Paris Attacks

bootlegger10

tempo_n_groove said:

Here's a GREAT article by Rollingstone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-paris-attacks-dont-close-doors-to-refugees-open-them-20151114

What makes that article great? It clearly comes from a viewpoint of open borders and an annihilation of sovereign nations. If people who call on closing the borders are called opportunists right now than so are the ones who want to open them.

This article is written like a child who lives in a world of candy and rainbows. It discusses no consequences that may be negative like how many refugees are terrorists ( like the ones yesterday inParis who came in as refugees) or the destabilitization of countries and cities because now you have millions and millions of Muslims who aren't really known to assimilate all that much. The article makes a wild assumption that the US allowing millions of Muslims come into the country will make Muslims like or us. To me it sounds like the USA would just be falling into a trap.

Terrorist: "We need to attack the USA but can't get in the country. It would be great if one day they just opened their borders to us, like that would ever happen. What country would be crazy enough to just let anyone come in?"

PJfanwillneverleave1

rgambs said:

Given that the Middle East region only accounts for what, 10%? of the Muslim world, the anti-Islam sentiment in the US is going to get sickeningly bad. It is already pretty disgusting, but the next few weeks are going to be a good time to stay away from social media.

.

eeriepadave

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/eagles-of-death-metal-merch-manager-nick-alexander-killed-in-paris-attack-20151114

dignin

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

.

bootlegger10

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

ldent42

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

It should be discussed now. I don't see why we can't discuss while the bodies are counted and families informed. I also don't see what's wrong with France closing its borders right now. It's not like that's a permanent thing.

tempo_n_groove

bootlegger10 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Here's a GREAT article by Rollingstone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-paris-attacks-dont-close-doors-to-refugees-open-them-20151114

What makes that article great? It clearly comes from a viewpoint of open borders and an annihilation of sovereign nations. If people who call on closing the borders are called opportunists right now than so are the ones who want to open them.

This article is written like a child who lives in a world of candy and rainbows. It discusses no consequences that may be negative like how many refugees are terrorists ( like the ones yesterday inParis who came in as refugees) or the destabilitization of countries and cities because now you have millions and millions of Muslims who aren't really known to assimilate all that much. The article makes a wild assumption that the US allowing millions of Muslims come into the country will make Muslims like or us. To me it sounds like the USA would just be falling into a trap.

Terrorist: "We need to attack the USA but can't get in the country. It would be great if one day they just opened their borders to us, like that would ever happen. What country would be crazy enough to just let anyone come in?"

Have you ever been to the Middle East? I have. Do you know why some act the way they do? I do.

Kindness goes a long way. I worked with people that didn't like Americans and after they got to know me they ALL said that they would give Americans a chance now, so it's not all a pipe dream and from that point I get it. Also I do agree that there has to be some sort of checks on the refugees because not everyone has good intentions.

If we do turn our backs on these people isn't that like sending them off to death?

Intelligence should be shared by ALL nations and do background checks.

ldent42

tempo_n_groove said:

bootlegger10 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Here's a GREAT article by Rollingstone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-paris-attacks-dont-close-doors-to-refugees-open-them-20151114

What makes that article great? It clearly comes from a viewpoint of open borders and an annihilation of sovereign nations. If people who call on closing the borders are called opportunists right now than so are the ones who want to open them.

This article is written like a child who lives in a world of candy and rainbows. It discusses no consequences that may be negative like how many refugees are terrorists ( like the ones yesterday inParis who came in as refugees) or the destabilitization of countries and cities because now you have millions and millions of Muslims who aren't really known to assimilate all that much. The article makes a wild assumption that the US allowing millions of Muslims come into the country will make Muslims like or us. To me it sounds like the USA would just be falling into a trap.

Terrorist: "We need to attack the USA but can't get in the country. It would be great if one day they just opened their borders to us, like that would ever happen. What country would be crazy enough to just let anyone come in?"

Have you ever been to the Middle East? I have. Do you know why some act the way they do? I do.

Kindness goes a long way. I worked with people that didn't like Americans and after they got to know me they ALL said that they would give Americans a chance now, so it's not all a pipe dream and from that point I get it. Also I do agree that there has to be some sort of checks on the refugees because not everyone has good intentions.

If we do turn our backs on these people isn't that like sending them off to death?

Intelligence should be shared by ALL nations and do background checks.

Tempo, I like to to think that this works in reverse too, for those Americans (including the people on here) who don't like Muslims.
Nice to see humanity being all human, eh?

bootlegger10

tempo_n_groove said:

bootlegger10 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Here's a GREAT article by Rollingstone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-paris-attacks-dont-close-doors-to-refugees-open-them-20151114

What makes that article great? It clearly comes from a viewpoint of open borders and an annihilation of sovereign nations. If people who call on closing the borders are called opportunists right now than so are the ones who want to open them.

This article is written like a child who lives in a world of candy and rainbows. It discusses no consequences that may be negative like how many refugees are terrorists ( like the ones yesterday inParis who came in as refugees) or the destabilitization of countries and cities because now you have millions and millions of Muslims who aren't really known to assimilate all that much. The article makes a wild assumption that the US allowing millions of Muslims come into the country will make Muslims like or us. To me it sounds like the USA would just be falling into a trap.

