save maybe 50 billion, but there’s no realistic chance you get 600 billion.

      You could get rid of the military entirely, but that entails a higher threat than the 6 in 100,000 calculation.

    6. But terrorism, unlike random gun deaths and childhood obesity / hunger (or other crisis that excites the minds of leftists), are not anomalies or foreseeable. There is a distinct entity dedicated to eradicating human life.

      Your objection is strange and hideously misplaced. You might as well ask “Why do I need to lock my doors at night? The chances of me getting robbed or shot to death in my home is nil.” Hey, why do states have to expand medicaid? How many people on average get hit by buses?

    7. +1 I’m really astounded by the bigoted, BS reactionary responses here. I typically expect libertarians to be more rational and less emotional than your typical demoblican.

      1. Yeah, you’re just so above it all. A real man has an urge to kill evil doers like this. But you can get together with the other beta males and discuss having an islamic outreach bake sale over lattes. Maybe do some ineffectual handwringing like your pal Obama.

  24. Instead of psychoanalyzing ISIS terrorists, why don’t we listen to what they actually say?Why do they hate us? Because we’re there. Why don’t we get the fuck out, give the Kurds American passports and let Shiites kill Sunnis like Catholics used to kill Protestants. Letting religious nut cases exterminate each other in the 16th and 17th century made the world a better place. Why not try that out now?

    1. Attempting to reduce their motivations to reflexive and justifiable defense against us is stupendously disingenuous, and indicative of mental illness, as far as you’re concerned.

    2. So does ISIS murder fellow Muslims within the area ISIS controls because “we’re there”?

      1. “american socialist” is a troll. Plz stop feeding

        1. He is not a troll. He obviously is posting about ISIS simply as an excuse to divert attention from the institutional racism at the University of Missouri.

        2. I’m essentially arguing that Western governments do nothing. That’s pretty much a libertarian response. It’s all these other assholes that are arguing that we should close the borders and start a large scale military action in Syria that are trolls.

          1. I’m sure giving them single payer healthcare would fix things.

          2. Libertarians would also be principled in taking a “government does nothing” approach in a lot of other areas, too.

            Funny, it seems that lots of people have their own special exceptions.

            If you have trouble relating, then just think of your own exceptions. You are a libertarian, after all (oh, and a racist.)

          3. AmSOc I argue for you to pay your fucking mortgage, you deadbeat.

    3. why don’t we listen to them? Actually a good idea. They seem to say that they wish us dead and are willing to pursue that wish. Knowing that, further discussion seems a waste of time.

      1. If someone announces that they want to kill you, it’s prudent to assume they ain’t just a-funnin’.

    4. “Why do they hate us? Because we are there.”

      You mean like that one time when ISIS attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo and slaughtered everyone there because they drew unflattering pictures of Mohammed?

    5. Uh, that’s not what ISIS says, pussy. ISIS is not Al Qaeda. ISIS hates us because we are not Muslim. You think the Yazidis are oppressing them? They’re Holy Nazis, period. They hate everyone different.

      1. So is AQ more or less. They want Al-Andalus back.

    6. That’s not what they say. The French aren’t even involved in Iraq. They are open about their reasons. They hate the west because it’s values are incompatible with Islam.

      They want us out like out of planet earth.

    7. Why do we have to listen to irrational beings who can’t be reasoned with?

      You’re making the same mistake Ron Paul has made in his entire life – that roots of terror can be traced to grievance over specific foreign policy and would resolved if we make appropriate changes. But this was never true. If it was, they would take measures to ensure that they don’t kill their OWN people.

      If some right group started bombing civilians in response to ED abuse or police stealing property, your solution would be “let’s listen to what they want and start limiting the size of government”? Stupid.

    8. “Because we’re there. ”

      Yes, that’s why they killed everyone at Hebdo.

    9. Letting religious nut cases exterminate each other in the 16th and 17th century made the world a better place.

      If you think the wars of the 16th and 17th centuries were only about religion, you’re even more ignorant than I thought.

    10. That you remain unmurdered continually baffles me.

  25. Every time something like this happens, the first thing that many want to do is take away other people’s rights. I have friends who are literally calling for the deportation or internment of all Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterners.

    1. Maybe this is the new normal for Europe?

    2. Anyone who is an American citizen or is here legally absolutely shouldn’t have our rights violated. I am with everyone here in regards to no more Patriot Act bullshit. We maintain Liberty here. But these are acts of war, and we must carry the fight back to the source. Not nation building, not hearts and minds. Complete and total warfare. I admit, I am not even sure what that will look lik me exactly. And I am not arguing for going off half-cocked. But make no mistake, to quote my second favorite starship captain: “The line must be drawn here! Here and no further!”

    3. We (and Europe) should absolutely deport any non-citizens with even a hint of Islamism on them and stop immigration from the regions that provide most Islamists. As for citizens, I can’t speak for Europe, but the US has done a better job integrating them. But any group of Muslim citizens known to have terrorist sympathies should be relentlessly protested against and ostracized until they leave. That’s a case where the Twitter mob bullshit would actually be useful and warranted.

      1. Yes – angry mobs quizzing people on their religious associations. The very picture of liberty!

      2. Leave us out of your police state fantasy please.

        1. Well Europe is getting it’s police state whether you like it or not, the only question is whether it will be Islamic or Nationalist in nature.

    4. We should certainly stop giving them visas and green cards. Why would anyone take action to INCREASE the number muslims present in our country? I agree you can’t just deport legal American citizens, but importing muslims in any number is just a horrible idea.

  26. That’s as heinously retarded as enabling ISIS by apologism. Neither side seems able to think.

    1. Intended for Dinerboy.

  27. Fuck you. We had Marines in Lebanon acting as peacekeepers. Not taking sides. Hezbollah bombed and killed something like 240 Marines. Where were we when the first WTC attack happened? How about the Embassy in Saudi Arabia? Who exactly were we bombing when 9/11 occurred? Because we had a no-fly zone in Iraq against one of the worst dictators in the world over the last 50 years? He invaded Kuwait and we fought them back. To protect Muslims!! We bombed Serbs. To protect Muslims!! You remember the fucking purple fingers in Iraq? Many of the insurgents weren’t even Iraqi. Afghanistan we had every fucking right to take out the Taliban. They were giving material aid and support to a group that committed an act of war (actuslly a war crime) against us.
    Any bad things that the US has done against Muslims in the middle and near east pales in comparison to what these sub humans have done and continue to do.

