• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Explosions at the Brussels Airport

Based on footage from abroad, refugees seem to take a more aggressive approach to the local populace. Whether those are rarities or commonalities is the question.

To be fair, a clear majority of the refugees are not committing homicidal bombings.
 
Let me help: Neither you, I nor even Numbers (not yet, anyway) is the President. What we, in our nonceremonial capacities, think and say does not speak for the national policy of this Country. We should be able to call this shit for the garbage it is, without having to lump in Buddhists, the Amish and left-handed Presbyterians. This is a primarily Islam problem. You are brave enough to agree. ITC can't distinguish between hearing a Christian prayer at a graduation and the Boston Bombers targeting a child cheering on his father. That's the shit that we, as presumably thinking people, need to knock off.

The President has to walk a finer line, but he's running from it. We don't get the "If one of my children was flying internationally, they'd look like the blood-covered toddler in that airport" speech. We save that one for the permissible bad guy. There is a space between "Bomb until they convert to not crazy" and "Meh? Whadyagonnado?" He's forfeited that leadership opportunity.

This is completely incoherent, both logically and rhetorically. You want a President who talks tough like Putin or some third world strongman, but at the same state you don't want that President to actually do anything about the target of the tough talk because you want to pull out of the Middle East. While I am not a huge fan of the foreign policy of the current administration, the fact remains that no nation on earth with the POSSIBLE exception of Syria and Iraq (great company, BTW) are doing nearly as much to eradicate ISIS as the US. If a leadership opportunity is being forfeited, it appears to be purely a matter of disagreement over how loud our national chest thumping should be. I don't get it, personally.

Or maybe you want leadership in the form of a pivot away from some of the worst Sunni-petro-state sponsors of terrorism, the Saudis being the ringleaders. That's kind of funny too, because the editorial page of the WSJ and other neocon "thought leaders" have been excoriating Obama for doing just that, "betraying" and "abandoning" the Saudis in favor of improving the situation with Iran. But maybe he's not abandoning them fast enough?

Bottom line is there is nothing that Obama can do about radical Islam, or the Saudis, or Israel, or ISIS that conservatives will find acceptable. There's a lot of reasons for that, mostly purely political. But it doesn't really matter, because the problem is not solvable by any unilateral action of the United States, military, diplomatically, rhetorically, Trumpifically, or otherwise. The world is going to be muddling through it for a long time to come.
 
That's the reason I posted 2 links. Of the 10,000 stated, nearly half are non-assault accidents. That's a 9/11 attack's worth of injuries and deaths every single year. President Obama has attempted numerous times to create or encourage legislation to prevent malfeasant gun ownership, but he's been blocked at every attempt by conservatives "protecting the 2nd amendment". It's hypocritical bullshit for the same people to ignore violence and death here domestically and instead pursue a religious war abroad, based on a much smaller threat.

Okay, I didn't read the second link and to be honest it's not an issue I follow closely. I do wish there was a more effective way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill though.
 
Okay, I didn't read the second link and to be honest it's not an issue I follow closely. I do wish there was a more effective way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill though.
"Mentally ill" ? How about lazy? Foolish, or naive? Paranoid? Criminal? Mental illness is not the problem, people have been mentally ill since the dawn of time, the problem is guns, and the American love of gun culture.
 
This thread is a good example of the usual strawman accusers changing the direction of this thread because they don't want to face the tough reality of islamic terrorism and the support it receives from the silent majority of the muslim world. Lets all talk about gun deaths instead because we don't have any threads for that. Can't have multiple issues they all have to be connected.
 
This thread is a good example of the usual strawman accusers changing the direction of this thread because they don't want to face the tough reality of islamic terrorism and the support it receives from the silent majority of the muslim world. Lets all talk about gun deaths instead because we don't have any threads for that. Can't have multiple issues they all have to be connected.
Hahahahahahahahaha

I'm glad we've got so many patriots here focusing on the real issues.
 
Okay, I didn't read the second link and to be honest it's not an issue I follow closely. I do wish there was a more effective way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill though.

if only there was some sort of pre-buying process we could put into place
 
"Mentally ill" ? How about lazy? Foolish, or naive? Paranoid? Criminal? Mental illness is not the problem, people have been mentally ill since the dawn of time, the problem is guns, and the American love of gun culture.

Guns are pretty badass though. I'm a big fan of John Wick and Clint Eastwood westerns. I just don't want mentally ill people to have them. I'd also rather other people prone to kill and rob the innocent don't have them.
 
if only there was some sort of pre-buying process we could put into place

Well, there are rules in place but they're not that effective. And all it takes is for some dumbass parent to have tons of guns around the house for their crazy kid to get a hold of.
 
The problem of Islamic extremism is caused – astonishingly enough – by Islamic extremism. As France, Belgium and many other societies can now attest, the larger your Muslim population, the larger your Islamic extremism problem. Not because most Muslims are terrorists. Obviously not. But because that “small minority” we always hear about grows proportionally bigger the larger the community is. What matters is the numbers, the density (thus their ability to hide and be hidden) and the type of Islam that is followed. Given Europe’s current demographic trajectory this poses a pretty terrifying problem which we’ll have to face up to one day. But in the meantime it remains so much more comfortable to blame the only people we’re kidding. Ourselves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12204593/We-must-stop-blaming-ourselves-for-Islamist-terrorism.html
 
Good article. Self flagellation is such an important part of the left-liberal narrative that they are lost without it. Therefore, they cling to it like some security blanket in order to avoid facing facts that might contradict their misconceptions of the world.

The world is not run by self-hating millennials who think soccer is a sport that adult males should play. If it was, Bernie would be getting at least 1/2 the votes of the 1/2 of the country that pretends to be believe what he says. Winter is coming for dv7.
 
It's a fair point but I think, personally, that it's a weak one. What is the source of discomfort for you if a trans-man walks into the bathroom and uses a stall while you're at the urinal?

Personally it isn't really a "me" problem. As I can take care of myself and am not really worried about it. My problem comes with the idea that my daughter could be using the bathroom and a man is legally allowed to walk into the bathroom, without anyone telling him he is not ok to be there. I am well aware of the sexual assault laws in this country, but those laws only take place after an assault has occurred. I would rather a place where a young women can use the bathroom without fear of any strange man entering behind her.

It does seem where these laws have been put into place this has not occurred, but I feel it is a rational concern. It also does not stem from bigotry against transgendered.
 
So why is it better to force a trans man to go to the bathroom with your daughter?
 
It's not the transgender people that concern me. It's the sexual predator using this new law as an excuse to be somehere he or she should not be.
 
Back
Top