http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...34094.html

Theresa Mays article after the London terror attack. Raises difficult questions. How far do you go?

"...Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide...."

"While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations...."

"So in light of what we are learning about the changing threat, we need to review Britain's counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need...."

(06-04-2017 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...34094.html

Theresa Mays article after the London terror attack. Raises difficult questions. How far do you go?

"...Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide...."

"While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations...."

"So in light of what we are learning about the changing threat, we need to review Britain's counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need...."

First conversation that has to happen-- rounding the jihadis up and putting them in a camp.

Second --Deporting the Radical Imams

An international agreement to regulate speech on the internet. Sorry..abso-freaking-lutely not.

I'd almost rather see Corbyn than this type of thinking.

A bunch of insane religious maniacs rampage through the streets killing people. Solution.....censor everyone, monitor everyone, eliminate all privacy. I think not.

This is the same as making all legal and law-abiding gun-owners jump through hoops and do a jig because of some criminals.

(06-04-2017 12:21 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...34094.html

Theresa Mays article after the London terror attack. Raises difficult questions. How far do you go?

"...Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide...."

"While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations...."

"So in light of what we are learning about the changing threat, we need to review Britain's counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need...."

First conversation that has to happen-- rounding the jihadis up and putting them in a camp.

Second --Deporting the Radical Imams

^^^^THIS^^^^^

Time to take out the garbage. You cant stop low teach attacks like this once they start. We will need to go further upstream if we want to deter these attacks.

Round up the radical Imans and thier follwers. Stop the immigration of large populations with little interest in integrating into their new societies.

We need to change how we look at how we think about immigration. If you want to come to America---GREAT. But it should be because you want to live life as an American. If you want to come to Britain, you should be coming to live like the British. If your coming to create a separate society within the new country---then maybe you should not be a candidate to immigrate. Maybe you should stay where you are or find a place where you agree with the society THEY provide. If you dont really want to be British or American or French...then you shouldnt be getting into those countries. Furthermore, we should be working hard to make sure immigrants are becoming citizens, learning the language, and intergrating into society. We should DEFINITLY boot anyone showing signs of radicalism (we are under no requirement to keep anyone who immigrates here and is not a US citizen---and we shouldnt).

We need to recognize that immigration is not a right. It is a priviledge and it needs to work for BOTH sides of the equation.

(06-04-2017 12:21 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...34094.html

Theresa Mays article after the London terror attack. Raises difficult questions. How far do you go?

"...Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide...."

"While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations...."

"So in light of what we are learning about the changing threat, we need to review Britain's counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need...."

First conversation that has to happen-- rounding the jihadis up and putting them in a camp.

Second --Deporting the Radical Imams

1st kill them.
2nd kill them.

There is no other option left.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The radio used to be the devil. Then TV. Now it's the internet. I do agree that the internet contributes​to the spread of all types of radical crap. People have become addicted to certain aspects of it. Like those of us who show up here every day. GTS is your drug dealer. :)

Reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit on the internet. It's become a very sick place.

(06-04-2017 12:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  An international agreement to regulate speech on the internet. Sorry..abso-freaking-lutely not.

I'd almost rather see Corbyn than this type of thinking.

A bunch of insane religious maniacs rampage through the streets killing people. Solution.....censor everyone, monitor everyone, eliminate all privacy. I think not.

This is the same as making all legal and law-abiding gun-owners jump through hoops and do a jig because of some criminals.

If only they had instituted extreme vetting, and were extremely careful who they allowed into their country, they wouldnt eve have to be talking about these extreme measures.

I thought that maybe May was going to agree to establish a system of Sharia Law to govern the UK and outlaw all religions but Islam.

That's the only way the terrorism will stop.

(06-04-2017 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  An international agreement to regulate speech on the internet. Sorry..abso-freaking-lutely not.

I'd almost rather see Corbyn than this type of thinking.

A bunch of insane religious maniacs rampage through the streets killing people. Solution.....censor everyone, monitor everyone, eliminate all privacy. I think not.

This is the same as making all legal and law-abiding gun-owners jump through hoops and do a jig because of some criminals.

If only they had instituted extreme vetting, and were extremely careful who they allowed into their country, they wouldnt eve have to be talking about these extreme measures.

