• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Terror attack in Nice

Same reason Robert Byrd isn't a radical Christian or at least his actions were not radical Christianity
Or his actions were radical Christianity but the crime was his actions the crime wasn't the ideology
 
After nearly 8 years of his regime (reign? Dictatorship?) it should be clear why Barack HUSSEIN Obama won't.


Because if he does, then Isis, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and all the other Radical Islamic Terrorists will simply give up. He knows this, and as he's clearly in league with them (he's a Mooslim himself) it would foil his nefarious plan to spread the ideology across the globe.


Fortunately, the first words President Trump will utter after he's sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Judge Judy will be "radical Islam," and then the War on Terror will finally be over and we can start building that wall to keep the swarthy people out so we don't become like Europe.

He's making the same mistake that so many liberals are.

You're not really good at detecting sarcasm, are you?
 
After nearly 8 years of his regime (reign? Dictatorship?) it should be clear why Barack HUSSEIN Obama won't.


Because if he does, then Isis, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and all the other Radical Islamic Terrorists will simply give up. He knows this, and as he's clearly in league with them (he's a Mooslim himself) it would foil his nefarious plan to spread the ideology across the globe.


Fortunately, the first words President Trump will utter after he's sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Judge Judy will be "radical Islam," and then the War on Terror will finally be over and we can start building that wall to keep the swarthy people out so we don't become like Europe.

He's making the same mistake that so many liberals are.
What is that? Pretending saying a particular phrase will magically end these sorts of things? Or are you suggesting that terror attacks in France are Obama's fault? Or that Obama doesn't think defeating terror cells is important? Which mistake exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

At this point it is a tragedy, regardless the final toll.
 
He's making the same mistake that so many liberals are.
What is that? Pretending saying a particular phrase will magically end these sorts of things? Or are you suggesting that terror attacks in France are Obama's fault? Or that Obama doesn't think defeating terror cells is important? Which mistake exactly?

The weird thing about all this is that when it comes to eliminating "terrorists," the Obama administration has been far more frightfully efficient than his predecessor.

The Bush administration invaded an entire country in an attempt to take out Osama. The Obama administration sent a SEAL team to his house. While the previous incarnation of the US government used "regime change" as a means of dealing with the problem, the current one is employing ruthless and in some cases indiscriminate deployments of targeted drone strikes and special operations to kill individuals.

If I were a Jihadist, I'd much rather be dealing with Bush's blundering approach.
 
What is that? Pretending saying a particular phrase will magically end these sorts of things? Or are you suggesting that terror attacks in France are Obama's fault? Or that Obama doesn't think defeating terror cells is important? Which mistake exactly?

The weird thing about all this is that when it comes to eliminating "terrorists," the Obama administration has been far more frightfully efficient than his predecessor.

The Bush administration invaded an entire country in an attempt to take out Osama. The Obama administration sent a SEAL team to his house. While the previous incarnation of the US government used "regime change" as a means of dealing with the problem, the current one is employing ruthless and in some cases indiscriminate deployments of targeted drone strikes and special operations to kill individuals.

If I were a Jihadist, I'd much rather be dealing with Bush's blundering approach.

It really is crazy.
 
What is that? Pretending saying a particular phrase will magically end these sorts of things? Or are you suggesting that terror attacks in France are Obama's fault? Or that Obama doesn't think defeating terror cells is important? Which mistake exactly?

The weird thing about all this is that when it comes to eliminating "terrorists," the Obama administration has been far more frightfully efficient than his predecessor.

The Bush administration invaded an entire country in an attempt to take out Osama. The Obama administration sent a SEAL team to his house. While the previous incarnation of the US government used "regime change" as a means of dealing with the problem, the current one is employing ruthless and in some cases indiscriminate deployments of targeted drone strikes and special operations to kill individuals.

If I were a Jihadist, I'd much rather be dealing with Bush's blundering approach.

Well, it's kinda a resource allocation issue. The republicans want US boots on the ground. They want to hold ground. Obama more wants the US troops to do what we do best: kill the bad guys. Let the locals do the holding.
 
"The problem" being scary swarthy people. You're not fooling anyone.
"Swarthyness" is not the problem but the islamist ideology many of them are bringing along. But it's not PC to connect Islam with terrorism (see Hillary's tweet).
 
"The problem" being scary swarthy people. You're not fooling anyone.
"Swarthyness" is not the problem but the islamist ideology many of them are bringing along. But it's not PC to connect Islam with terrorism (see Hillary's tweet).


So when you say "When is Europe going to finally wake up?"


You're not saying anything specific towards any racial or religious group.



You're not fooling anyone.
 
You're not saying anything specific towards any racial or religious group.
There is certainly a problem with a particular religious group. Not every member of that group, but certainly with the group as a whole.
Europe must make it easier to deport immigrants who espouse radical Islam (especially clerics) and those who commit serious crimes. Even if they claim "refugee" or "asylum" status. They also need to be more selective with regard to immigrants they let in. Those who support radical Islam should not be let in. That includes support for Sharia, refusal to shake hand of those of opposite sex etc.
 
Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer were blathering on Faux, wondering if Trump will be using this as an attack on hillary to get elected. Trump will claim only he can keep us safe from ISIL. I suspect he'll try. Stay tuned for more Trump jingoism.

Don't think Trump has to do anything but let Clinton dig herself deeper.

CnXLxwsWgAAj0QM.jpg


#notallnazis

Most are not terrorists, for if they were, we would have a real problem on a minute by minute basis.
 
In the first instance the suspect needs to be identified and then security issues need to be examined on a rapid basis. Internal borders between the EU member states and those outside should be more tightly controlled though the EU seems to be waking up to this fact, based on recent legislation (mainly for its external borders with emphasis on movements within them).
 
So you're an unabashed bigot.
A religion is a set of ideas, not an immutable attribute of a person.
There is no bigotry in identifying a particular religion as having a big problem with extremism, including terrorism. Buddhists are not bombing, shooting up people or driving trucks through crowds for their religion on an almost daily basis.
 
Back
Top Bottom