by Jack
France’s president has no problem making a decision. He vows to wipe out ISIS. Oh, and did you see what France is doing about immigration? He is fast tracking deportation for undesirables. They want tougher gun laws, but I think we should just send them our Gun Free Zone signs and call it close enough. Should have about the same effect and be cheaper in the long run.
◾5,000 extra police posts in the next two years and no new cuts in the defense budget
◾Making it easier to strip dual nationals of their French citizenship if they are convicted of a terrorist offence, as long as this did not render them stateless
◾Speeding up the deportation of foreigners who pose “a particularly grave threat to the security of the nation”
◾Pushing for greater European action against arms trafficking and greater penalties for it in France
You can’t wipe out the Islamic state with a few Bombs. France has been bombing them and will continue. The World has to wipe them out together.
And How are we paying for all these wars?
A tip of the hat to @AmericnElephant —
Why “Think Progress” does not, in fact, think, and never progresses:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/
What ISIS Really Wants
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Regarding the first link in which we find:
I can relate…the left never lets Christians forget that once, centuries ago, there was something called the Crusades. Even though we know that it was a defensive aggression to stop tyrannical, church destroying Muslims from invading and permanently taking over their lands, it (Crusades) still became “the face” of Christianity.
I didn’t get all the way through the Atlantic piece but what I did read was most revealing, especially in light of the attitudes of some westerners who just don’t get it.
You know, nobody really needs to hear your prescriptions. If Brussels was being dilatory, they’ve had their kiesters kicked into gear now.
Well, it is France. In some ways they are being tough and facing this thing square on. In others they sound like they’re still afraid someone will think they’re mean and bigoted.
Hey…it’s not bigotry when your intent and strategy is to defend yourself from hateful, violent, tyrannical aggression.
Intent isn’t magic. Of course it can still be bigotry when the intent is defense. Was Japanese internment not bigotry simply because the intent was to protect our country?
Chris, I was giving you a pass until I read this one: “Was Japanese internment not bigotry?”
Let me respond first by asking you a few questions: 1. Was Japanese internment of American citizens bigotry? 2. Was the brutal beatings and torture of American POWS and non-combatants bigotry? Was the attempt by Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii to save a downed Japanese pilot from capture during the Pear Harbor attack an act of treason? Why were not all Japanese-Americans, especially those living in Hawaii, relocated during WWII?
Of course our country made mistakes and yes, racism played a role in the internment of Japanese-Americans, but it seems you have no sense of proportion on this subject. I get the feeling you think it was completely unjustified? That you think only America did such a horrible thing. You let Japan and Japanese-American spies completely off the hook for their transgressions, as if it never happened. That’s shows a form of bigotry against your own country IMHO. You are attacking WWII America without any attempt to be fair, much less historically accurate. And by the way, it was a Democrat that ordered the internments.
“Takeo Yoshikawa (a Japanese spy in 1941 Hawaii) began by familiarizing himself with the principal Hawaiian islands and their military installations, which were concentrated on Oahu. To explore the latter, he frequently relied on a hired cab driven by John Mikami, a Japanese-Hawaiian who often performed chores for the consulate. Other times, the spy used a 1937 Ford chauffeured by Richard Kotoshirodo, a nisei consular clerk. It did not take long for Yoshikawa to scout out the various U.S. Army and Navy bases on central, southern and eastern Oahu. Predictably, the focus of his attention was Pearl Harbor, the nearly landlocked U.S. Pacific Fleet anchorage on the south coast of the island.
U.S. counterintelligence agencies were hampered by laws that prohibited them from probing deeply into the consulate’s communications. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the military intelligence organizations followed leads that led elsewhere. For example, Captain Irving Mayfield, chief of the naval district intelligence offices, believed that the consulate, despite its presumed involvement in espionage, was not ‘an important part of the [Japanese spy] net. Telephone taps had provided little of value, since the consular staff assumed that the Americans were eavesdropping. Other factors that hamstrung counterintelligence operations were an American fear of alarming the population and ongoing efforts to secure the loyalty of local ethnic Japanese.”
And this, “It is interesting to note that, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated en masse.” Only a few thousand were relocated from Hawaii, although they made up nearly 40% of the population. About 40% of America’s Japanese population were never relocated. Of those relocated, 38% were not American citizens.
To be absolutely clear, I’m not trying to gloss over any of injustices done to loyal Japanese-Americans, I’m only trying to show a bit of balance. Everyone should know that relocation was not done completely because of some long standing bigotry and for no other reason. This part is something our liberals gloss over for their own personal motives.
Jack, I quite clearly did not imply that the Japanese were interned “for bigotry and for no other reason–” I specifically said the intent was to protect our country. I really wish people here would respond to what I actually say, not what they imagine I say.
“That you think only America did such a horrible thing.”