  28. What I saw last night on the Reason boards was typical of what I’ve seen the whole time I’ve been lingering here. You’ve got the open border priests saying that anyone who steps foot on Western soil is somehow magically transformed and any suffering we do endure by them is acceptable because we might get another food truck or something.

    I particularly loved Cytotoxic’s complete mental breakdown of saying let anyone in that wants to come and nuke anyone that is left. He even went on to say that barbarism such as FGM was a small price to pay in order to gain some obscure economic benefit at some unknown future date.

    1. Then we had the warboners. I must say that I have a particularly original thought on all of this. Here are my two cents. No, I will not go to war. I have already served in Iraq as have many people that I share a common background with, which is to say that I come from a rural, poor background.

      Whenever you fucknuts get on your war kick, it is people like me that get the “honor” of serving. That’s not to say that others do not serve but the fact is that it is disproportionately people like me that get the job of killing and dying.

      Whenever people decide that some redcoat officers need killing, or you need an infantry unit that can go toe-to-toe with the Southerners, you come a callin’. Then when the killing and dying are done, we are discarded and used as a synonym for being stupid, backward, or whatever.

      So if you want to go to war, great. You pick up a rifle and strap on some boots and armor and you go. Leave me and mine alone. We’ve bled for you enough.

      1. I’ve never understood these people’s inclination to involve the United States in foreign conflicts. Let the barbarians murder each other to extinction. I wouldn’t sacrifice as single drop of American blood for those shitholes.

      2. I don’t have a “warboner”. I am a Naval Reserve officer and was in the Gulf at the end of the first Gulf War following my graduation and commissioning. I greatly appreciate you and other guys who were deep in it.
        Up until last night I have been arguing to stay the hell out of Syria since there are no good guys there. And I am sure not advocating for nation building. But this has to end.

        1. How do you end it? Who do you kill? For every one that you kill you make 3 more. The more bombs we drop, the more they recruit by saying that the American Empire with their Zionist overlords caused their misery.

          Every wedding we bomb, hospital, village, farm, etc. we bomb only serves to inspire the next wave.

          When 9/11 happened, terrorism was conducted by many small, independent cells under a loose umbrella group (even though the MSM would have you believe they numbered in the millions).

          If anything we have been their greatest recruiters.

          If someone comes up with a plan that will once and for all end 99% of this shit and the country agrees to implement it, regardless of the barbarity and suffering that will be inflicted, then I might be able to agree to a war.

          What we will get though is the same shit we have gotten since Viet Nam and all those lives will be lost for absolutely nothing.

          1. The belief in open borders are so great that some of these people would rather fight 100 vietnams or wage some apocalyptic war in the middle east rather then just stopping these 7th century assholes from immigrating into the west.

            It borders on fanaticism.

            1. The fact of the matter is that not all cultures are created equal. The poor little innocent refugees are just doing what animals do, they are acting on survival instinct.

              They aren’t going to Europe out of any principle because they didn’t bother to go until someone started trying to kill them. They were absolutely fine with Assad abusing people as long as he left them along. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they want pity. Fuck em I say.

              Do open borders proponents seriously believe that these people have all of a sudden had a Paul like moment on the road to Damascus and see the error in their ways. Or do you see that they are deer running from a hunter and are only acting out of instinct. All the authoritarian shit they believed in yesterday, they still believe in today.

              1. So you’re saying the refugees are bad people because they weren’t immigrating before? From the police state they were trapped in? What?

                1. That’s exactly what I’m saying. They were all good with Assad but now that someone is trying to kill them it’s Oh Shit Europe save us save us.

                  I have no pity for the antelope when the lion eats it. I have no pity for the deer I will hopefully kill tomorrow. I’m supposed to pity these people because I happen to be human like them?

          2. This. There are no simple answers unless you’re willing to engage in utter barbarity like the successful Middle East dictators such as Saddam and the Saudi royals have done.

          3. “For every one that you kill you make 3 more.”

            No, you’re thinking of Hydra. There is a finite supply of these dipshits, and given that a handful of them can easily kill one or two hundred, we might want to get on the right side of the numbers game.

            While we’re on the subject, the West needs to break its illusion that “government is another word for what we do together”. Government is another word for “someone else will handle it”. And it’s just bs. The people of the West need to learn to defend themselves rather than trusting their governments to do it.

            1. Hail Hydra! (Gives salute)

          4. “For every one that you kill you make 3 more”

            Bullshit alert.

            “The belief in open borders are so great that some of these people would rather fight 100 vietnams or wage some apocalyptic war in the middle east rather then just stopping these 7th century assholes from immigrating into the west.”

            How the fuck would closing the borders prevent war? ISIS is still over there. They can target your citizens at embassies or beach resorts.

            Such is the the faith in controlling the borderz that it is seen as the end-all of all problems.

            1. Better to exterminate them over there then worry about them here. How can you not understand that? Your pathological need for open borders has destroyed what little common sense you had.

              Get some fucking help.

      3. No, I will not go to war. I have already served in Iraq as have many people that I share a common background with, which is to say that I come from a rural, poor background.

        then I might suggest you find a new profession. You joined the War Dept, voluntarily. On occasion, it requires its employees to do nasty things. That is the trade-off for whatever benefits the job provides. You may have noticed but this place is among the few that, while honoring your service and commitment, gets a bit queasy at the hero-worship culture that genuflects at the sight of a uniform.

        War is a horrible thing. On occasion, it is a necessary thing. I’m not sure if it necessary here but that’s mostly due to the fecklessness of the civilians who try to run wars without the understanding that if you’re going to go in, you damn well better have a plan and a goal, you need to recognize the goal when it is reached, and above all, you go in with overwhelming force to end it as soon as possible.

        1. I have chosen a different profession. When I was young, I was just like everyone else. Add to that, the fact that the military is one of the few options for people like and me and it seemed like a no-brainer. I started having serious doubts about everything early on and by the time I got out, I was (and still am) so disgusted with everyone and everything that I support none of this shit.

          Tell me why I should give a shit about these Parisians or New Yorkers when these same people have nothing but disgust for me and use my way of life as a means to insult others?

          1. A lot of us do NOT have disgust for you or your way of life, though I can see where you might get a bit weary of the bullshit that comes from the self-anointed moral masters of society. I maintain that the military’s largest problem is having civilians dictate much of what gets done.