Terrorist: "We need to attack the USA but can't get in the country. It would be great if one day they just opened their borders to us, like that would ever happen. What country would be crazy enough to just let anyone come in?"

Have you ever been to the Middle East? I have. Do you know why some act the way they do? I do.

Kindness goes a long way. I worked with people that didn't like Americans and after they got to know me they ALL said that they would give Americans a chance now, so it's not all a pipe dream and from that point I get it. Also I do agree that there has to be some sort of checks on the refugees because not everyone has good intentions.

If we do turn our backs on these people isn't that like sending them off to death?

Intelligence should be shared by ALL nations and do background checks.

I have not been to the Middle East. I agree the West is not innocent in the cause of the turmoil there.

Certainly I don't want to send these people to their deaths. But what about the 129 people that died in Paris yesterday in part by a Syrian migrant? It is just a start (more of a continuation actually). I just don't think migration of millions and millions of Syrians is going to be a good thing for Europe in the long run. I don't see it based on how things are going in Europe right now. I don't see how millions and millions of more refugees will make things better in Europe. It's just different now. Nobody expected Italian immigrants to come to the US in the 1800 and 1900's and blow up concert halls. Nobody expects Latino immigrants to come to the US in 2015 and blow up concert halls. Nobody is surprised by what happened in Paris yesterday.

I must sound like a hater but really I would open the doors for anyone that wants to contribute and assimilate to the society they are moving to. I would give every homeless person that stops me $20 if I thought they would use it for food instead of cigarettes and beer.

But one thing on the article. It talked about giving the refugees jobs. Where are those jobs going to come from? Technology is wiping out jobs by the decade. I guess that is why I think that article is a little soft.

bootlegger10

ldent42 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bootlegger10 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Here's a GREAT article by Rollingstone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-paris-attacks-dont-close-doors-to-refugees-open-them-20151114

What makes that article great? It clearly comes from a viewpoint of open borders and an annihilation of sovereign nations. If people who call on closing the borders are called opportunists right now than so are the ones who want to open them.

This article is written like a child who lives in a world of candy and rainbows. It discusses no consequences that may be negative like how many refugees are terrorists ( like the ones yesterday inParis who came in as refugees) or the destabilitization of countries and cities because now you have millions and millions of Muslims who aren't really known to assimilate all that much. The article makes a wild assumption that the US allowing millions of Muslims come into the country will make Muslims like or us. To me it sounds like the USA would just be falling into a trap.

Terrorist: "We need to attack the USA but can't get in the country. It would be great if one day they just opened their borders to us, like that would ever happen. What country would be crazy enough to just let anyone come in?"

Have you ever been to the Middle East? I have. Do you know why some act the way they do? I do.

Kindness goes a long way. I worked with people that didn't like Americans and after they got to know me they ALL said that they would give Americans a chance now, so it's not all a pipe dream and from that point I get it. Also I do agree that there has to be some sort of checks on the refugees because not everyone has good intentions.

If we do turn our backs on these people isn't that like sending them off to death?

Intelligence should be shared by ALL nations and do background checks.

Tempo, I like to to think that this works in reverse too, for those Americans (including the people on here) who don't like Muslims.
Nice to see humanity being all human, eh?

I've met a lot of Muslims that are great people. I just have issues with letting in millions of immigrants when at the same time you know you are allowing thousands of terrorists in at the same time. The leaders are basically sentencing a small part of their population to death. If these leaders are okay with some death of their citizens, maybe they should just put some boots on the ground and put up a fight. Easy for me to say as I'm not military age.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

Why are you critical of people discussing news in real time? I never knew there was a moratorium on tragedies.

I think it's flippant to suggest people are disrespectful or insensitive because they have taken to the online communities they typically engage with to lament such a horrific event- suggesting instead that they are salivating to tackle the topic and almost grateful for it.

Applies to the MT except for you, right?

dignin

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

For one, stop calling them migrants. They are refugees.

Secondly, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss refugees. If you look back through some of the comments here.....these attacks are being tied to a bunch of unrelated shit. BDS movement for one. And for the record you were tying this to refugees before you had any evidence of it, fitting it to your agenda. You maybe right now, but at the time you had no idea.

Thirdly, why do you keep going on about us "liberals" wanting to open our borders unchecked? Not one person here is calling for that. Your making that shit up to paint us "liberals" as extreme.

I suggest you take the time to go read the refugee thread....and maybe post there if you feel so inclined.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

Why are you critical of people discussing news in real time? I never knew there was a moratorium on tragedies.

I think it's flippant to suggest people are disrespectful or insensitive because they have taken to the online communities they typically engage with to lament such a horrific event- suggesting instead that they are salivating to tackle the topic and almost grateful for it.

Applies to the MT except for you, right?

Did I say I wasn't part of the AMT? Thanks tips!

