[redcarpet]

And since the left has paralysed state security apparatus from correctly dealing with this problem through targeted restrictive measures on a particular religious group

So the US Government has recently increased restrictions on gun ownership and it only applied to a certain religious group. And by a 'left wing' government.

Got specifics and links?

[Bridgeburner]

So the US Government has recently increased restrictions on gun ownership and it only applied to a certain religious group. And by a 'left wing' government.

Got specifics and links?

In case you missed the many "European" references I threw in there, it was, yes, for Europe. Which is dealing with Islamic mass-migration on a scale Americans don't have to contend with, minus the empowered American police. American police act with incredibly effective brutality that I can find little fault with, and neither for that matter does the American state.

However if you want to argue an American context, I'm more than happy to. Gun ownership restriction isn't a "correct method" of dealing with a problem, border security, control and restrictive migration is. The deadliest American terror attacks outside of 9/11 have been done with bombs and explosives (Timothy McVeigh), Virginia Tech was with 2 pistols etc. Firearm restrictions on automatic weaponry doesn't preclude terrorists from utilizing other available methods to attack. The only logical solution is removing the migrant group in question that is most predisposed to this sort of violence. Attacks will continue until this problem is addressed, or until the population and law enforcement agencies are fed up with solutions that seek to solve everything but the specific religious minority in question.

The lad in question here bypassed restrictions by working as a security guard. There are multitudes of options available to circumvent gun restrictions by people with enough intent.

Gays fight back

http://europe.newsweek.com/isis-twitter ... ous-470300

This is "fighting back". 21st century slacktivism is laughable.

Quoted from the article

Messages posted to the compromised accounts include “I’m gay and proud” and “Out and proud.” A link to a gay porn site is included in some of the hacked accounts, although no explicit images have been posted in respect to Islam.

“One thing I do want to say is we aren’t using graphic porn and our purpose is not to offend Muslims,” WachulaGhost says. “Our actions are directed at Jihadist extremists. Many of our own [group of hackers] are Muslim and we respect all religions that do not take innocent lives.”

This is beyond satire, I can't stop laughing

[redcarpet]

The only logical solution is removing the migrant group in question that is most predisposed to this sort of violence.

You can be born in the USA and engage in violence. You don't have to be born overseas in order to do it.

Your example of Timothy McVeigh is a case in point. He was born in........Lockport, New York, United States

[layman]

If those gays had been armed to the teeth how far do you think the right winger would have got? Probably not even into double figures. Tories like you always want the working class weak and defenceless so your fellow right wingers are free to attack them.

Well if people were armed to the teeth every time they went on a night out (drinking) I think we would have quite a few more deaths. Lots of accidents, drug paranoia, misunderstanding etc. It would be fucking chaos.

It might make your fantasy revolution easier if anyone was listening.

[Bridgeburner]

You can be born in the USA and engage in violence. You don't have to be born overseas in order to do it.

Well no shit, 2nd and 3rd generation diaspora from Islamic regions are significantly involved in terrorist activity. Who claims otherwise. Omar Mateen (Born: November 16, 1986, New York City, New York, United States) was born in the United States, I'm not sure what exactly your point is except being more whataboutism. I should expect this every time Islam comes up. So tiresome, dodged the issue twice now

Incidentally, looking at your signature, do you support mass-Palestinian Sunni resettlement within Israel?

[Bridgeburner]

My point was your argument seems BS to me. If you're claiming that simply because someone wasn't born in the US they have some propensity towards hate crimes or terrorism, well, its a a pretty big claim. You're meant to provide proof, esp. if you want to persuade others it's true.

I'm waiting for a reply on how exactly gun control limits terrorism, how a "state monopoly on violence" has thus far, proven hilariously ineffective given the knee-shaking cowardice Western Governments display, and will continue to do so until these Governments collapse through lack of trust in their authority. A state monopoly on violence requires someone intelligent enough to use it to keep the state standing. if it isn't going to exercise that monopoly expect vigilante groups to take up defending citizenry against Islamist predation, through extra-legal measures. And given time, Law enforcement agencies will happily turn a blind eye to this sort of justice after their own personnel are required to clean up the bloodshed or, are directly being killed.

Oh and your position on mass Sunni Palestinian resettlement in Israel too please. Thanks.