            I spent enough time around Army posts to get that what seems very simple has a way of becoming terribly complicated to satisfy political pressures and cravings: if you commit to troops, then you better be in to win. Further, you need to know what winning means, have the capacity to recognize when that objective has been reached, and prosecute the conflict in a manner that reaches the objective as soon as possible.

            1. I am not trying to be deliberately obtuse or difficult. I am merely presenting a different viewpoint that is not of the two mainstream ideas: it’s our fault, don’t blame the poor Muzzies and Bomb everything that moves and then burn it with fire.

              I appreciate your civil discourse on the matter (no sarcasm).

              1. It’s all good. Best of luck on your current path.

      4. Hey, fella? You do know we have an all volunteer army, right.

        Here’s some advice: DON’T FUCKING VOLUNTEER.

        1. See my post about this matter above. I’ll repeat myself just for your special self. I was a bleiver just like you when I was 18. I have since changed my mind and haven’t been in the service for a few years now.

          Can someone not change their mind as they grow older and more experienced?

          1. of course, you can change your mind and the impetus behind your dissatisfaction is not hard to fathom. But I don’t see a future as a pacifist nation.

            1. I don’t either and I am not above making exceptions or changing my mind. I am not a pacifist though after re-reading my posts I am certainly not doing a very good job of communicating my thoughts.

              I am being extremely selfish due to what I have experienced and what I have seen and heard others do and say. I am wondering why people like me (I know France is the same way, the poor will fight and die, while the middle-class Parisians eat cheese) are called upon in a crisis but derided in peace.

              I agree that these people need to die. However, I know that the necessary steps will not be taken. I also disagree with letting millions of them into our countries. Repeating myself from above:

              Do open borders proponents seriously believe that these people have all of a sudden had a Paul like moment on the road to Damascus and see the error in their ways. Or do you see that they are deer running from a hunter and are only acting out of instinct. All the authoritarian shit they believed in yesterday, they still believe in today.

              1. lot of things to ponder so I’ll try to address them:
                –the poor tend to be the fighting people because the rich have other options and are better connected. It’s why a poor defendant is more likely to be convicted and/or get a harsher sentence than a rich.
                –the derision has always been a part of the political left, largely because they see America as wrong by default, no matter the issue, and the military is representative of a power and standing that the left resents. The only time this changes in when the White House is occupied by a Dem; in those cases, the peace movement goes silent. With a Repub, it’s in full throat.
                –the open borders people believe they are standing on some grand principle; debating them is pointless, whether those borders are between the US and Mexico or any European nation and a Middle Eastern influx. A good of it is, as you say, instinct. As one party tends to reflexively oppose anything that the other supports, these folks reflexively oppose any nation’s effort to control its borders.

                I can’t consider you selfish as most of us are guided by our experiences. It is unreasonable to expect the you of today to be exactly like the you who joined up and saw what you saw.

              2. If you haven’t read Jim Webb’s Born Fighting you ought to. I used to be all hatin on the rednecks who eagerly enlist to blow shit up without questioning dumb wars. I also resented having to stand up for the “hero” (diluted term, no?) at every sporting event. But I’ve come to realize that those who disproportionately fight our wars are capable of critical thought when the time is right.
                I am hoping that, like me, you vomit in your mouth just a little each time you hear Sean Hannity say, “Thank you for your service” with that sanctimonious look.

                1. I usually just fire back a “thanks for your support” to people that say that – and they go off do whatever I was going to do and think no more of it. Just be polite and move on.

                2. You should go down to your local VFW and share your views, and show the little people there just how magnanimous you are. Be sure to report back and let us know how that goes for you.

          2. You’re pretty patient, when someone has that kind of difficulty with basic reading comprehension, and chooses to be an ass as well, most Grunts would tell them to pound sand.

            And, perhaps the armchair quarterbacks here aren’t buying your kill 1 make 3 recipe. I can add some perspective. For some areas, where there primary pastime isn’t arguing about trivial bs via the internet, there is sometimes no good way of fact checking outrageous claims about how someone was killed. Not that access to the Internet makes much difference if you’re a dimwit, the current mizzou follies with the kkk/’racist cult’ being a perfect example. This to say, if you are a poorly educated sort existing with a substandard diet, you are a prime target for propaganda. If either IS or AQ is operational in the area, or if the local mosques are anti-US, then any death attributed to coalition forces is a potent recruiting tool for AQ or IS. Short version, but it’s late, and I have to work in the morning.

        2. In addition I was also encouraging others like me to not go and fight just in case there are some lurking here and reading the comments.

      5. Uh did you not volunteer? Sorry, if you volunteered then it’s your job to bleed for us. Americans pay tons of taxes just so that they don’t pick a rifle and strap on boots.

      6. Whenever you fucknuts get on your war kick, it is people like me that get the “honor” of serving. That’s not to say that others do not serve but the fact is that it is disproportionately people like me that get the job of killing and dying.

        You fucking volunteered. You went to the military, studied and took tests and examinations all so you could get into the military. You wanted to be there.

        So shut the fuck up.

    2. Cytotoxic is the absolute best on that. He would be ok with waging a genocidal war in the middle east, but don’t you dare prevent one of those bastards from moving in next door to you.

      1. You can prevent them moving in if you have strong evidence that they are dangerous.

        Look, it’s a freedom thing. You wouldn’t understand.

        1. Because bombing someone you’d let live next to you makes total sense.

          It’s a logic thing, you wouldn’t understand.

    3. “I particularly loved Cytotoxic’s complete mental breakdown of saying let anyone in that wants to come and nuke anyone that is left.”

      What a typically dishonest way of framing a free nation that defends itself.

      1. Dishonest? Was it not you who said to nuke Raqqa? Was it not you who said FGM was an acceptable price to pay?

        You would happily sacrifice people’s rights to peace today to secure an unknown economic benefit in the future.

        Immigration failed both the western and eastern ran empires, the American indian, native Britons, Gaul, the Ainu. Bit you have America of which you are not even a part of to use as your flag.

        Fuck you is the only response you deserve

      2. Cato, he has you pegged.

  29. Ann Coulter like totally ruins EoDM for me.

    Next she’ll start talking about how Ghostface Killer is her favorite rapper and I’ll cry.

    Also = did nick include the girl complaining about Mizzou in there, but not say a word about it? ugh. that’s like letting the terrorists win a bonus round.

  30. Hmmm.

    I agree with most of your comments – your reaction to some awful reactions, if you will.