PJfanwillneverleave1

dignin said:

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

why do you keep going on about us "liberals" wanting to open our borders unchecked? Not one person here is calling for that. Your making that shit up to paint us "liberals" as extreme.

Libs are for settling as many as possible in prompt order but won't admit that it takes time to properly screen an individual as "clean".
"Hurry up settle those refugees"! claim the libs
"Just don't tell me how".

ldent42

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

why do you keep going on about us "liberals" wanting to open our borders unchecked? Not one person here is calling for that. Your making that shit up to paint us "liberals" as extreme.

Libs are for settling as many as possible in prompt order but won't admit that it takes time to properly screen an individual as "clean".
"Hurry up settle those refugees"! claim the libs
"Just don't tell me how".

no one is saying that.

No one is ever saying that borders should be open without any form of security.

If anything these liberal bogeymen you speak of are saying that it would be nice if the hundreds of thousands of non-violent terrorist criminals that have fled Syria et al didn't get punished for the shit that the dirtbag terrorists who snuck in pretending to be refugees have done. Crazy, right?

bootlegger10

dignin said:

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

For one, stop calling them migrants. They are refugees.

Secondly, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss refugees. If you look back through some of the comments here.....these attacks are being tied to a bunch of unrelated shit. BDS movement for one. And for the record you were tying this to refugees before you had any evidence of it, fitting it to your agenda. You maybe right now, but at the time you had no idea.

Thirdly, why do you keep going on about us "liberals" wanting to open our borders unchecked? Not one person here is calling for that. Your making that shit up to paint us "liberals" as extreme.

I suggest you take the time to go read the refugee thread....and maybe post there if you feel so inclined.

I've said refugees plenty of times. In the media you see the term migrants used a lot. Whether I say refugee or migrants I do not intend to have some sort of different meaning.

Actually, when I first started posting I didn't think that fake refugees were part of it. I figured it was people who had lived in France for some time and became radicalized. I started posting about refugees because I feared that some could become terrorists or that some would get radicalized in the future and lead more attacks. The actual events proved that theory correct. I just didn't expect it to come out of this recent wave.

By liberals I am not saying just Americans but also European liberal leaders. Merkel is in favor of no limit on taking in refugees in Germany.

Lastly, you tell me to not post about refugees in a thread about a terrorist attacked performed by refugees. That is utterly ridiculous. I'll go back to college if I want to be in a place where only one viewpoint is allowed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

For one, stop calling them migrants. They are refugees.

Secondly, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss refugees. If you look back through some of the comments here.....these attacks are being tied to a bunch of unrelated shit. BDS movement for one. And for the record you were tying this to refugees before you had any evidence of it, fitting it to your agenda. You maybe right now, but at the time you had no idea.

Thirdly, why do you keep going on about us "liberals" wanting to open our borders unchecked? Not one person here is calling for that. Your making that shit up to paint us "liberals" as extreme.

I suggest you take the time to go read the refugee thread....and maybe post there if you feel so inclined.

To your second point... I'd say he did have some idea. It might be better to say, 'you were right' than say, 'you got lucky'.

It seems as if a bunch of people are saying things you don't like, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

PJfanwillneverleave1

ldent42 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

bootlegger10 said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

How is a discusson on Syrian mass migration in Europe utterly unconnected to a terrorist attack carried out by Syrian migrants in Paris?

Why can't we have this discussion on AMT? What harm is being done by having this discussion right now? Is it because the attack doesn't fit the narrative of open borders that we can't talk about it right now? I didn't see any liberals being quiet about gun control after Sandy Hook. Nobody was saying 'let's wait a few months to have a discussion on guns'.

That NY Times article comes out of an agenda just like most articles.

why do you keep going on about us "liberals" wanting to open our borders unchecked? Not one person here is calling for that. Your making that shit up to paint us "liberals" as extreme.

Libs are for settling as many as possible in prompt order but won't admit that it takes time to properly screen an individual as "clean".
"Hurry up settle those refugees"! claim the libs
"Just don't tell me how".

no one is saying that.

No one is ever saying that borders should be open without any form of security.

If anything these liberal bogeymen you speak of are saying that it would be nice if the hundreds of thousands of non-violent terrorist criminals that have fled Syria et al didn't get punished for the shit that the dirtbag terrorists who snuck in pretending to be refugees have done. Crazy, right?

.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

I think this applies to the AMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html

Can’t we wait until we’ve resolved the body count? Until the identities of all of the victims have been determined and their families informed? Until the sirens stop wailing? Until the blood is dry?

Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?

Why are you critical of people discussing news in real time? I never knew there was a moratorium on tragedies.

I think it's flippant to suggest people are disrespectful or insensitive because they have taken to the online communities they typically engage with to lament such a horrific event- suggesting instead that they are salivating to tackle the topic and almost grateful for it.

Applies to the MT except for you, right?

Did I say I wasn't part of the AMT? Thanks tips!

I posted my previous post and then came across this.

Get f**king real. You're busying yourself: telling people to chill... to go post in other threads... that they're using this event as a platform to push their agendas (while gently pushing yours)... and then some as if you are dad on the MT. And you spout this?

Geezuz, man.