A ridiculous statement. Tina was specifically saying that Americans, actions can’t be bigoted if the goal is to protect our country. are specifically talking about bigotry in America. Of course I’d use a historical example of Americans doing just that to refute that. That isn’t singling out our country, that’s called staying on topic.
“You let Japan and Japanese-American spies completely off the hook for their transgressions, as if it never happened. That’s shows a form of bigotry against your own country IMHO.”
Again, ridiculous. Those transgressions have nothing to do with what I was addressing.
“You are attacking WWII America without any attempt to be fair, much less historically accurate.”
I “attacked” nothing. I said their actions were bigoted. You say you don’t even disagree with that, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
“And by the way, it was a Democrat that ordered the internments.”
I know that. Everyone knows that. What is your point?
Still waiting for your answer Chris.
1. Was Japanese internment of American citizens bigotry?
2. Was the brutal beatings and torture of American POWS and non-combatants bigotry?
3. Was the attempt by Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii to save a downed Japanese pilot from capture during the Pear Harbor attack an act of treason? Why were not all Japanese-Americans, especially those living in Hawaii, relocated during WWII?
As to the notation that it was a democrat who relocated them, I know you know it, I just enjoy pointing that out.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, obviously.
3. I’ve never heard of that event, but it sounds like it. As for the second question, I don’t know.
The decision was harsh and perhaps stupid. Was it prejudiced? Yes. But was it bigotry or racism? Not necessarily. Certainly attitudes varied while the nation was in shock and attempting to figure out how to deal with this threat.
The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor in the midst of diplomatic “peace talks” wherein Japanese diplomats were assuring the US they had no intention of taking over the Hawaiian Islands. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor began diplomatic trust was shattered. The United States government feared that Japanese people living in America on the West Coast might be spies or become spies for Japan. Japan and Germany were allied. We entered the war. Some say proof of bigotry resides in the fact that we didn’t intern Germans. An argument can be made that Germany didn’t drop bombs in the US wiping out thousands of our military and all of our naval fleet (except for our carriers and submarines). More below.
Was Japanese internment an act of prejudice? Yes, based on concern for our safety and survival during a very difficult time when hard decisions had to be made without the luxury of endless discussions during class.
But as I just discovered, this so-called bigotry is based on limited information. According to this site:
As Jack said, you need to apply a little perspective…maybe broaden your historical view. Racism is not the sole motivating factor for everything that happens, yet that appears to be what you were taught. You seem unwilling to consider anything else.
Once again, I never said racism was the “sole motivating factor” for internment. In fact, I explicitly said it wasn’t the sole motivating factor. So please stop assigning arguments to me which I’ve explicitly rejected.
What do you think the difference is between prejudice and bigotry, Tina?
Actually the one person who needs to take notice of the voters PRESCRIPTIONS is Obama, and if anyone has been dilatory, it is Obama who still shows a lack of understanding of what a expanding ISIS is, when he uses expressions like a “set back” in dealing with these terrorist.
It should now be apparent the world is not looking to Obama for answers, based on some questions reporters were demanding answers of from Obama (which he didn’t answer, typical) at these conferences over seas are any indication, even they realize he has no idea of who we are dealing with.
If anything they just want our funding and personnel. So they appease Obama, but if he continues on the same course, and he has given them every indication he will, even that appeasement will come to a abrupt end
Obamas ineffective and reticent leadership, with advise as he claims from his advisory staff ( are these Military people who advise him?, it would be interesting to hear their names)they also appear to be lacking any concept of the enemy as well.
This in addition to a fragmented county (much like the one Obama is creating here) caused largely by the vacuum created when Obama withdrew our troops for his political reasons, ISIS is in effect a creation of Obamas own.
Liberals should try to see a ray of hope in all of this. There are millions of followers of the Islamic faith who may begin to question whether or not they truly serve a “religion of peace,” and decide to convert to Christianity, Judaism, or basically anything but Islam. With Islamic ranks slipping, there could be hope for peace in the world after all.
If liberals truly cared and wanted to help speed up the process, they would be out there helping convert followers of Islam over to Christianity themselves. Like Bill Maher said when the O administration couldn’t figure out whodunit; “It probably wasn’t the amish.”
This is extremely bigoted. As if Muslims can’t be peaceful without converting?
Do you know any Muslims in real life, Steve?
Interesting. The bigoted, extreme left-wing jackass Chris calling others “extremely” bigoted. The most bigoted religion on the planet is Islam, yet this perfect moronic ideologue of the left defends it.
Steve offers no solution to Islam, neither does Islamo-Fascist suck up Chris. But this man and his organization does —
http://aifdemocracy.org/
Here, here!
The man is tireless and dedicated.
Somehow, Muslims aren’t bigoted when they give Christians the choice of “convert or die,” but Christians are if they offer Muslims a better path? Here in America it’s OK for college professors to attack Christianity and call it evil for centuries old crimes, but I have no right to call out Islam for what they’re doing now?