    But, here’s the thing, Nick: What’s your take? You’re the editor of a leading libertarian publication. I realize it’s early and your probably working on it currently, but how about offering a libertarian position on how these acts of terrorism should be approached beyond Patriot Act bad (I agree) and military intervention bad (I agree) and open borders good (I disagree). Some coherent response other than “dickheads gonna be dickheads” would be appreciated.

    1. ” Patriot Act bad (I agree) and military intervention bad (I agree) and open borders good (I disagree).’

      I doubt anyone would disagree much with the basic formula you outline; but that’s just a menu of idealized desires.

      Some of these things are not a matter of “how we react”, ex-nihilo, but how we’re going to have to deal with ways we’ve already-reacted,

      e.g

      – Aspects of the patriot act (e.g. NSA surveillance, etc) are less likely to be repealed now than before. Any desire for de-militarization of police forces will be harder. Its a setback.

      – re: “intervention” will expand. Not just because US policy was already trending that way, but because now we will have ‘allies’ determined to participate. The question is whether there will be an articulation of any limited goal and means to achieve it. The gradual creep from ‘Assad must go’ to ‘we’re in Syria to destroy ISIS’ shows the incoherence of people in charge. Americans should demand better.

      – re: Open borders – there was some yapping about this last night, and i think there’s conflation between US immigration issues and EU “importing terrorists” that is stupid. I expect the EU will change their policy re: importing refugees. I don’t think that says anything about how the US needs to improve its way of dealing with millions of undocumented people.

      IOW, the devils are in the details, rather than any broad-brush “support or opposition”

      1. I don’t think that says anything about how the US needs to improve its way of dealing with millions of undocumented people.
        Does it say anything about the refugees we’re getting ready to import?

        1. Actually, they’ve already started to arrive. My mistake
          http://www.fox8live.com/story/…..ew-orleans

        2. FRom what i’ve heard about that, there is some tentative plan to “eventually” offer access to ~30,000 or so.

          and based on experience we’ve had with agreements to import a similar number of refugees from Iraq, the screening process is long, expansive, and results in huge delays, such that only a fraction of those promised ‘refuge’ ever actually come to the US at all.

          We’re literally only just beginning to bring in Iraqis who were submitted to be approved 10 years ago.

          So, i don’t expect there to be a tidal wave of unscreened Syrians arriving on people’s doorsteps anytime soon. Pretending that its even possible is sort of ignorant of how these things have worked. The article you cite mentions, “2 families”. Not exactly the scare-story intended?

          1. Pretending that its even possible is sort of ignorant of how these things have worked.

            So past performance guarantees future returns? We do know that Obama is rather enthusiastic with the executive orders.

            1. Only our past performance though, apparently. We can’t learn anything from Europe even though we are starting to do the same thing.

            2. I’m just saying its unlikely we’re going to put MORE resources behind the importation of Syrians… when our treatment of US-State-Department-approved Iraqi-allies was super-slow, bureaucratic, and resulted in about 1/5 of the target # ever showing up.

  31. During WWII Louisiana was one giant military camp. We had zillions of POWs. The non-nazi partiers were mostly just put to work. My grandfather had a pulpwood business and he was supplied with German POWs for labor. By his account most of the Germans, when they saw what this country was like, they couldn’t believe it. One in particular after seeing the Mississippi bridge at Baton Rouge said “We would never have gone to war if we had known. We could never defeat anyone would can build something like that. Besides, I don’t want to destroy this country, I want to come live here.”

    This isnt going to happen with the ‘immigrants’ to Europe. They are a whole different animal. The Germans were mostly civilized people. The Muslims simply aren’t.

    1. And for every Muslim who likes the west there is one who thinks they need honor killing

      1. I hate to go all George Bush, but it is a ‘you’re with us or against us’ situation. There are plenty of Muslims who like living in a liberal society and are quiet capable and willing to assimilate Western Enlightenment values and reconcile them with Islam. My dentist is a second generation Pakistani Muslim with zero sympathies with these fuckers. It’s the mushy middle that is the real danger. These folks don’t necessarily want to join the jihad and disagree with what the terrorists are doing but hold some sympathy for the actions. They believe Western societies are decadent and are okay with some extremism.

        I mentioned in the prior post, the actual number of IRA members were tiny but the IRA was able to intimidate the “moderates” and then enjoyed quite a lot of sympathy with some Irish Catholics all over the world.

        We need to be absolutely clear with Muslim immigrants. They need to be able to live comfortably in a pluralistic, individualistic, liberal society or GTFO. Now, the Euros have a more difficult situation because its not just the migrant issue but the the 2nd generation that they failed to integrate. It sounds like all these Paris assholes visited Syria for “training”. The Euros need to confiscate the passports and refuse reentry to these people.

        1. I wonder how long before the open borders advocates here shit their pants over your last paragraph while accusing you of having done the same thing.

          There does a point when issues are binary – you can’t be okay with SOME extremism. And one of the two primary political ideologies would line up against you on this score, with its continued pretense of some moderate majority of Muslims that is repulsed by this. You may well be right that this majority is intimidated as a good many Southern folks of good will were intimidated by those willing to use violence to maintain Jim Crow.

        2. We need to be absolutely clear with Muslim immigrants. They need to be able to live comfortably in a pluralistic, individualistic, liberal society or GTFO.

          Yeah, of course that would be seen as too intolerant, at least with this administration. In reality, it’s the only way to allow the non-violent Muslims an opportunity to distinguish themselves from the ones who are already planning the next attack. If we wait until it’s too late, citizens will start taking matters into their own hands. This administration would probably love that, “See? Right-wingers are the real terrorists!”

        3. “We need to be absolutely clear with Muslim immigrants. They need to be able to live comfortably in a pluralistic, individualistic, liberal society or GTFO.”

          Fixed it.

        4. “They need to be able to live comfortably in a pluralistic, individualistic, liberal society or GTFO.”

          How do you do that, exactly?

          I’d like to see some anti-open borders people lay it on the line. Open borders types get criticized for “not having a plan” to deal with this stuff, but let’s get specific about what this “plan” needs to be instead of just falling on the SJW “someone needs to do *something*” train.

          Do we have tribunals that interview people regarding their religious and political beliefs? It can’t only be for Muslims, since terrorists could claim to not be Muslims, or try to pass themselves off as non-Muslims.

          What will the content of the tribunal be? Do you need to condemn certain groups? Violate certain elements of Sharia? Take a loyalty oath?

