# Paris Attacks (13 Nov 2015)



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*At Least 18 Dead in Multiple Violent Incidents in Paris*

At least 18 people were killed in an outbreak of explosions and at least one shootout in Paris Friday, according to police. It was unclear if the events were linked.

Police in Paris told NBC News that several people had been shot at a restaurant in the 10th arrondissement in Paris, and The Associated Press reported that there were fatalities at the Bataclan theater, where hostages were being held.

The AP reported that two explosions were heard outside of the Stade de France north of Paris. France's football team was playing Germany's at the Stade de France at the time of the explosion.​
(NBCNews)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Wait for it...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BINGO!!!

Police: At Least 100 People Killed in Paris Attacks, Hostage Crisis Over



> Although the suspects have not yet been identified, witnesses inside the Bataclan reported that the shooters screamed *“This is for Syria, this is for Syria”* before gunning down patrons.


Yeah, my bold.

Tell me again why we should import tens of thousands of them without proper vetting prior to the new year, Justin. 

Perhaps some of you Progressives can have a shot at convincing me...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Perhaps some of you Progressives can have a shot at convincing me...


They won't. They have no idea what they are unleashing against themselves. Until that day comes and the Paris of today becomes the Canada of tomorrow will they begin to understand. And even then, their first cries will be about gun control. Buncha smart folks, those leftist 'let em all in types'.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good thing we don't stand against tyranny. 

Good thing all the Harper haters called people paranoid for questioning the security risk of importing tens of thousands of undocumented people.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Trudeau didn't come across very well in his statement. Ughhh...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Trudeau didn't come across very well in his statement. Ughhh...


Yep, he's still not ready.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Trudeau didn't come across very well in his statement. Ughhh...


Yes. A sad mess of a statement. I felt sorry for him to see him so far out of his depth.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Nice hair though.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Trudeau didn't come across very well in his statement. Ughhh...





SINC said:


> Yep, he's still not ready.





Macfury said:


> Yes. A sad mess of a statement. I felt sorry for him to see him so far out of his depth.





gwillikers said:


> Nice hair though.


Do you really need to turn a very sad world news event into your own personal bashing?

How much more experience did Harper have when he first became Prime Minister? What I see is that he first became an MP in 1993, left in 1997 and then re-entered the House of Commons in 2002. He became Prime Minister 4 years later. That's 8 years of experience in Parliament before becoming Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau was first elected in 2008 and became Prime Minister after 7 years of experience in Parliament. I guess that year that Harper had on him was that important?

The difference? Trudeau was a teacher for a few years before entering politics. Harper hasn't really had a job that wasn't a politician or acting as a part of a political special interest group which he did during the years he wasn't an MP. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see that one year as giving Harper that much more experience than Prime Minister Elect Trudeau. Even if it did, Trudeau's experience working in a 'real job' teaching high school gives him something that Harper never had.

Regardless, you should have left your comments out of this thread, they were not appropriate.

When a selfish attack like this occurs, our first thoughts should be for the families of the victims, and the hope that any who have been hurt recover from their injuries quickly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

If you think I'm being partisan, you might do well to read my posts for the last month. I gave Trudeau credit for a lot of things, one of which was a belief he had leadership capacity. I'm starting to question that now.

I thought Trudeau gave a very poor statement.

I also feel that Trudeau is wrong on our mission to bomb ISIS targets and I felt this race to see which party could accept the most refugees was foolish. The left of centre in this country was extremely dismissive of security concerns with bringing undocumented people into our country. Clearly that line of thinking was wrong.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Our country has a long history of standing against tyranny. I think it's sad that the Russians are on the right side of history while we are not, and yes I appreciate that Russia is being self serving. It doesn't have to be that way if the U.S. and Canada would show more leadership on this. Obama really dropped the ball.

ISIS is a bigger threat than Al Queda was. ISIS runs part of a country while Al Queda were guests of the Taliban. ISIS clear has more capacity to plan and implement terrorist attacks. It looks like they took an airliner down and now these coordinated attacks. What's next?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> Regardless, you should have left your comments out of this thread, they were not appropriate.


It is more than appropriate to point out the terrible risk to humanity by ISIS in this thread or any thread that involves their actions. If not stopped, events like this will become the norm.

Everyone should stand up and be counted again ISIS. Period.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Vandave said:


> If you think I'm being partisan, you might do well to read my posts for the last month. I gave Trudeau credit for a lot of things, one of which was a belief he had leadership capacity. I'm starting to question that now.
> 
> I thought Trudeau gave a very poor statement.
> 
> I also feel that Trudeau is wrong on our mission to bomb ISIS targets and I felt this race to see which party could accept the most refugees was foolish. The left of centre in this country was extremely dismissive of security concerns with bringing undocumented people into our country. Clearly that line of thinking was wrong.


Your post was not the one that I objected to. It's one thing to comment on a statement. It was the obvious plays on the Conservative advertising from the last election that I had an issue with. Fine in another thread. Not appropriate here and while I don't agree with their opinions, I was a little surprised that they lost sight of how inappropriate their comments were. I usually expect better from them. 

With regards to the statement. I've only seen the video of the PM from last night in what appears to be the House of Commons. I thought it was fine. Was he rattled? Sure but I don't want a robot leading the country. I want a smart intelligent human being and human don't always have 100% polish when the speak. 

With regards to the refugees, our country has a history of taking in people from other countries, often struggling countries and people who are looking for a better way of life. Obviously things have changed dramatically from the 1940's, 50's and 60's when we were taking in people from Europe. I'm torn on what the answer is. While I want to continue to see Canada as a place where a better life can be offered and provide opportunities to those who are seeking those opportunities, I don't want my country to be blind to the much different ways that terrorists operate. 

However if you looked back to the immigration of the mid 20th century, I'm guessing that documentation then was not always available. Especially from those who were escaping from the Eastern Block during the Cold War. 

I also don't want to be the guy who says "okay I'm in the door now, my friends are in the door, you can let it close now." 