Yes, Chris, I’ve known a lot of Muslims in my life. I spent a year of my life policing the aftermath in Bosnia and trying to help Muslims who were being killed by the Serbians. Years later, 9/11 was partly plotted in that same region by Muslims.
I’ve also known American Muslims who are very nice people. However, I have lost my faith in the future of Islam. I don’t see how they can keep theirs. There are better ways to live than with a religion that calls for Jihad.
I don’t see any crime in calling for conversion, and I don’t care what religion they chose. I’m tired of watching them kill people while shouting “Allah Akbar.” I’m tire of liberals getting offended whenever someone points out the freaking truth.
You should be tired of it too.
Steve: “Somehow, Muslims aren’t bigoted when they give Christians the choice of “convert or die,””
Of COURSE Muslims who do that are bigoted. I never said or implied otherwise. What is WITH the habit here of arguing with things that I never said, and that in fact no one here has ever said?
Have you ever heard a liberal say that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda aren’t bigoted? Because I’d wager I hang around with a lot more liberals than you do, and I can recall the B word coming up a LOT in their descriptions of ISIS.
“but Christians are if they offer Muslims a better path?”
Suggesting that the only path toward peace is converting thousands of Muslims to Christianity is bigoted, yes. Obviously not AS bigoted as threatening to kill people for being Christians, of course. But if your moral standard is “not as bad as actual terrorists,” than your moral standard kinda sucks.
“Here in America it’s OK for college professors to attack Christianity and call it evil for centuries old crimes,”
No, that’s not OK. Did I say anything to indicate I think that’s OK? Or are you just ranting at liberals in general at this point?
“but I have no right to call out Islam for what they’re doing now?”
Of course you have the right. And others have the right to criticize you for it. That’s how free speech works.
Why does it only seem to be conservatives who don’t understand this? Not that liberals don’t have our own rhetoric problems, but I’ve never seen a liberal defend one of their statements from criticism by saying “I have the right to say it; it’s free speech!” Duh. That doesn’t even need to be said, and saying it apropos of nothing makes it look like you think you not only have the right to say whatever you want, but that you also have some imaginary right to not be criticized for it. I’ve seen this twice today from two different conservatives here.
“Yes, Chris, I’ve known a lot of Muslims in my life. I spent a year of my life policing the aftermath in Bosnia and trying to help Muslims who were being killed by the Serbians. Years later, 9/11 was partly plotted in that same region by Muslims.
I’ve also known American Muslims who are very nice people. However, I have lost my faith in the future of Islam. I don’t see how they can keep theirs. There are better ways to live than with a religion that calls for Jihad.”
Do you know what “jihad” means? Most Muslims don’t interpret it as a call for war; that’s also not its literal translation.
Your experience with Muslims is commendable and does give you more authority on the subject than I expected, however I still think it is wrong of you to say that the only hope for these people to not turn violent would be to convert to another religion. Like you said, you know peaceful Muslims. If they can do that without seeing a contradiction in their faith, why can’t others?
I also think that your experience doesn’t make your conclusions any less bigoted.
I’ll also add this: religions typically do not crumble from outside pressure. Maybe small ones like Scientology, but Islam includes over a billion people. The idea that if we just condemn the entire religion, Muslims will start converting in droves, is unrealistic. Reform is a much more likely option. And don’t get me wrong; Islam is desperately in need of reform. (So are most religions, IMO, but Islam more so.)
“I don’t see any crime in calling for conversion,”
I don’t either. Bigotry is not a crime. It is still wrong.
What do those cheese eating surrender monkeys know about war???
You can bet the good ol’ US of A will have to pull their quiche outta the fire again.
Sound familiar or do you not remember the WWs.
We not only remember at Post Scripts, we have a record of honoring veterans, especially WWII…most of us were either unborn or babies at the time 🙂
Bring back freedom fries!
France has a habit of rocking back and forth. Frenchmen helped us win our Independence from England and apparently they were the first, or among the first, to call after 911.
I do recall those freedom fries, though; an American protest that happened when France’s Jacques Chirac didn’t support us going into Iraq. The term started in a restaurant in North Carolina…soon others followed, freedom toast, freedom wine, freedom dressing.
People always find a way, don’t they?
A way to express dumb, irrational prejudice? Yes, those freedoms fries people certainly did that.
Dumb? It’s called free speech!
You are just like the French, a cheese eating surrender monkey!
“Dumb? It’s called free speech!”
I did not in any way suggest that this speech should have been restricted, so what is the point of saying it’s “free speech?” No one has contested that. Your argument suggests that any statement falling under the umbrella of “free speech” cannot also be dumb. Thus, your argument is dumb.
And there is no way you would ever respond to a critique of left-wing speech by saying “It’s free speech!” as a defense. You literally have no idea what you are saying, you’re just spouting talking points and buzzwords.
Also, dafuq you have against cheese? Cheese is delicious. Like I said, irrational prejudice.