          Once you’ve gone through the tribunal, how do you show that you’re a proven loyal citizen? Do you get a loyalty oath pin? An armband? These could be stolen or forged. A tattoo with your citizen ID number? An implanted chip?

          If we primarily want to make sure everyone feels safe, how do we accomplish that?

          1. This. They have no idea what kind of world they’d create in pursuit of their ‘immigration control’ fantasies.

            1. If you think populations are going to tolerate the occasional major terror attack as the price of freedom then you’re the one with the fantasies. Europeans have had enough of this Islamic horseshit, whether this is the last straw or not remains to be seen.

              1. They did before.

                1. If they follow your advice, we will live to see President Le Pen take office.

          2. Give potential immigrants the same sort of background check an applicant for the job of school janitor gets. No background, no job as janitor, no immigrate.

            Some countries don’t keep criminal or other records or falsify them? Then don’t admit people from those countries.

          3. Each one of them has to eat a piece of bacon while petting a dog and sing Christ is Lord falsetto.

        5. We need to be absolutely clear with Muslim immigrants. They need to be able to live comfortably in a pluralistic, individualistic, liberal society or GTFO.

          The core problem with your position isn’t the sentiment, it’s the unenforceability.

          There’s no good mechanism for kicking people out who don’t integrate, without defining integration. And there lies the rub.

          France banned face coverings in public back in 2010. Doesn’t really work. Targeting visible signs of extremism (violent or otherwise) doesn’t work, because you just get people who comply and resent the host country for it. And you can’t surprise-deport people for doing things that are completely legal.

          A ton of the home-grown terrorists are raised by “moderates” (ie. not unhinged in any externally measurable way) and radicalize themselves online or through their peer group. This would be extremely hard to stop.

          The only mechanism I see is to cut down the non-voluntary social-welfare system to size. It wouldn’t do a ton but at least at the margin it’d remove the ability for people who can’t even interact in the economic sphere.

          This isn’t even including the unintended side-effects of such a policy.

          The Euros need to confiscate the passports and refuse reentry to these people.

          I believe that’s already a policy in the UK at least.

          1. For the US, it is a pretty simple calculus actually. Be highly selective in allowing Muslims to immigrate. Bans and or quotas.

            As I said in a prior post, the Euros have a much more challenging problem that won’t be resolved by simply refusing the migrants. They have citizen terrorists. I don’t have a solution other than banning the re-entry of those who travel to places like Syria. They are going to face a long term threat similar to what Israel has dealt with for decades. They’re economy is weak and getting weaker. Basically, they are fucked. In 75 years, Paris will look like Beirut.

            1. “For the US, it is a pretty simple calculus actually. Be highly selective in allowing Muslims to immigrate. Bans and or quotas.”

              No – it can’t be a quota. It has to be a ban. Terrorists can still get in if there are quotas.

              You also have to forbid Muslims from even *visiting*. No more American Muslims can have family from abroad, and none can any longer travel abroad.

              You then have to get rid of the Muslims we already have, because can you *really* trust them?

              Then you have to seal the border. You have to make sure they can’t, say, cross Gibraltar to Spain and hop a freight ship, or get a fake passport in Peshawar showing them to be Hindu.

              You’ll need to keep guard towers along the thousands of miles of our borders and shoot anyone who tries to cross illegally.

              But, all told, these measures probably *won’t* solve the problem. So the question remains – what *more* can we do? We *need* this problem to *go away* don’t we?

              1. You could have same some typing and just said:

                “SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!

                Because we take one action then the others are absolutely inevitable!!!!!!”

                1. It is not a slippery slope. It is all or nothing. How else can you keep terrorists out?

                  I am open to any suggestions you may have.

                  1. I’ve made my suggestions already. I don’t envision keeping all terrorists out or preventing American citizens from jihad. I’d like fewer incidents, though.

            2. We have citizen terrorists. One of the DC shooters was born in Louisiana. Others as well IIRC.

              You’ve completely avoided addressing the “how do you tell who’s a Muslim” problem. It’d have to be a country by country thing, because people can trivially lie about their religion.

              1. Yes, I agree we have citizen terrorists. What exactly are you expecting from me or anyone else when we make policy suggestions? A perfect solution? We will continue to experience terrorist events from both homegrown and imported assholes – I’ve no doubt about that. My suggestion is that we can minimize this problem by NOT importing groups of people likely to harbor Islamists. That’s it.

                1. “My suggestion is that we can minimize this problem by NOT importing groups of people likely to harbor Islamists.”

                  Yes, but what we’re telling you is that there is no way to do that without fundamentally sacrificing liberty. An entrance quiz, or an ID check, or a quota on people from certain countries doesn’t prevent motivated terrorists from finding ways around those systems. Those sorts of measures will only impact people who are not a problem, by definition.

                  You need to militantly seal off the country and purge it of Muslims in order to achieve what you’re trying to achieve.

                  Do you think it would be worth it to do the things that you would *actually* have to do in order to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish?

    2. I keep thinking of how John Birmingham portrays Paris in Without Warning and After America.

    3. Jordanian terrorism expert on TV: “This isnt about Al qaeda, it isnt about ISIS. These are movements and after them will be more just like them. These movements are being carried by an ideology. You will not win if you don’t get rid of this ideology.”

    4. Bizarre as it may seem, Nazism and socialism/communism grew out of the same philosophical foundation as capitalism, free markets, etc. That is not to say – at all – that they are equivalent. But there are common backgrounds. Nazism, of course, was heavily influenced by people like Hegel and Spengler who post-dated Locke, Smith, et al.

      Islam grew out of a different core philosophy and so there is much less common philosophical ground.

    5. “This isnt going to happen with the ‘immigrants’ to Europe. They are a whole different animal. The Germans were mostly civilized people. The Muslims simply aren’t.”

      And yet, that’s exactly what’s happening with the Muslims here in Canada and America. There is really no widespread problem. They’ve assimilated just fine.

      1. Except for when they commit the occasional terrorist attack like the Ft.Hood shooter, or the DC snipers, etc etc…

        1. By ‘they’ you mean like a total of 10 people or less. Again, not a widespread problem.

        2. Law of large numbers.

          Even if you stopped all Muslim immigration (which is really hard, lying about your religion is pretty simple), there still would be home-converted-and-radicalized terrorists.