Btw, I'm second generation Canadian, both parents were born in Canada, my Mom's parents were born in the UK. My Dad was adopted as a child by a couple who were both born in the UK as well. My other half was born in Canada. Her parents were born in the UK. We're as WASPY as you can get.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Our country has a long history of standing against tyranny. I think it's sad that the Russians are on the right side of history while we are not, and yes I appreciate that Russia is being self serving. It doesn't have to be that way if the U.S. and Canada would show more leadership on this. Obama really dropped the ball.
> 
> ISIS is a bigger threat than Al Queda was. ISIS runs part of a country while Al Queda were guests of the Taliban. ISIS clear has more capacity to plan and implement terrorist attacks. It looks like they took an airliner down and now these coordinated attacks. What's next?





SINC said:


> It is more than appropriate to point out the terrible risk to humanity by ISIS in this thread or any thread that involves their actions. If not stopped, events like this will become the norm.
> 
> Everyone should stand up and be counted again ISIS. Period.


Standing up to terrorists, yes. Making jokes about his hair and using the "he's just not ready" phase? No. Come on Sinc I expect better from you. While I didn't like Harper or vote for him, I would never make a comment like that during a crisis situation like this. He was my Prime Minister and I support my government. 

But on the topic itself...

What exactly what should be done?

In another forum, someone asked something similar. Short of bombing entire countries, what should be done. One response was: "Bigger and more devastating payloads." Under the circumstances, a normal response. 

Here's how I responded to "Bigger and more devastating payloads.":

_Be honest, how well has that worked in the past? Viet Nam is one example of how it didn't work. 

I'm not a military historian so I may have some things wrong here. I'm just looking at it from a layman's perspective. 

This is not your WWII type of enemy. These 'opponents' have studied conventional western civilization military operations and policies and have planned accordingly. Their strategy exploits our operating procedures. We're treating this like a chess match: "if we move our forces this way, the enemy is going to do either this or that." They are treating it like a bunch of drunken college students: "what happens if we put a lighter beside Bill's butt when he farts?", "can I really drink this entire bottle of Queen Anne Scotch?"

We (civilized nations) would never purposely surround our military forces with innocent citizens. Rightly or wrongly we try to separate our military battles from our civilians. Our military wears uniforms (British soldiers marching in rank wearing red uniforms during the War of 1812 was probably the worst example of how stupid it was). We mark a big red plus sign on top of hospital tents and expect that our enemies will respect that. 

We're expecting that our enemies should be following the rules and behaving logically. These people are willing to kill themselves with suicide bombs. How logical is that?

The terrorists want us to retaliate. They want us to use bigger and more devastating payloads so that there are more innocents that are killed or hurt. "The Americans bombed another neighbourhood where innocent children and women died!" Even the most anti-violent among us were angry on 9-11. We wanted revenge. The innocent people in these countries where the terrorists hide would feel the same way. Which means more support for the terrorists._

I don't know what the answer is but someone needs to come up with something soon.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

First, I think the comments about Mr. Trudeau are a bit harsh and too early. Every Prime Minister in this country had a first time, please allow him his.

As for taking in the refugees....more and more it is becoming evident that the mass majority are young men 18 to 25. I think our misguided views here in the West will only increase these events. This brings us to two dominant views.

1. ISIS are the new Nazis. The world needs to stop them. However they a maurading armies picking up weapons from fleeing combatants ( sold to them by the U.S, Russia, France, China, and soon to be Canada ). So the seeds of WWIII are sown.

2. Let these countries fight their own battles and we can deal with the winner.

Not sure if there is any other position here........either way there are troubled times ahead and you can not trust anyone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the Paris attacks were made possible by people in Germany (who incidentally took in the most migrants), it is all the more reason to tighten controls on these people to try and filter out the radicals. The fact that most are young men makes it rather obvious why many believe ISIS is getting their soldiers situated in Europe. Does Canada need the same risk to itself under Trudeau's 'feel good' plan that he and his party are rushing into?

Paris attacks: Man arrested in Germany for smuggling firearms and explosives linked to French attacks


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> _Be honest, how well has that worked in the past? Viet Nam is one example of how it didn't work.
> 
> I'm not a military historian so I may have some things wrong here. I'm just looking at it from a layman's perspective. _


_

You don't have to look far. How many Al Queda attacks were planned from Afghanistan after we fought back?_


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Oakbridge, why do comments about hair and being ready in this thread offend your delicate sensitivities?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Tell me again why we should import tens of thousands of them without proper vetting prior to the new year, Justin.


Your bigotry is showing again.

Latest reports have the attackers with French citizenship and/or Syrian & Egyptian passports.

I'll never understand this *need* for the right-wingnuts to kick a refugee while they're down and at their most desperate. You are horrible people.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

:-(


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Oakbridge, why do comments about hair and being ready in this thread offend your delicate sensitivities?


Wow...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Pretty easy to deflect when you don't have an answer to the question, isn't it...



CubaMark said:


> Your bigotry is showing again.


Yes. And?



CubaMark said:


> Latest reportshave the attackers with French citizenship and/or Syrian & Egyptian passports.


BINGO!!! We arrive at the meat of the issue. 

So, how do you qualify who is a legitimate refugee & who is merely a tentacle of ISIS?

If you go back to my OP, the one you quoted, I said nothing about keeping out legitimate refugees. I merely asked how Justin plans to properly vet 25,000 refugees in 6 weeks. Do the math. It cannot be done.

Instead of frothing at the mouth, how a bit of constructive conversation? A piece of dialog, a tidbit, something, anything, that justifies bringing in 25,000 people of completely unknown backgrounds & intentions from an area stocked with fanatics who are sworn to kill every infidel on the planet, without a complete & thorough vetting?



CubaMark said:


> I'll never understand this *need* for the right-wingnuts to kick a refugee while they're down and at their most desperate.


Coming from you, I take this as a compliment. It means I'm standing up for something, someone: my family, my friends, my countrymen. 'Cause I don't want to see a "Paris" happen in Vancouver, Calgary, Lethbridge, wherever.