Was just in Stockholm two weeks ago visiting friends. They said their government, out of a need to keep the country's population up, has allowed unvetted immigration and it has become a huge problem.They were talking about wanting more scrutiny of immigrants to allow in those who want to work and not be leaches on the social system and wanting to be "swedish." Sounded like they wanted "extreme vetting" to me.

(06-04-2017 01:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  An international agreement to regulate speech on the internet. Sorry..abso-freaking-lutely not.

I'd almost rather see Corbyn than this type of thinking.

A bunch of insane religious maniacs rampage through the streets killing people. Solution.....censor everyone, monitor everyone, eliminate all privacy. I think not.

This is the same as making all legal and law-abiding gun-owners jump through hoops and do a jig because of some criminals.

If only they had instituted extreme vetting, and were extremely careful who they allowed into their country, they wouldnt eve have to be talking about these extreme measures.

Was just in Stockholm two weeks ago visiting friends. They said their government, out of a need to keep the country's population up, has allowed unvetted immigration and it has become a huge problem.They were talking about wanting more scrutiny of immigrants to allow in those who want to work and not be leaches on the social system and wanting to be "swedish." Sounded like they wanted "extreme vetting" to me.

An aging population is a HUGE problem for almost ALL of the devloped world. ITs going to affect the retirement benefits in almost every developed country and the social safety net spending of every major economic power. Those negative demographics will be the single most critical factor in limiting the way the major economies of the world can grow and develop for the next 3 to 4 decades.

(06-04-2017 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  An international agreement to regulate speech on the internet. Sorry..abso-freaking-lutely not.

I'd almost rather see Corbyn than this type of thinking.

A bunch of insane religious maniacs rampage through the streets killing people. Solution.....censor everyone, monitor everyone, eliminate all privacy. I think not.

This is the same as making all legal and law-abiding gun-owners jump through hoops and do a jig because of some criminals.

If only they had instituted extreme vetting, and were extremely careful who they allowed into their country, they wouldnt eve have to be talking about these extreme measures.

Was just in Stockholm two weeks ago visiting friends. They said their government, out of a need to keep the country's population up, has allowed unvetted immigration and it has become a huge problem.They were talking about wanting more scrutiny of immigrants to allow in those who want to work and not be leaches on the social system and wanting to be "swedish." Sounded like they wanted "extreme vetting" to me.

An aging population is a HUGE problem for almost ALL of the devloped world. ITs going to affect the retirement benefits in almost every developed country and the social safety net spending of every major economic power. Those negative demographics will be the single most critical factor in limiting the way the major economies of the world can grow and develop for the next 3 to 4 decades.

Agreed with the popuation dwindling in European countries in particular. They are not replacing themselves at a sustainable rate for their socialized systems of benefits.

But unvetted, uncontrolled immigration from countries where radical Islam has taken hold, while it may have solved the basic numbers problem, has created a drag on that same social system that it was originally intended to buttress because a large portion of the immigrants allowed in are uneducated and unskilled...

And at the same time has created a major safety problem due to the radical element allowed in or fomented in country.

Both the drag on the social system and increased danger of radicals are reasons why the Swedes now wish they had more sophisticated vetting.

(06-04-2017 02:01 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  An international agreement to regulate speech on the internet. Sorry..abso-freaking-lutely not.

I'd almost rather see Corbyn than this type of thinking.

A bunch of insane religious maniacs rampage through the streets killing people. Solution.....censor everyone, monitor everyone, eliminate all privacy. I think not.

This is the same as making all legal and law-abiding gun-owners jump through hoops and do a jig because of some criminals.

If only they had instituted extreme vetting, and were extremely careful who they allowed into their country, they wouldnt eve have to be talking about these extreme measures.

Was just in Stockholm two weeks ago visiting friends. They said their government, out of a need to keep the country's population up, has allowed unvetted immigration and it has become a huge problem.They were talking about wanting more scrutiny of immigrants to allow in those who want to work and not be leaches on the social system and wanting to be "swedish." Sounded like they wanted "extreme vetting" to me.

An aging population is a HUGE problem for almost ALL of the devloped world. ITs going to affect the retirement benefits in almost every developed country and the social safety net spending of every major economic power. Those negative demographics will be the single most critical factor in limiting the way the major economies of the world can grow and develop for the next 3 to 4 decades.