          The DC snipers are a great example of how hard it is to spot potential terrorists:

          – John Allen Muhammad was born John Allen Williams in Baton Rouge. Converted to Nation of Islam in 1987.
          – Lee Boyd Malvo was from Jamaica and was in the process of being deported when skipped town on a $1,500 bond. Joined the other asshole, and they started planning attacks.

          So one native, and one who was already slated to be kicked out.

          1. And the second guy wouldn’t have hit any “terrorist” checklists either. He got caught simply for being here illegally.

            1. Converted to Nation of Islam in 1987.

              was in the process of being deported when skipped town on a $1,500 bond

              Well there are too markers that should be taken into account

      2. Muslims are 0.8% of the US population; they are 10%+ of the French population. That matters. Assimilation is easier when cultures aren’t segregated. The French Muslims are segregated in ghettos.

        Violent Islamists are a tiny portion of Muslims world-wide but they are completely dependent on hiding in plain sight. They hide within Muslim communities who to a lesser or greater degree sympathize with their aims. We have fewer attacks in the US because we have fewer Muslims. More Muslims means more attacks. It is what it is.

        1. France’s lack of assimilation is largely due to economic and social dysfunction that can be laid at the feet of the modern welfare state.

          About 7.2% of Guayna’s population is Muslim. Have not heard of many attacks there. There goes the ‘more Muslims more attacks’ hypothesis.

          1. You answered your own implied question, dickhead. What kind of welfare benefits does Guayna offer? Hmmmmm, right, zero.

            The US and Canada are quite generous.

            1. I can’t find any actual data to back up that claim, so I doubt you have it.

              The apparently have some welfare but I haven’t read this thoroughly.

              Guyana has a free-ish market system.

              No matter: seems we’re in agreement. The problem is the welfare state/regulatory state.

              1. You are so simple-minded. “The problem is the welfare state/regulatory state.”

                It’s part of the problem, but don’t attempt to think any harder because your brain till mostly likely leak out of your ear.

        2. More evidence to keep the numbers of muslims in the US as low as possible.

  32. They are complaining about the relative levels of news coverage?

    I bet the people in Paris didn’t block off reporters…

  33. I would say the the appropriate immediate response to acts of inhumanity is anger. Which is a good reason to hold off on policy decisions.

    1. Why hold off on policy decisions? Paris 11/13 had plenty of obvious foreshadowing. We and the rest of the world have known for twenty years or so that this shit goes on, is getting worse and, above all, who is causing it. Seems odd that we haven’t thought out a sensible response by now.

      1. I’m just saying you don’t let your emotions cause you to do anything rash.

        1. And I’m saying don’t let unwillingness to face a problem prevent trying to solve it.

          1. Thermonuclear annihilation it is then:)

            1. I’m certainly not saying that.

            2. I too endorse Homie’s plan to exterminate the muslims through thermonuclear strikes.

  34. Also, on topic, these people are useful idiots in every sense. Like our friend Bezmenov said they are brainwashed, programmed to respond in only one way. That is exactly what they are doing. No matter what happens, no matter what situation arises, no matter what information you give them they respond in the exact same way.

    Ask one what time it is and they scream ‘racist!’ in your face.

    Hundreds of people are murdered live on television and they respond by screaming ‘racist!’.

    1. All this goes away when progressivism is cleansed from our society.

  35. Here’s a real beaut – ‘The Thin Blue Line Between ISIS and You’:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..d-you.html

    Michael Daly at the Daily Beast manages to simultaneously fellate the NYPD and suggest that the NRA is inviting similar attacks here.

  36. And so the memory holing begins. From The Spectator (not a leftist rag, by UK standards):

    Paris attacks were a declaration of war…against Islam!

    Yes, Muslims are in fact the greatest victims of Muslims murdering non-Muslims by dozens.

    Good news, Nick. Response to this will be the same as the response to London bombing, Madrid Bombing, Bali bombing, Ft. Hood shooting, etc. Blustering talk, candle-lit vigil, somber parade of politicians (icky National Front excluded, as before), then back to business as usual. I mean, there’s AGW conference in two weeks, much more important.

    1. It wasn’t as bad as it sounds. It was more of a Western Muslim declaring war against Islamism and calling on other Muslims to do the same. That’s kind of the best case scenario, unless you really want this to end in genocide.

      1. It’s boilerplate shit that shows up every time there’s a swinery like this. We Condemn This. They Are Our Enemies, Too. We Are Together. Nothing To Do With Islam. Then, it’s back to fighting “islamophobia,” trashing Israel and demanding jail time for blasphemy.
        Think about it – what was the effect of Charlie Hebdo attacks on Western Muslims in France? Or murder of Lee Rigby in UK? Attack in Copenhagen this February? Nothing, because That Had Nothing To Do With Islam.

        So this is a new ideology, a form of totalitarianism ? and one that has its ideological source not in medieval Islam but 20th century fascism.

        See, it’s Europe’s fault. They invented fascism. ISIS just needs to be more Islamic and everything will be fine! Caliphate is a new idea! Jew hate has been invented by Hamas!

    2. That article seems to be memory-holing not only the spread of Islam across northern Africa and southern Asia but also the way it is practiced through most of the region.

      1. Indeed. Sad part is that it’s SOP by now. My favorite was when couple of non-Muslims murdered a British soldier, then videoed themselves quoting Koran as justification. BBC had then-deputy PM quoting same lines as the video to show that this had nothing to do with Koran (of course that segment of the video was muted).
        Basically it’s Mote and Bailey as practiced by feminists. These ‘moderates’ spend all their time pursuing anyone who says anything bad about Islam, historically or currently, while ignoring the ‘extremists’. Then a swinery happens, and ‘moderates’ retreat to the keep, screeching how this had nothing to do with them, and demanding money to ‘de-radicalize’ their fellow Muslims (who are, of course, a herd that needs the ‘moderate’ shepherds). Then it’s back out into the field, doing what they did before.

    3. Mr. Zagloba, you forgot to mention the customary heaps of flowers and teddy bears.

      1. I did indeed, can’t have a proper candle-lit vigil without those!

        I also forgot that, starting Monday, there’ll be reports of anti-Muslim violence and backlash (I totally got called names in the street, no witnesses, sorry), and calls for calm and tolerance.

    1. What a shocking tragedy! No one could have possibly predicted or prevented this! *insert more cliched dribble*

      1. Price of freedom or something.

      2. They should ban immigrants, like, you know, drugs.

        That should solve all the problems.