My claim is that restricting migration of Muslims to the Western world prevents this. If Rizwan Farook and Omar Mateens parents had not been admitted to the US on some bleeding heart humanitarian grounds, this attack would not have occurred. Preventing Tashween Malik (pakistani born, Saudi-Arabian residency) from entering the country would have prevented a terror attack from occuring. Likewise, any Muslims prohibited from entrance today would prevent 50 or so Omars from occurring 50 years down the line. The first line of defense is pre-emptive, not reactive.

It's no secret that there is a distinct causal relationship between Islam and terrorism, in that one is happy using the other to further sociopolitical motives. Ethnic non-Muslim Asians for example have been migrating to the West for generations and have yet to display any sort of propensity towards terrorism, so we can assuredly consider this to a solely Islamic issue. To solve the problem of homegrown 2nd and 3rd generation terrorism, outside of unrealistic deportation, (or maybe not so unrealistic, given the trajectory of society today), mass surveillance of religious facilities and infringement of civil liberties is the way to go. A "sanitised" version of Islam needs to be developed, Saudi Arabian financial presence not tolerated anywhere, and Muslims emphatically made to choose between their religion or the principles of the American state, because the two cannot coexist.

FYI, its the assessment of American security agencies that they cannot distinguish between refugees and terrorists, especially from the Levant.

All the proof you want is on the bloody floors of Bataclan, Molenbeek, Orlando, San Bernadino, etc. I'm sure more proof will turn up in your face in the form of the twitching bodies of innocent citizenry, but apparently violating the rights of non-citizen migrants is worth more preservation than flesh and blood of living Americans.

[redcarpet]

how a "state monopoly on violence" has thus far, proven hilariously ineffective given the knee-shaking cowardice Western Governments display

I didn't say there IS one. It should be the aim. But that'd require repealing the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution

I'm waiting for a reply on how exactly gun control limits terrorism

Lol, EASY. It reduces the weapons they can access to commit it. They'd have to resort to blackmarket acquisition or smuggling in weapons that are banned.

Oh and your position on mass Sunni Palestinian resettlement in Israel too please. Thanks.

Nothing to do with the topic. Start a thread on it in the Israel/Palestine section if you wish.

[Bridgeburner]

I didn't say there IS one. It should be the aim. But that'd require repealing the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution

A monopoly is pointless if you don't """do""" anything with it. It's like OPEC cornering the market and not jacking up the price of oil. A state that doesn't act and use violence (or the threat of it) to solve problems facing its citizenry is legitimising its own rule. If we accept your solution we'd see an environment where Muslims proliferate in the United States and repeat incidents like Rotherham whilst Americans simply look on and stares down the shotgun barrels of demographic takeover and Islamophobic """censorship""".

Meanwhile your omnipotent state arrives to clean up repeated shoot-ups because it doesn't bother with migration control and border security (and thus weapons smuggling) and is placed in a reactive state of affairs.

Be realistic. Where do you think the millions of guns floating around the US are going to disappear to if they become illegal overnight?

Lol, EASY. It reduces the weapons they can access to commit it. They'd have to resort to blackmarket acquisition or smuggling in weapons that are banned.

Except where it doesn't. Timothy Mcveigh killed 180 people and wounded 600 more without using any firearms. Seung Hung Cho used two pistols that can be acquired by competitive shooters. In Xinjiang, assailants wielding knives killed over 30 and wounded 100 more. Gun control means nothing, especially in Americas case with such a porous Southern border

Nothing to do with the topic. Start a thread on it in the Israel/Palestine section if you wish.

It's very relevant to the topic though, I'm curious whether Zionists defending Islamic mass-migration to Western countries apply the same moral principles to their own homeland.

[The Immortal Goon]

And since the left has paralysed state security apparatus from correctly dealing with this problem through targeted restrictive measures on a particular religious group, the problem will continue to get worse and worse.

Of course the left did. Liberals have this kind of an attitude because they pretend history started last week.

The modern type of state security apparatus was engineered to fight against the left. Beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts, followed later by the Vienna Conference, but really only coming into its own with the Kulturekamf, the Dreyfus Affair, and later Red Scares put into place with increasing suppression, even restrictions on guns really only taking place as a means of suppressing the Marxists in the Black Panther movement; the modern bourgouis state was engineered as a means of suppressing an active left wing from representing the proletariat.