Justin wants 25,000 Syrians in the country by Christmas. If only 0.1% (zero point one!) of them are ISIS fanatics, that means 25 terrorists just got a free ride into Canada. Know how many terrorists were involved in Paris? Eight...

Are you willing to take on the responsibility for that decision?

Of all the hare-brained promises the Dauphin made during the election, this one will be the one that jumps up & bites him right square in the ass. The fallout will be terrible. Mark my words. 

And you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm going to be here on these boards, rubbing your nose in it, saying, "I told you so..."



CubaMark said:


> You are horrible people.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Running numbers.



> Following the Paris attacks and prior to Trudeau's remarks, I fully expect him to double down on his promise of 25 thousand refugees before Christmas.
> 
> So, the numbers. 25,000 refugees that we're promised by Mr. Goodale will be properly vetted. (interview at 20:00 mark) Now, I'm no doctor or security professional so these are made-up assumptions, but they probably aren't -too- far out.
> 
> ...


These numbers are just pulled from the sky, but the physical exam timeframe seems reasonable. However, I think the 8 hours allotted for a security check is way light.

Here's a letter posted in the comments.



> Dear Prime Minister Trudeau;
> 
> In light of today’s events in Paris France, I believe it is incumbent on yourself, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Stephane Dion to reassess your campaign commitment to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada in the next six weeks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your support for refugees over the safety of the country in which they're supposedly seeking refuge is the thing that is horrible. Your talk is suicidal.



CubaMark said:


> Your bigotry is showing again.
> 
> Latest reports have the attackers with French citizenship and/or Syrian & Egyptian passports.
> 
> I'll never understand this *need* for the right-wingnuts to kick a refugee while they're down and at their most desperate. You are horrible people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can at least identify with France as a country that shares western values. While all of these tragedies listed on your meme are serious, it's much easier for me to wish that France be left safe than it is to wish for improvements in countries whose cultures I barely understand. If I had to wish something for these countries, I would not even know what to wish for, because it might make things worse.

Importing their problems to Canada is also not the answer.



CubaMark said:


> :-(


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

LIVE: Syrian passport found on slain Paris attacker's body belonged to refugee who passed through Greece - Independent.ie


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Something that I have been thinking about this morning: How would WWII had been different if there had been something like the Internet where the citizens of the world been more informed (and at times misinformed) than they were at the time. 

How would the Post War refugees of Poland and Czechoslovakia just to name a couple have been treated in the land of social media and world wide communication?

How many of our parents and grandparents and other relatives would have actually made it to Canada?

I should add that I am *not* in favour of just throwing open the doors. But how do you behave like a good citizen of the planet, while at the same time protecting your own citizens from infiltration by terrorists? I don't know the answer to that.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

gwillikers said:


> Nice hair though.


lol, at least he has that going for him:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> Something that I have been thinking about this morning: How would WWII had been different if there had been something like the Internet where the citizens of the world been more informed (and at times misinformed) than they were at the time.


You mean, how would WWII itself be different?



Oakbridge said:


> How would the Post War refugees of Poland and Czechoslovakia just to name a couple have been treated in the land of social media and world wide communication?
> 
> How many of our parents and grandparents and other relatives would have actually made it to Canada?


Canada admitted 250,000 refugees between the end of WWII and 1962. They were mostly sponsored by relatives, businesses and church groups. Canada retained the right to deportation of undesirable settlers. If fewer people had made it over, I don't believe it would have had a huge impact on anything. It would have been a historical blip.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> Vandave said:
> 
> 
> > Oakbridge, why do comments about hair and being ready in this thread offend your delicate sensitivities?
> ...


Answer the question. Presumably you have a reason for being offended beyond masturbation of your ego. 

Why bring it up if you aren't willing to explain yourself?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You mean, how would WWII itself be different?
> 
> 
> 
> Canada admitted 250,000 refugees between the end of WWII and 1962. They were mostly sponsored by relatives, businesses and church groups. Canada retained the right to deportation of undesirable settlers. If fewer people had made it over, I don't believe it would have had a huge impact on anything. It would have been a historical blip.


A quarter of a million people wasn't really a blip. That's roughly 2% of the population at the end of the war. And more came later in the 60's.

As I said, I'm not in favour of just throwing open the borders. I want these refugees to go through some form of application process.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I said that if some of them had been excluded due to the availability of the Internet in the 1940s, it would not have made a huge historic difference.



Oakbridge said:


> A quarter of a million people wasn't really a blip. That's roughly 2% of the population at the end of the war. And more came later in the 60's.
> 
> As I said, I'm not in favour of just throwing open the borders. I want these refugees to go through some form of application process.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I said that if some of them had been excluded due to the availability of the Internet in the 1940s, it would not have made a huge historic difference.


I guess I wasn't making my point. I was commenting that things were done back then without the benefit of instantaneous information being available. 

If the authorities wanted and had cause to (which I know will open this up to an whole DIFFERENT topic of discussion), they could put together a reasonable profile of my activities for the past few days/weeks/months/years with very little effort. Where I had travelled, where I had shopped, etc. That information can make it around the world in less time that it takes me to type this. 

I'm guessing that few refugees had proper passports. Most were carrying around some form of paper documentation that had no other copies on file anywhere. 

Many are immediately saying that these people from Syria are all bad and it will be disaster for Canada to let them in. My question about the internet was that is seems that there is a growing hatred or bigotry against these people that is being spread in a greater volume via the internet. I'm wondering whether Canadians would have been so against the European refugees if they had also lived in the information age.

But... and this is something that I find a little upsetting. It seems that Canadians did not open their arms up to refugees from Europe. (Refugees - The Canadian Encyclopedia) While our attitudes did improve after WWII, they were not as good before the war. Perhaps it was only after Canadian soldiers had spent some time getting to know these other people while fighting in Europe that their attitudes changed. I also realize that we were not quite the multicultural society that we are today.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> I'm guessing that few refugees had proper passports. Most were carrying around some form of paper documentation that had no other copies on file anywhere.