  37. Michael Daly at the Daily Beast manages to simultaneously fellate the NYPD and suggest that the NRA is inviting similar attacks here.

    Impressive.

    Fellate the NYPD is an understatement. That much cum must slosh audibly when he walks.

    1. He used to write for the NY Daily News. I guess even they didn’t want him around any more.

  38. Spelling mistake in the tagline. (“got to waste” should be “go to waste”)

  39. As I said before: the anti-immigration assholes are exactly like the gun grabbers. They don’t care how low they have to stoop or senseless they have to be. They have deportation boners, and they aren’t going to let rational thought get in the way of their fantasies.

    1. Indeed, Cytotoxic. How can you stop terrorist atrocities in your country if you keep terrorists out of your country?

      Or something.

      1. By mass-killing them before they reach your country! How do you mass kill them? Kill everyone, and let Ayn Rand sort them out. But anyone who comes over is clearly not a terrorist, so give them money!
        Maybe make a sport out of it – put up minefields and gauntlets of machine guns, but everyone who makes it to the finish line is given an indulgence and full welfare!

        1. It’s pretty simple: open borders with a desk to look for the people who might kill you. Some will get through but that’s how life is. If a foreign entity is funding attacks against your people, end that entity.

          The rise of Islamic terror isn’t remotely related to immigration. It’s due to the existence of state sponsors of terrorism. You can close your boders all you want, as long as states plow money into those dedicated to killing you for your freedoms they will.

          1. Which states funded the following:

            Fort Hood shooting
            London bombings
            Bali bombings
            Madrid bombings
            Hebdo attack
            Copenhagen attack ?

            1. The spread and dissemination of Islamic totalitarian ideology as we know it is largely subsidized by Saudi Arabia. That is the root of ISIS and AQ and most of the above.

              1. Ahh. So if we nuke mecca, all the remaining muslims will be free of this evil influence and become model American citizens then. I see the logic now.

                1. …what?

                2. No, if you turn the entire Arabian peninsula into basket case on the level of Afghanistan, then they can’t finance terrorism and terrorism will end! How is that not self-evident?

                  So you don’t nuke Mecca, you nuke Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

                  1. Just get rid of that regime. If ending all assurances of military aid and leaving them to fight Iran is enough, then do that and just that.

                    SA subsidizes radical preaching all over everywhere, including Afghanistan. This is the seed. Afghanistan was a staging ground but not nearly as important as SA.

                    1. So you get rid of the Saud regime = What replaces it?

                      And you actually think attacking the Islamic Holy Land is supposed to ‘neutralize ISIS and AQ??”

                      Your myopia is astounding.

              2. So Iran has nothing to do with it? Right.

          2. “The rise of Islamic terror isn’t remotely related to immigration”

            I’m sorry but this is just fucking stupid. If Europe hadn’t opened it doors to the Muslim world then they wouldn’t be having this problem.

            It’s not the terrorists parachute in and start blowing shit up.

            1. “If Europe hadn’t opened it doors to the Muslim world”

              So what are you proposing? Just build a fucking wall NO MUSLIMS ALLOWED? Please, stop. That’s absurd and a ‘cure’ far worse than the disease. It also doesn’t do much to prevent attacks on embassies or citizens abroad. Sorry, it’s a global world and you’re just going to have to live with it.

              1. A cure worse then the disease? Oh please tell me what great contributions Muslims are making to European society.

                As for the embassies close em. Fuck the middle east let them wallowing in their desert shitholes.

                1. “Oh please tell me what great contributions Muslims are making to European society.”

                  Massive increases in wealth for one thing. Gotta love this collectivism thing you got going btw, as if ‘society’ is owed anything at all.

                  Wikipedia oddly enough has a whole page on French Muslims. Here’s one of them.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Sy

            2. In France, anyway, a lot of them have been French citizens or long time residents.

              I think Europe has a big problem with failing to integrate immigrants because of their silly multiculturalist ideas and overgenerous welfare states. And of course some bad guys are coming in with the refugees from Syria. But there is a lot more at play than just recent immigration policies.

              1. Indeed, which is why there’s no solution that will stop attacks like this.

                Real fun begins when actual neo-Nazis/neo-Crusaders turn up. What the fuck can the state do when another Brevik decides to bomb a mosque on a Friday? And what can they do if that becomes a semi-regular occurrence? Round up the white people? Start arresting FN members? Start going to the Mass and tracking people under 30 they see there?
                They can’t stop members of visible minority from committing atrocities. How the fuck do they stop the members of majority, then?

                1. OH, it’s going to be epic ! A few more of these attacks and the more nationalists are going to keep winning and ultimately take over. Pardon me for not shedding any tears for the insanity, but socialist policies mixed with multiculturalism = disaster.

                2. Aren’t they already attacking migrant/refugee camps?

                  But yeah.They’re going to mobilize. It’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’ I reckon.

                  1. Aren’t they already attacking migrant/refugee camps?

                    Not yet – so far, in Germany and Sweden, racists tend to burn down buildings that are set aside as refugee centres during the repair before anyone has moved in (sort of “fuck you” to the government). It may change in the future, of course.

            3. “If Europe hadn’t opened it doors to the Muslim world then they wouldn’t be having this problem.”

              Indeed – but Europe “opening its doors” to the Muslim world involved a lot of opening its doors so that their troops could go out and take charge of the Muslim world, divert their wealth streams, plunder their resources, and stifle their economic growth.

              Once those doors were open, other problems followed . . .

              1. If you want to go that way, Muslim world opened the door first. You understand about a quarter of Europe got to enjoy their management for a few centuries first?

                1. “You understand about a quarter of Europe got to enjoy their management for a few centuries first?”

                  I do happen to know one or two things about the subject, yes.

                  Muslim rule lasted in the southern 60% France for a couple of decades. The Arabs came into Spain in 711, got beat back from Barcelona in the 790s, and gradually lost the rest of the peninsula from about 1080-1492.

                  What *I’m* talking about is things done by European countries that *are still going on* and affect *people who are alive today*.

                  1. Colonialism has about as much to do with this as immigration: nothing. There aren’t any suicide bombers coming up out of Vietnam.

                    It should be noted that Muslim management of Spain was superior to the Christian management of the time and that followed.

                    1. “Colonialism has about as much to do with this as immigration: nothing.”

                      I’m not saying that it’s revenge for colonialism. I’m saying that “Europe opening its doors to the ME” was not some welcoming gesture. The fact that they set up channels for immigration back and forth was to serve their own interests, not as some altruistic project to help the ME. The “immigrant problem” in Europe is one of their own making.