Agreed with the popuation dwindling in European countries in particular. They are not replacing themselves at a sustainable rate for their socialized systems of benefits.

But unvetted, uncontrolled immigration from countries where radical Islam has taken hold, while it may have solved the basic numbers problem, has created a drag on that same social system that it was originally intended to buttress because a large portion of the immigrants allowed in are uneducated and unskilled...

And at the same time has created a major safety problem due to the radical element allowed in or fomented in country.

Both the drag on the social system and increased danger of radicals are reasons why the Swedes now wish they had more sophisticated vetting.

Exactly. Thats why Im saying the emphasis should be on immigrants who wish to totally integrate into the accepting culture. If an immigrant is coming to America, they need to have a strong desire to adopt the American lifestyle and culture. Ditto for immigrants desiring entry into Britain, France, Germany ,etc... Dont ask to come to a country in order to create an enclave that replicates your homeland. If thats what you want---then stay in your homeland or find a place to immigrate that is already very similar to your homeland. Like I said---immigration needs to work for BOTH sides of the equation. Somehow in the US we have the idea that only the immigrant's wants and desires are the most important part of the immigration equation. I'd argue the immigrant's wants and desires should be the lowest priority in the immigration equation.

(06-04-2017 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:01 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 12:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If only they had instituted extreme vetting, and were extremely careful who they allowed into their country, they wouldnt eve have to be talking about these extreme measures.

Was just in Stockholm two weeks ago visiting friends. They said their government, out of a need to keep the country's population up, has allowed unvetted immigration and it has become a huge problem.They were talking about wanting more scrutiny of immigrants to allow in those who want to work and not be leaches on the social system and wanting to be "swedish." Sounded like they wanted "extreme vetting" to me.

An aging population is a HUGE problem for almost ALL of the devloped world. ITs going to affect the retirement benefits in almost every developed country and the social safety net spending of every major economic power. Those negative demographics will be the single most critical factor in limiting the way the major economies of the world can grow and develop for the next 3 to 4 decades.

Agreed with the popuation dwindling in European countries in particular. They are not replacing themselves at a sustainable rate for their socialized systems of benefits.

But unvetted, uncontrolled immigration from countries where radical Islam has taken hold, while it may have solved the basic numbers problem, has created a drag on that same social system that it was originally intended to buttress because a large portion of the immigrants allowed in are uneducated and unskilled...

And at the same time has created a major safety problem due to the radical element allowed in or fomented in country.

Both the drag on the social system and increased danger of radicals are reasons why the Swedes now wish they had more sophisticated vetting.

Exactly. Thats why Im saying the emphasis should be on immigrants who wish to totally integrate into the accepting culture. If an immigrant is coming to America, they need to have a strong desire to adopt the American lifestyle and culture. Ditto for immigrants desiring entry into Britain, France, Germany ,etc... Dont ask to come to a country in order to create an enclave that replicates your homeland. If thats what you want---then stay in your homeland or find a place to immigrate that is already very similar to your homeland. Like I said---immigration needs to work for BOTH sides of the equation. Somehow in the US we have the idea that only the immigrant's wants and desires are the most important part of the immigration equation. I'd argue the immigrant's wants and desires should be the lowest priority in the immigration equation.

Agreed. The problem is those who think the world's borders should be open to anyone and everyone to move wherever whenever without proper vetting and that it is racist to not allow them to do so even if they have no desire to assimilate and instead want to caliphate.

Watching Sky News feed.

Some chick is on there talking about them being "nutters" and that most terrorist attacks in Britain are carried out by people with a long history of mental illness.

Weird how 3 mentally ill managed to get the same mental illness all together.

Guess mental illness is contagious, like a virus?

(06-04-2017 04:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Watching Sky News feed.

Some chick is on there talking about them being "nutters" and that most terrorist attacks in Britain are carried out by people with a long history of mental illness.

Weird how 3 mentally ill managed to get the same mental illness all together.

Here is what people dont seem to notice. Where are the Islamic leaders publically denouncing this on every stage available? They are invisible. Why is that?

I'll tell you why. They don't because they cant. Islamic leaders know a sizable portion of "mainstream" Muslims are quietly sympathetic to the terrorists and their goals. That's the dirty little secret that's never discussed for fear of appearing religiously "intolerant".