But they did have trusted sponsors in Canada. And Canada retained the right to boot them out. Excellent safeguards. Better than the Internet.


> Many are immediately saying that these people from Syria are all bad and it will be disaster for Canada to let them in. My question about the internet was that is seems that there is a growing hatred or bigotry against these people that is being spread in a greater volume via the internet. I'm wondering whether Canadians would have been so against the European refugees if they had also lived in the information age.


They're not all bad, they're suspicious. Why are so many refugees military-aged men, instead of women and children and seniors? When we see people from the same Syrian group conducting acts of terror, caution does not make us prejudiced, it makes us informed. 

Then you see evidence that ISIS likes the idea of using refugees to foment chaos:

ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a 'psychological weapon' | Daily Mail Online



> I'm wondering whether Canadians would have been so against the European refugees if they had also lived in the information age.


They weren't really supportive before the Internet age!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I wonder if Donald Trump will make us pay to build a wall when he wins a year from now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Military aged men are the ones who tend to have very few family ties holding them back. Also they would be the ones feeling their future is particularly bleak, given the chaos caused by western interference in the region.

Stopping the refugee flow requires undoing the damage we have done in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Let these nations work their way back to a stable state and most of the refugees will return home.

Cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels and putting pressure on the Saudis and Kuwaitis to pull the plug on ISIS, would be a very solid start.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Not having family ties to hold one back" is not the definition of a refugee.



eMacMan said:


> Military aged men are the ones who tend to have very few family ties holding them back. Also they would be the ones feeling their future is particularly bleak, given the chaos caused by western interference in the region.
> 
> Stopping the refugee flow requires undoing the damage we have done in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Let these nations work their way back to a stable state and most of the refugees will return home.
> 
> Cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels and putting pressure on the Saudis and Kuwaitis to pull the plug on ISIS, would be a very solid start.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Prime Minister Tumblr takes the world stage:

Despite Paris, Trudeau won't reconsider: Anti-ISIS bombing runs will end | Canad



> ANTALYA, Turkey — Over and over and over again, reporters challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a press conference to reconsider his campaign commitment to shut down Canada's bombing missions against ISIS.
> 
> And over and over and over again, Trudeau dug in his heels Monday. He's not going to do that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> :-(



Guess someone agrees with you CM:



> I'm really appalled that there are so many people surprised that something like this could happen. Something like this happens every day in the world to one degree or another. ISIS is out murdering people. Boko Haram is out kidnapping and murdering people. The fact that it happened in Paris is what has people all bent out of shape and shocked and unbelieving? Why has it been so difficult to accept this enemy?
> 
> --Rush Limbaugh


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

How much of a coincidence is this. On 9/11, drills paralleling the tragedy taking place at the same time. The London bombings ditto! Sandy Hook ditto! Boston Bombings ditto! And now, you guessed it, the Paris attacks. So how do these terrorists always seem to know exactly when these drills are scheduled and have time to put together attacks matching the drills???

Brandon Turbeville: Emergency Drills Took Place On Morning Of Paris Terror Attacks: Report



> ...
> One such example is an interview given by Patrick Pelloux, an emergency medical services specialist and one of the first responders in the Paris attacks. Pelloux spoke to the radio station France Info and has apparently confirmed that an emergency drill was ongoing during the morning of the same day as the attacks. The source for the interview is contained in a video with the French language broadcast with English subtitles. The translation has Pelloux stating that, “as luck would have it, in the morning at the Paris SMAU (EMT), a multi-site attack exercise had been planned so we were prepared. What needs to be known is there was a mobilization of police forces, firemen, EMTs, associations who came [to participate] and we tried to save as many people as possible.”
> ...
> Pelloux is a contributor for the Charlie Hebdo magazine and was also one of the first responders during the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why are so many refugees military-aged men, instead of women and children and seniors? When we see people from the same Syrian group conducting acts of terror, caution does not make us prejudiced, it makes us informed.


On this matter I have more than a passing knowledge, as our academic department has a strong focus on refugee / migrant matters. The majority are men of that age because they are the most capable of making the voyage. Once settled in a 'safe' country, they are able to arrange the immigration of their family members through less-risky travel options.

The folks travelling with children, the elderly - those are the most desperate of the desperate, with no other option but to flee.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> On this matter I have more than a passing knowledge, as our academic department has a strong focus on refugee / migrant matters. The majority are men of that age because they are the most capable of making the voyage. Once settled in a 'safe' country, they are able to arrange the immigration of their family members through less-risky travel options.
> 
> The folks travelling with children, the elderly - those are the most desperate of the desperate, with no other option but to flee.


If my elderly relatives or children were fleeing a country, I would make sure they got on the refugee list first, not last.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If my elderly relatives or children were fleeing a country, I would make sure they got on the refugee list first, not last.


Ding, ding, ding!!! And we have a winnah...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> If my elderly relatives or children were fleeing a country, I would make sure they got on the refugee list first, not last.





FeXL said:


> Ding, ding, ding!!! And we have a winnah...


It's a calculated decision - is the risk of staying put more or less dangerous than the long, arduous journey? The parents of so many children - hundreds, if not thousands of them - who have drowned in the Mediterranean had to make that call.

Y'all are so very confident in your opinions, ensconced in your warm homes with food in your refrigerator and no bombs falling from the CF-18s flying overhead...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*More stupidity from "oh, no, we're not racist, we're just sayin'..." kinda folk:*

*Toronto couple asks Muslims if they're sorry for Paris attacks*


























“I don’t think it’s hateful, I don’t think it’s racist.”

That’s what one Toronto woman had to say about a sign on her property, asking Muslims if they were sorry for the attacks in Paris.

CityNews reporter Avery Haines noticed the sign when she was taking her son to hockey practice on Sunday and tweeted a photo of it.

She then spoke to the woman and her husband, tweeting videos of the encounter.