                      “It should be noted that Muslim management of Spain was superior to the Christian management of the time and that followed.”

                      Agreed. But I don’t think that gave them a right to conquer Spain.

                2. I am guessing from his name and form of address that Pan Zagloba might have lived in an area ruled by the Ottomans until the early XX Century and knows whereof he speaks.

                  1. I am guessing from his name and form of address that Pan Zagloba might have lived in an area ruled by the Ottomans until the early XX Century and knows whereof he speaks.

                    Mid-19th, but yes.

                    Same shit (“they oppressed us for centuries”) was given to me as justification for genocide (well, that and “they put us in death camps 40 years ago”) against Muslims and I wasn’t buying it then. So I’m not into the mirror image of said argument – fucking French colonial empire in Levant lasted 30 years, while Ottomans ruled it for 400, but it’s not Istanbul that’s getting bombed.

                    1. “Same shit (“they oppressed us for centuries”) was given to me as justification for genocide (well, that and “they put us in death camps 40 years ago”) against Muslims and I wasn’t buying it then.”

                      Then it seems like we agree.

      2. Maybe we should put dog collars on everybody. For the childrunz.

      3. How do you keep terrorists out of the country? The 911 terrorists weren’t poor refugees or immigrants. Do you deny entry to anyone who seems like they might be Muslim (people can lie about their religious beliefs, you know?)? Close the borders completely? Deport citizens who are Muslim and show signs of possible radicalization?

        1. Thinking things through isn’t there strong suit, and they love to project that onto others.

        2. I’m on the open-borders side of the debate, but here’s the best I can come up with if I wasn’t:

          Ban immigration of males below 40 from Africa and anything in Asia west of India, or south of Vietnam. Complete ban, including visitor visas. Enforced based on country of citizenship.

          It stops 1st generation Islamic terrorists. It also fucks up the gender ratio of potentially-Muslim immigrants, stopping the 2nd generation from being raised in the same way as their parents.

          Way too much collateral damage for what it achieves. Not worth it. And weakening it quickly renders it purely symbolic and ineffective, so not worth it either.

          1. India is full of Muslims, too, and most of Central Asia north of India. China has a not insignificant Muslim population, so I don’t even think the plan that you’re proposing would work, either. You would just have to say “no more immigrants or even temporary visitors, ever, period.”

        3. “Radical” is a revealing word. Among altruists it means “afflicted with integrity.” Since integrity is loyalty to a set of values, the negative connotation says more about the core value underlying altruism than it says about integrity. Folks who value happiness, are not superstitious, take no orders from invisible friends or devils, see no point to initiating the use of force against others and prefer to lead productive lives of their own have no problem with integrity. People whose thoughts are imported second-hand from sermons recommending sacrifice, poverty, abnegation, guilt, shame and death have to choose between bring alive and having integrity. Now, is it any wonder that mohammedan and christian fundamentalists are so alike? Both favor prohibition laws, laws forcing women to reproduce and the initiation of deadly force halfway around the planet.

    2. “and they aren’t going to let rational thought get in the way of their fantasies “. That’s pretty much YOU Cato.

  40. I see there’s no shortage of terrible responses here. So is the yokel takeover of this place complete, then?

    1. No but not for lack of trying or excessive self-awareness (“using tragedy to push out Muslims is totally different from using it to grab guns!”)

    2. Please provide us with your deep thoughts on how the French should approach their little problem.

      1. Abolish welfare state? That certainly would play well in banlieues.

        1. Better yet, liberalize labour markets. So there’s you know jobs.

          1. I can go with loosening restrictive labor laws. That shit doesn’t help.

            1. That’d be something to see – Unions vs Jihadists! I’m not sure I’d be willing to bet either way.

              1. The Teamsters would be hamstrung by their innate laziness.

        2. It’d be a start. There’s a high percentage of radical preachers who suck on the public teat to make ends meet.

        3. “Abolish welfare state? That certainly would play well in banlieues.”

          Unfortunately it wouldn’t play at all in the rest of the country.

          1. Trust me, banlieues would be first to go up in flames. Rest of France would wait until after lunchtime.

        4. The people that attacked Paris didn’t come there for bennies, they came there for blood. The problem with immigration is more that it gives them a huge crowd to hide within.

      2. The only correct response is to complain about yokels

    3. It’s not substantially worse than the average “Mexicans!” thread. Just more heated.

    4. “WHYCOME DOSE DERE YOKELS NO LIKE DUH RAPE GANGS?”

  41. My response is simple, NUKE all muslims and killem all. Do it now!

    http://www.CompleteAnon.tk

  42. Clinton’s response was somewhat cliched, but hardly “terrible” — certainly no worse than a thousand similar responses from other politicians. How can it be compared to Judith Miller’s or Ann Coulter’s? Seems rather “lacking in reason” to shoehorn Clinton into this article for fake “balance.”

  43. Cytotoxic: “Life in a free society has risks. I favor increasing those risks. Plus increasing rape.”

  44. If they ever develop a “metric” to capture popular writers’ effectiveness & ability to hold readers’ interest & stay on topic, word for word, based on ratio of content to reading time, I predict Nick G. will score consistently high. My opinion is probably influenced by my agreeing with many of his views, immigration being the notable exception.

    That’s why I’m disappointed to see repeated errors, obvious ones, which a quick spell-check or 5 minutes’ worth of attention by a competent editor would cure. Today’s gang of three consist of pretty simple omissions:

    1. “Any time something as awful and highly charged as yesterday’s Paris attacks happen[s]”

    2. “Pausing only to express love [for[ the Eagles of Death Metal,”

    3. “shocking events knock [us] off our feet”

    These distract from the flow of a cohesive theme which, imo is otherwise NG’s strongest point.

  45. What goeth around cometh around.

  46. Ann Coulter’s endorsement is the first credible objection to Trump vis-a-vis the much stupider rest of the GOP’s totalitarian wannabees. One can only hope that that entity would be licking the blacking off of any contender’s boots, provided only they be antichoice, prohibitionist, and leading in the polls.

  47. President Obama is twisting and turning in the wind, trying shucking and jiving rhetoric. His leadership and policies are in the best anti-colonial traditions. His only strength is having the gall to lie to the American people in the face of the disaster he has brought about. His policy objective has been to destroy the leadership role of the USA. His record speaks for itself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.