So yeah, of course the left is against being suppressed.

The origin of your friends the radical Islamic extremists goes back to the Entente engineering the Arab Revolt to destroy the (relatively) secular regime in the Ottoman Empire under the Young Turks. Once won, the Arab states were made into client states, usually against their will. Lenin, Mao, and others on the left attempted to liberate the people, and the right-wingers repulsed this with huge amounts of funding from the Jnited States, Britain, and France.

Afghanistan in the 1950s, when closer to the USSR:



In the 1970s when in a partnership with the USSR:





Nobody is going to claim the Soviet policy was perfect of anything. But compare this with the right-wingers in the US, UK, and France and their funding of extreme right-wing Islamic zealots in the same country:





So yes, we oppose your state security apparatus, designed to keep the left down, and the very cause of these radicalized right-wing zealots that it created, funded, and trained, to kill gays and stamp out the left that had almost liberated it's people.

[Dave]

My view is that Mohammedans have agency and are perfectly capable of creating their own movements. To the extent we've shaped their ideological movement, it's largely been through introducing a metaethnic frontier which strengthens their solidarity and aggression.

But to the extent you might be right, there's an argument that everyone's favorite bad guys THE NAZIS are behind modern day Islamism.

http://ausairpower.net/DT-Islamo-Fascism-2007.html

[The Immortal Goon]

Because, like liberals, you believe that your ideas are more powerful than actual reality.

As a Marxist, I'm less utopian.

[Dave]

You aren't a Marxist at all.

In my experience the only so-called communists who aren't really just liberals are the "anti-revisitionist Marxist-Leninists". Say what you will about Potemkin, but he's no liberal.

The cartoons you post in Satire week after week could come from any Democrat, you kvetch about the wicked creationists, and your one true passion in life is the Irish nation.

[The Immortal Goon]

You aren't a Marxist at all.

In my experience the only so-called communists who aren't really just liberals are the "anti-revisitionist Marxist-Leninists". Say what you will about Potemkin, but he's no liberal.

The cartoons you post in Satire week after week could come from any Democrat, you kvetch about the wicked creationists, and your one true passion in life is the Irish nation.

So to prove you don't think your ideas are stronger than reality...you're going to deny reality and instead fall back on your unsubstantiated ideas?

Your little temper tantrum and refusal to engage in an actual discussion speaks volumes.

[Red_Army]

You're being disingenuous Dave. TIG is as Marxist as anyone on the forum. He mentions Irish shit more often than anyone else because he's an Irish history professor. Sure this coupled with being ethnically Irish seems a bit like he's trying to get back to his roots, but it doesn't take away from his communist credentials (whatever that even means). I guarantee TIG has dragged his eyes over Capital Volume I with the same obsessive determination every communist has.

What you're doing is the same as accusing Potemkin of being a fake communist whenever he talks about Taoism, or old movies, or any private passion.

[Donna]

You're being disingenuous Dave. TIG is as Marxist as anyone on the forum. He mentions Irish shit more often than anyone else because he's an Irish history professor. Sure this coupled with being ethnically Irish seems a bit like he's trying to get back to his roots, but it doesn't take away from his communist credentials (whatever that even means). I guarantee TIG has dragged his eyes over Capital Volume I with the same obsessive determination every communist has.

What you're doing is the same as accusing Potemkin of being a fake communist whenever he talks about Taoism, or old movies, or any private passion.

I shall rescue thee, M'Lady

[night games]

THE NAZIS are behind modern day Islamism.

http://ausairpower.net/DT-Islamo-Fascism-2007.html

Indeed, there is a paradox because in the west the New Left and cultural Marxists took their "post colonial" cause in the late sixties as "people of color", but historically there is nothing racist to oppose Muslims, the political Islam and Islamic brothers in Egypt (as the secular Young Egypt) were influenced by the Nazis and after 1936 were actively supported by Nazi Germany foreign policy to break the British empire. During the war the Middle East was the main propaganda destination.

[blackjack21]

Destroying ISIS would have little to no impact on home-grown Islamists, they would probably just declare allegiance to someone else.