Others on the social media platform were quick to chime in, with one man posting an article where Muslims had already condemned the attacks. Others said that the couple had every right to post the sign.​
(CityNews)

*Message to these 'innocent' bigots: It's 2015. There's this thing called Google. Learn how to f-ing use it.....*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*And then there's these bigoted asses, cousins of the Peterborough arsonists, who can't tell a muslim from a Sikh. Or rather, can't be bothered, 'cause they're all just foreign and foreign is bad:*

*Ram Dham Hindu Temple Vandalism Investigated By Police*

Police in Kitchener, Ont., are investigating vandalism at a Hindu temple.

Ram Dham Hindu Temple president Dilip Dav says several windows at the rear entrance of the temple were shattered late Sunday night.

He says no one inside the temple was injured and they were unable to see who did the damage.

The incident follows an arson attack on a Peterborough, Ont., mosque on Saturday.

Investigators say they haven't drawn any link between the attacks and Friday's attacks in Paris that killed at least 129 people.​
(HuffPo)


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> *More stupidity from "oh, no, we're not racist, we're just sayin'..." kinda folk:*


The stupidity in this thread is all yours. Islam is an ideology, not a race.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> The stupidity in this thread is all yours. Islam is an ideology, not a race.


Shut up heavyall--they only killed 150 French citizens--but someone broke a window in Canada. Don't you have any perspective?

:-(


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

heavyall said:


> The stupidity in this thread is all yours. Islam is an ideology, not a race.


Sigh. I correctly used "bigoted" in most instances and slipped with "racist" in one spot. I am well aware of the difference.

I also disagree with the word "racist" as used by most people, when "prejudiced" or "bigoted" should suffice. 

Be that as it may, for being so ridiculously nitpicky (I mean, we have people spouting Shakespeare-era spellings of "clew" around here who get all in a huff and you're jumping on me for going colloquial?), you have my permission to go straight to hell. Notice I didn't comment on your intelligence. Jerk.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Shut up heavyall--they only killed 150 French citizens--but someone broke a window in Canada. Don't you have any perspective?


False equivalences, employed when you have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion. Or are you taking the side of bigots who commit acts of violence?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's right. I loves me some window breakers. Grow up CM--your argument here is tissue thin.




CubaMark said:


> False equivalences, employed when you have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion. Or are you taking the side of bigots who commit acts of violence?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep.

‘F— these assholes’: John Oliver responds to Paris attacks with ‘moment of premium cable profanity’ | National Post


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> I also disagree with the word "racist" as used by most people, when "prejudiced" or "bigoted" should suffice..


Most people who use any of those words to describe people's reaction to barbaric behaviour are completely mischaracterizing the entire situation. Often deliberately.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Bull****. At best it's cowardice, at worst it's a front for importing jihadists.

You think of other family members first, yourself last. It's called selflessness...



CubaMark said:


> It's a calculated decision...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Get a clew.

I've explained my use of the word quietly, clearly, repeatedly & certainly not in any form of huff. I'm sorry that you're so thick that, despite repeated explanations that my cat comprehends, you still do not understand that the way I use the word is precisely the same way Twain used it: as a pejorative.

In addition, the word that I used was grammatically correct & the correct word to describe the situation. Archaic? Certainly. Yours was not...



CubaMark said:


> S (I mean, we have people spouting Shakespeare-era spellings of "clew" around here who get all in a huff...)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> ...repeated explanations that my cat comprehends...


Either that Cat needs to go on tour, or you need to consider a psych consult.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Either that Cat needs to go on tour, or you need to consider a psych consult.


Right much time, spent in the outer limits, me thinks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Terry Glavin: There is only one proper liberal way forward in this ISIL struggle--merciless, pitiless war | National Post



> Liberalism in Canada needs to find its backbone again. It’s time. It is not a happy, sunny-ways thing to say, but there is only one decent and proper liberal way forward in this struggle: unapologetic, unceasing, merciless, pitiless war, until victory.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

It is so refreshing that we are back to ranting. The trouble today is we have too much wrong or filtered information....which is not information at all....just opinion. France has had at least four attacks in the past while.....mostly from homegrowns. A fact that time, I am sure will bear out.

Before anything of a government nature takes place as our response, we need to take a breath and respond correctly and not charge into what IS wants.......which I think is a ground war.

Oh, and just a thought for the 100th time, what is Saudi Arabia, and a host of other Arabic speaking countries doing right now........hmmmmmmmm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Before anything of a government nature takes place as our response, we need to take a breath and respond correctly and not charge into what IS wants.......which I think is a ground war.


They don't want a ground war--they wish to be left alone to set up their caliphate. They are only attacking countries that are militarily hampering their plans to consolidate their territorial acquisitions.

This is not some sort of _Star Trek _episode where an energy monster is begging to be attacked.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE and other Arab countries ARE fighting ISIS, but lack of leadership from Obama is preventing any sort of co-ordination. Obama has thrown in with Iran instead, so he will dance to their tune regarding US involvement at this point.


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Mind my words, you're mistaken MacFury: as ragingly mad as they are, ISIS DOES WANT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. They are going for maximum havoc/ destabilisation. TOTALKRIEG.
That exactly is their trap/ crap.
Hope we do not fall for the trap/crap.
And though Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE and other Arab countries SEEM to be fighting ISIS, ISIS financiers are probably still private billionaires from exactly those countries, especially Saudi Arabia.
Only Sweden up till now has tried to discuss this diplomatically with Saudia Arabia, the rest of the European nations & the Russian Federation still snugly shut their traps because of lucrative weapon deals with Saudi Arabia. Also with Bashar al Assad.
As far as the Russian Federation and Europe are concerned, there is also the issue of the natural gas pipeline across Syria to Iran, and into the Mediterranean across to Europe...
Why Syria? An Examination of the Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline | FTMDaily.com - Geopolitical Analysis, Economic Insights, and Investing Ideas
This is simply an international OPEC/ Russian Federation/ European cesspool, believe you me! Hornet's nest!
Saudis financier ISIS to get rid of/ prohibit the pipeline deal in order to sell their own oil to Europe, Russian Federation wants to sell their own Gas to Europe, and maybe Bashr al Assad will not allow the pipeline to pass his territory. Or maybe he will, but his regime seems too weak, whaddayaknow?
Maybe even the Russians want the contracts to even build the trans- oriental pipeline now the Ukraine passage for their gas has been compromised and have recently seen the Oriental pipeline deal gone sour, because of ISIS.
When exactly again did they start bombing ISIS?
See a possible geopolitical pic now?
Nothing is as it seems in this our world... All about fuel.
Or attacking phantom targets like the Turks do with the PKK - as if they were only bombing ISIS!
Just my momentary thoughts on a geopolitical issue. Leaves me non-plussed!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> Mind my words, you're mistaken MacFury: as ragingly mad as they are, ISIS DOES WANT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. They are going for maximum havoc/ destabilisation. TOTALKRIEG.
> That exactly is their trap.
> Hope we do not fall for the trap.


