Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Were all those victims terrorists? If not, it was cold-blooded murder of innocent people.
The mosque in Lisbon is peaceful, opens its doors to non-Muslims on a regular basis, feeding homeless Christians etc.
Invaders ARE economic terrorists. They're able to use the State and consume its resources while undermining the host society and imposing their values on it in a harmful fashion.
So potato-potahto.
And all muslims are peaceful SOMETIMES. Its hardly the point that they were caught in a perhaps peaceful moment. Or, they could have been having a big meeting about planning a terror attack of their own. You don't know. Nobody knows for sure, but what does that even matter? What they were doing at that exact moment in time isn't that important.
Who knew there are that many Muslims living in New Zealand of all places?
How in the world did they get there? lol
That's the entire point. There's no reason for them to be there, none whatsoever. There are 57 islamic states in the world. That's about 1/3 of all nations. So they have their own lands, and they should stay in them, and not come into any of the Western nations, which are less than half as numerous.
The less interaction Muslims have with any other groups, the better off humanity will be. They can't even get along with themselves, so they'll still be fighting each other, but at least it needn't affect us.
Invaders ARE economic terrorists. They're able to use the State and consume its resources while undermining the host society and imposing their values on it in a harmful fashion.
So potato-potahto.
And all muslims are peaceful SOMETIMES. Its hardly the point that they were caught in a perhaps peaceful moment. Or, they could have been having a big meeting about planning a terror attack of their own. You don't know. Nobody knows for sure, but what does that even matter? What they were doing at that exact moment in time isn't that important.
They are not illegal immigrants like Mexicans in the US. They immigrated legally, either directly, or they were refugees from civil war countries like Syria that were granted asylum, which of course is also legal.
So your whole invader rhetoric makes no sense. Invasion was in the dark Middle Ages.
Nor does your global distrust and paranoia make any sense. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
That's the entire point. There's no reason for them to be there, none whatsoever. There are 57 islamic states in the world. That's about 1/3 of all nations. So they have their own lands, and they should stay in them, and not come into any of the Western nations, which are less than half as numerous.
The less interaction Muslims have with any other groups, the better off humanity will be. They can't even get along with themselves, so they'll still be fighting each other, but at least it needn't affect us.
There is no law that says people of other religions can't immigrate to Western countries.
So, if Christians can move to the US or Europe or NZ, why not Muslims?!
And there it is. The truth. The truth is that mosques all over the West produce terror, because they preach jihad, which, SPOILER ALERT, is commanded by The Holy Koran.
That’s one example of two guys that got radicalised (most likely on the Internet) and there’s no proof it was the fault of that particular mosque. They took that path, Brenton Tarrant took another. Who radicalised him? Who radicalised the very long list of mass murderers in the US?
Westerners that join extreme groups like ISIS and Al Quaeda are tracked by counter terrorist agencies, which is how it was known these two slimes were killed in Yemen.
What do we do about these radical right wing terrorists who are radicalised by radical right wing media and supremisist hate groups? They are certainly no better than jihardists.
Two guys that found each other 6/7 years ago and happened to attend the same mosque in a small city (not much choice there) does not a cell make. If you have any proof that anyone killed at the mosque that day were actually recruiting terrorists, then do share.
If we’re going to blame the all muslims for all radical violence, then we might as well blame all Australia for Tarrant and all of America for I dunno, pick one of the many mass slaughters we unfortunately have to choose from.
There is no law that says people of other religions can't immigrate to Western countries.
So, if Christians can move to the US or Europe or NZ, why not Muslims?!
Moving to another country doesn't seem nearly as bad as invading another country and killing thousands of innocent individuals.
There are immigration laws, made by our representatives. And those laws do not say anything about the religion of potential immigrants.
They are not taking over anything anywhere in Europe, the Americas, or Australia/NZ. What are you talking about?!
And who is "us"? Is it the same "my people" that murderer was referring to? I am not part of those. You are not my spokesman...
The people never consented to be have forced mass immigration by Third Worlders.
Those representatives were traitors. The people should be the only ones who can give approval for immigration ..its their country. It doesn't belong to a handful of public servants.
But the people were never asked.
They are taking over - we have two in Congress already. It was part of Obama the Usurper's plan all along.
Moving to another country doesn't seem nearly as bad as invading another country and killing thousands of innocent individuals.
Well, that Australian guy migrated to NZ and murdered more people there than any Muslim ever has.
And, again, invading means going somewhere illegally. That is not the case. Even the few terrorists that committed attacks in Belgium were there legally, maybe they were even home-grown terrorists.
All terrorists crave attention and personal fame. It's how they become famous.
Denying them that attention makes the terrorism pointless, especially when the victims become famous while they remain nameless and faceless.
That's why the American news has cut way back on giving out info on the mass shooters lately. New Zealand is a much smaller country with a population that is more homogenous than ours, so they are making this shooter anonymity mandatory because that's how the people there want it to be.
It's basically "Don't encourage this violence by giving the killers what they want. If you do, there are penalties."
Well, that Australian guy migrated to NZ and murdered more people there than any Muslim ever has.
And, again, invading means going somewhere illegally. That is not the case. Even the few terrorists that committed attacks in Belgium were there legally, maybe they were even home-grown terrorists.
I don't think you understood my post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