Maybe, maybe not. They're going to react strongly to leftist hedonism regardless for sure. But lots of people do. That's why one of the predictable but counterintuitive reactions to this shooting is that the leftists start attacking conservative Americans rather than radical Islamists.

They're also moving into Libya, which Democrats can't attack.

Why do you say this? They already have attacked Libya.

Have you noticed that we don't hear the word Al Qaida any more?

That's because ISIS is stronger. Al Qaeda served its purpose in getting the US out of Saudi Arabia. ISIS is a totally different animal that's inherited a lot from Al Qaeda, but is inherently worse.

This is what the left does with Muslims all the time, like when the Imam in Orlando (who was on an Obama administration-granted Visa) preached about killing gays days before the attack was carried out, but the Christian-phobic left talks about the climate they say Christians created.

That's why their political views are not important. What actually matters is that their political actions have gotten them placed squarely in the cross hairs of ISIS, and ISIS is winning. Some of the reaction against American conservatives is that the liberals have depended on us to fight their battles for them, and we've grown apathetic.

Nobody is going to claim the Soviet policy was perfect of anything. But compare this with the right-wingers in the US, UK, and France and their funding of extreme right-wing Islamic zealots in the same country:

You are acting as thought this wasn't staged Soviet propaganda, but rather a vignette of Afghanistan in the 1970s. The reason we could support the Mujahideen was precisely due to the reaction against this sort of propaganda. It's way ISIS can recruit disaffected Muslims in the United States in response to US "gay marriage" propaganda.

But to the extent you might be right, there's an argument that everyone's favorite bad guys THE NAZIS are behind modern day Islamism.

You're obviously well read, but I'd suggest reading some Peter Hopkirk. It was German Nationalist dating to before WWI that are the faction in Germany that revived the Jihad in order to bring down the British Empire.

Indeed, there is a paradox because in the west the New Left and cultural Marxists took their "post colonial" cause in the late sixties as "people of color", but historically there is nothing racist to oppose Muslims, the political Islam and Islamic brothers in Egypt (as the secular Young Egypt) were influenced by the Nazis and after 1936 were actively supported by Nazi Germany foreign policy to break the British empire. During the war the Middle East was the main propaganda destination.

Yes, but that was the objective in WWI too. The German nationalists were inflaming the Middle East to Jihad under Wilhelm, long before Hitler.

[Hong Wu]

Honestly I'm pretty bearish on America right now, which is why I sold out to the Chinese. Which was easy for me since I've always had yellow fever. But I suspect that attacking gays will be the new thing since it causes so much turmoil, and as a country America and the west seem mutually unprepared on both sides of the aisle to deal with it rationally.

[The Immortal Goon]

You are acting as thought this wasn't staged Soviet propaganda, but rather a vignette of Afghanistan in the 1970s. The reason we could support the Mujahideen was precisely due to the reaction against this sort of propaganda. It's way ISIS can recruit disaffected Muslims in the United States in response to US "gay marriage" propaganda.

The Soviets did have their supports and detractors in the region, otherwise the United States wouldn't have built an infrastructure to create and enforce a radicalized Islam that was against technological and social advancement (which is what the Soviets were bringing to the table).

Do you think Afghanistan since the Americans won the proxy war there with the Soviet Union, or would it be better today if it was like Lithuania, Estonia, or Mongolia?

You cannot simply wipe away the actions of Americans because you wish to do so. Actions have consequences, and history exists.

[Rei Murasame]

Afghanistan in the 1950s, when closer to the USSR:

The USSR is partly responsible for the failure itself as well though. The opening for USAUKPAK to fund and support rural insurgents against the Sovietised central government of Afghanistan, happened partly because the Soviets imposed a social-imperialist coup from the top down inside the urban areas first.

The Soviets also decided to liquidate and kill the Maoist revolutionaries who were getting ready to create revolutionary base areas in the rural zones, and this basically meant that the Mujahideen then had no competitor in that area anymore. The Soviets even went as far as to kill Akram Yari, the top Maoist theorist and leader of the Progressive Youth Organisation.

I think that if the Soviets hadn't done that, then USAUKPAK would never have been able to foster Muslim feudalism in the rural areas in the way that they did. Maoism was a perfect fit for Afghanistan and Pakistan FATA along with Balochistan, but between the USSR's social-imperialist bungling and the USA's malintent, they made sure it couldn't happen.