So essentially, just let them do their worst and hope for the best because they cannot be beat?


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

No. Do not bomb them. Or yes, surgically and mercilessly bomb the beasts, but do not fall into the trap of a ground war. That's exactly what they want, surrounding themselves with innocent civilians to be killed collaterally in order to win their outrage and escalate the war across all muslim states, thus getting volunteers for their pityful "army".
But better still: kill their funding, any which way you can. Beginning with the Saudis. And stop ISIS oil itself from flowing, which, BTW, has not yet been accomplished while it should be relatively easy!
The Russian Federation seems to begin seeing heads to heads with the EC right now. The US I feel needs to tune in, they are simply not up to par right now. And that has nothing to do with Obama, just general, historical US sluggishness and unawareness of history.
And get those damn Turks in check. Oh yes, up to the Sèvres Treaty they had their Ottoman Empire. But no sirree, not anymore.
Is that perspective enough for you? And neutral enough?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> No. Do not bomb them. Or yes, surgically and mercilessly bomb the beasts, but do not fall into the trap of a ground war. That's exactly what they want, surrounding themselves with innocent civilians to be killed collaterally in order to win their outrage and escalate the war across all muslim states, thus getting volunteers for their pityful "army".
> But better still: kill their funding, any which way you can. Beginning with the Saudis. And stop ISIS oil itself from flowing, which, BTW, has not yet been accomplished while it should be relatively easy!
> The Russian Federation seems to begin seeing heads to heads with the EC right now. The US I feel needs to tune in, they are simply not up to par right now. And that has nothing to do with Obama, just general, historical US sluggishness and unawareness of history.
> And get those damn Turks in check. Oh yes, up to the Sèvres Treaty they had their Ottoman Empire. But no sirree, not anymore.
> Is that perspective enough for you? And neutral enough?


They have to be booted out of the cities they now control. You can't do that from the air without massive collateral damage.

We also need a united plan for Syria. At this point Bashar al-Assad may still hold the best hope for some level of stability there. You can't have Putin supporting Bashar al-Assad and the US supporting rebels who want to overthrow him. Likewise, al-Assad is buying oil from ISIS at this point. Iran is enjoying the chaos and doesn't really want moderate Sunnis to prevail in Syria and Obama seems to be buying into this. 

So some sort of actula Syrian policy must come first. Those cities need to be wrested from ISIS but only with a plan that illuminates an endgame.


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

An endgame is not yet in sight - by far. It is a complete muddle, with opaque and assorted allegiances right now as I've tried to explain.
Al Assad is a very bad and weak pawn right now, and a monster at that. Would you let him loose on a Canadian population?
Khurdish Peshmerga are our only boots on the ground right now, but there are just too little of them. Getting other ground troops is just too dangerous- as I've explained. Escalation is the danger of the day. Too expensive as well.
Bit of a desperate situation...
But at the end of the ride: larger bomb payloads (meaning more collateral damage) simply won't do! More (innocent) collateral casualties will just prove contraproductive.
And remember: air strikes have almost cleaned Raqqua out.


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

> You can't have Putin supporting Bashar al-Assad and the US supporting rebels who want to overthrow him.


There you definitely have a point! Especially if the US as usual have no clue as to who these rebels might be.
The US _did_ train the Taliban in Afghanistan, didn't they?
And US weoponry may have been wrongly delivered to ISIS, may it not?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> On this matter I have more than a passing knowledge, as our academic department has a strong focus on refugee / migrant matters. The majority are men of that age because they are the most capable of making the voyage. Once settled in a 'safe' country, they are able to arrange the immigration of their family members through less-risky travel options.
> 
> The folks travelling with children, the elderly - those are the most desperate of the desperate, with no other option but to flee.





Macfury said:


> If my elderly relatives or children were fleeing a country, I would make sure they got on the refugee list first, not last.





FeXL said:


> Ding, ding, ding!!! And we have a winnah...


It's a very good thing that many of our distant ancestors didn't feel the same way. For many 'Canadians', life in our country began with a male making the trip over, finding employment, and then sending back for family and loved ones.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> It's a very good thing that many of our distant ancestors didn't feel the same way. For many 'Canadians', life in our country began with a male making the trip over, finding employment, and then sending back for family and loved ones.


Those were immigrants, not refugees.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Those were immigrants, not refugees.


Ding, ding, ding!!! Again, we have a winnah...

Oakbridge, do you not see the difference between the two?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Ding, ding, ding!!! Again, we have a winnah...


_So incredibly juvenile....._ XX)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Also, so incredibly correct. As was MF.

Tell me something, CM, do you differentiate between immigrants of old & refugees of today & the methods each used to gain access to their host countries?



CubaMark said:


> So incredibly juvenile.....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why are so many refugees military-aged men, instead of women and children and seniors?


Maybe it's also a reflection of the information sources you frequent. I doubt any of the children drowning in the mediterranean are ISIS agents....

*Desperate Journey: Shocking Video Shows Risks Refugee Families Take to Reach Europe Safely*

*SYRIAN REFUGEE BOY:* [translated] During our ride, the rubber boat started tipping. Kids were falling on top of each other, and women were falling on top of each other. The whole boat filled with water. Then the boat just stopped. We were whistling and calling for help. We contacted the Greek Coast Guard via WhatsApp, and they came and saved us. Life isn’t safe anymore. We can’t live in Syria anymore.

* * *​
*JUDITH SUNDERLAND:* Over 3,400 people, including many children, have died at sea trying to reach the European Union this year. Yet despite the risks, they keep coming.

*SYRIAN REFUGEE MOTHER:* [translated] My daughters and I suffered so much. The decision to make the journey was very difficult. We knew it was a death journey. We knew our lives were at stake. But it didn’t matter if we lived or died. The risk was better than to continue living as Syrian refugees in Turkey.

* * *​
*PETER BOUCKAERT:* Well, she told me, "The obstacles that we face in Europe are not going to stop us. We’ve walked over mountains to get this far, and we will get to our destination." So the question really is: How difficult do we want to make this journey for people? Because they are determined to bring their children to safety.​
(Full story and video at DemocracyNow!)


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> Maybe it's also a reflection of the information sources you frequent.


Like the UN's official numbers?

Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean - Regional Overview

62% males, and that's DOWN from 75% in September.


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Immigrants or expats. A long story. A long Canadian story, too.
Take a look at Antwerp, my home town:
The Red Star Line Immigration Museum, Antwerp, Belgium | Slow Travel in Europe and Beyond | CheeseWeb


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

heavyall said:


> Like the UN's official numbers?


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*And now France puts all of the heartless right-wing warmongering jerks in their place:*

*France says it will take 30,000 Syrian refugees, while U.S. Republicans would turn them away*

In a move that puts the heated U.S. debate over taking in Syrian refugees in perspective, French President Francois Hollande declared on Wednesday that his country would accept 30,000 Syrian refugees over next two years. He announced this at a gathering of mayors from French cities, where he received a standing ovation.

Hollande said that "30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. Our country has the duty to respect this commitment." He indicated that resettled refugees would undergo rigorous security checks, according to ABC News. He said there would be a 50 million euro investment fund used to support housing for refugees.

Hollande observed that "some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubts in their minds," referring to the cloud of suspicion that has fallen on the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees who arrived at Europe's borders this year. Despite speculation, not one of the Paris attackers has so far been identified as a Syrian national.

Hollande said it was France's "humanitarian duty" to honor its commitments to refugees, even in the wake of the chilling terror attacks on Friday, claimed by the Islamic State, which killed at least 129 people.

"We have to reinforce our borders while remaining true to our values," the French president said.​
(WashingtonPost)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

France is simply making an error in the waning days of its countryhood. This put nobody in its place--except France.



CubaMark said:


> *And now France puts all of the heartless right-wing warmongering jerks in their place:*
> 
> *France says it will take 30,000 Syrian refugees, while U.S. Republicans would turn them away*
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Embarrassing stuff CM. You seem to always pick the lowest-hanging fruit.

How many Syrians is Cuba taking in its first round, by the way?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Embarrassing stuff CM. You seem to always pick the lowest-hanging fruit.


The reactionary Right makes an easy target, but they're no less worthy of ridicule.



Macfury said:


> How many Syrians is Cuba taking in its first round, by the way?


The last UNHCR figures for Cuba are from December 2014, indicating a refugee + asylum seeker population of 291 persons. I don't have the nationality breakdown at hand.

How many refugees do *you* think an economically isolated, developing country should take in? How many refugees are taken in by Haiti? Botswana? Vanuatu?

Your question is another, typical, attempt at changing the subject - this often happens when facts and reality get in the way of your narrative.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

First of all, you're frothing again. Nice ad hom to start with. Yet you criticize others for "changing the subject". You're the first one to cry foul when someone addresses you in that fashion, yet you think it furthers the conversation when you do it. Hypocrisy, much? 

Second, from your article:



> French President Francois Hollande declared on Wednesday that his country would accept 30,000 Syrian refugees over *next two years.*


Are you so thick that you do not see the *clear* difference between a 6 week vetting period & a 102 week vetting period?



CubaMark said:


> And now France puts all of the heartless right-wing warmongering jerks in their place:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> The reactionary Right makes an easy target, but they're no less worthy of ridicule.


Easy but not accurate. You are the master of the thoughtless meme. ISIS wins when countries or states refuse to allow the organization to send us Syrian "refugees" infiltrated with its own agents--after it promised to do just that? 

If you tell me that one in a thousand Concord grapes have been poisoned by some eco- freak who hates GMOs, am I supposed to keep eating those grapes to prove that I am "winning?"



CubaMark said:


> The last UNHCR figures for Cuba are from December 2014, indicating a refugee + asylum seeker population of 291 persons. I don't have the nationality breakdown at hand.


No announced Syrians? I guess Cuba has already lost.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> You're the first one to cry foul when someone addresses you in that fashion, yet you think it furthers the conversation when you do it. Hypocrisy, much?


You're inventing again. Or seeing the world through your set of blood-red glasses...



FeXL said:


> Are you so thick that you do not see the *clear* difference between a 6 week vetting period & a 102 week vetting period?


What a nasty piece of work you are. Instead of "so thick", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "can you not see..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.

The issue is not simply the vetting period, as the U.S. has just shown us. This is very much about a rabid fervour that hates the concept of refugees in particular, and immigrants in general, and will do whatever it can to restrict their arrival under the guise of national security:

*House of Representatives passes bill to halt Obama's refugee plan after Paris attacks*

The U.S. House of Representatives, defying a veto threat by President Barack Obama, overwhelmingly passed Republican-backed legislation on Thursday to suspend Obama's program to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next year and then intensify the process of screening them.

The measure, quickly drafted this week following the Islamic State attacks in Paris on Friday that killed 129 people, was approved on a vote of 289-137, with 47 of Obama's 188 fellow Democrats breaking with the White House to support it. The legislation would require that high-level officials — the FBI director, the director of national intelligence and homeland security secretary — verify that each Syrian refugee poses no security risk.

Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said the bill would pause the program the White House announced in September to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. He said it was important to act quickly "when our national security is at stake."​
(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> No announced Syrians? I guess Cuba has already lost.


Lost what? Is this a game of some sort? You are genuinely upset that a poor, developing nation like Cuba, which does accept a small number of refugees, isn't throwing open the door to emulate rich developed nations?

What an odd fellow you are.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You posted a meme that said any geographic area that did not want an immediate influx of Syrian refugees had surrendered to ISIS. I never made such a claim.



CubaMark said:


> Lost what? Is this a game of some sort? You are genuinely upset that a poor, developing nation like Cuba, which does accept a small number of refugees, isn't throwing open the door to emulate rich developed nations?
> 
> What an odd fellow you are.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The criticism:



CubaMark said:


> What a nasty piece of work you are. Instead of "so thick", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "can you not see..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.


The response:

Below is one month of polite, balanced posts from the hypocrite, using his own words...

What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "heartless right-wing warmongering jerks", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "certain citizens..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> And now France puts all of the heartless right-wing warmongering jerks in their place:


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "So incredibly juvenile", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "I disagree with your agreement of MF..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> So incredibly juvenile.....)


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "go straight to hell" and "jerk", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "You are correct, I should have used a different word..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> Be that as it may, for being so ridiculously nitpicky (I mean, we have people spouting Shakespeare-era spellings of "clew" around here who get all in a huff and you're jumping on me for going colloquial?), you have my permission to go straight to hell. Notice I didn't comment on your intelligence. Jerk.


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "you need to consider a psych consult", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "Thx! That made me laugh..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> Either that Cat needs to go on tour, or you need to consider a psych consult.


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "right-wingnuts" and "horrible people", you could say, in a pleasant manner, "I don't understand your perspective. Could you please elaborate..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> I'll never understand this *need* for the right-wingnuts to kick a refugee while they're down and at their most desperate. You are horrible people.


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "Rightwingnutputswordsinmymouthsaywhat?" and "Please stop wasting our time with your bull****.", you could, in a pleasant manner, just answer the question, but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> Rightwingnutputswordsinmymouthsaywhat?
> 
> ...
> 
> Please stop wasting our time with your bull****.


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of hypocritically asking me to defend my position with sources after you refused to defend your position on Tim Ball, you could say, in a pleasant manner, "You're right. That was hypocritical, wasn't it...", but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> And there we are, folks. What counts as informed discussion and debate at ehMac.


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "a persecution complex coupled with too much right wingnuttism", you could have just avoided the ad hominem but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> Sounds an awful lot like a persecution complex coupled with too much right wingnuttism....


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of being so sarcastic, you could say, in a pleasant manner, "Here's some data that shows otherwise..." but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> Congratulations, FeXL! You've found a single example of a responsible gun owner committing a heroic act. Unquestionably, a win for the pro-gun crowd!


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "No doubt her climate research will draw in all kinds of noise from the ostrich crowd...", you could have just avoided the ad hominem but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> No doubt her climate research will draw in all kinds of noise from the ostrich crowd...


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of "Well, after all, he's just a good ol' (white, Christian) Mississippi boy...", you could have just avoided the sarcasm but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> See any mention of the word "terrorist" in this story? Nope? Well, after all, he's just a good ol' (white, Christian) Mississippi boy....


What a nasty piece of work you are, CM. Instead of calling Tim Ball a "wacko", you could have just avoided the ad hominem and explained why your views differ from his but no, you constantly display your inner ass by taking every opportunity to insult. You are one of the reasons ehMac is such an inhospitable place these days.



CubaMark said:


> Tim Ball? Not exactly what one would call an authoritative source. The word "wacko" comes to mind after checking him out online....


*Physician, heal thyself...*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I willingly confess to being a hypocrite - you push my buttons and I react. At least I want to be a better person....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

But it's more than just responses to me. Five of the above 12 quotes weren't even in direct response to anything I said. They're just blanket observations or directed against someone else.

I don't know why you're so pissed off at the world, especially at the non-left. We're not the enemy here. We've got just as much skin (family, friends, homes) in the game as you do.



CubaMark said:


> I willingly confess to being a hypocrite - you push my buttons and I react.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> But it's more than just responses to me. Five of the above 12 quotes weren't even in direct response to anything I said. They're just blanket observations or directed against someone else.
> 
> I don't know why you're so pissed off at the world, especially at the non-left. We're not the enemy here. We've got just as much skin (family, friends, homes) in the game as you do.


I've seen this before. Just watch Obama speaking listlessly about Iran and ISIS, then getting demonic and fiery when he speaks about non-Democrats who are his fellow citizens.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well... The USA's incredibly lax enforcement of gun laws led to a weapon from Phoenix, Arizona, being used in the attack.

Isn't that... _special....._

*Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came from Phoenix*

One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.

* * *​
The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told Judicial Watch.​
(Judicial Watch)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can see that you're no fan of BO for this botched effort either.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Not at all. "Fast and Furious" was an idiotic program. It's been a few years now, I don't recall who was the genius who came up with it / implemented it / "oversaw" it. In any case, it's not Obama's only failure while in office. 

I find it curious, though, that it made any sense for a gun sold in Phoenix to make its way to Europe for use in that attack. One would think there'd be more than enough armament laying around from the various Eastern European conflicts to arm up the bad guys.... It's journey must have been interesting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting indeed, one is left to wonder how many airports and planes that gun was in, to make the trip to Paris. Perhaps security is not what it is thought to be?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Not at all. "Fast and Furious" was an idiotic program. It's been a few years now, I don't recall who was the genius who came up with it / implemented it / "oversaw" it. In any case, it's not Obama's only failure while in office.
> 
> I find it curious, though, that it made any sense for a gun sold in Phoenix to make its way to Europe for use in that attack. One would think there'd be more than enough armament laying around from the various Eastern European conflicts to arm up the bad guys.... It's journey must have been interesting.


Fast and Furious seemed to be the brainchild of Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general. Many innocent Mexican citizens killed as a result of that horrible plan.


----------

