Another school shooting

[tlynn78]

According to this story, French authorities have now confirmed that none of the terrorists actually came in through the refugee stream. They were carrying fake Syrian passports in an effort to look like they had done so, specifically to provoke a public backlash against Syrian refugees

It's true. You really can't fix stupid.

Perhaps, but I'll never stop trying. --Bob

Well, you just never know with those wily terrorists. I mean, they went to the extra trouble of securing fake Syrian passports for the sole purpose of provoking public backlash against the Syrian refugees. Because, you know, drying up routes and making it more difficult for masses of 'refugees' to gain access to other countries helps the terrorists' cause, right? SMH.

[Bob78164]

According to this story, French authorities have now confirmed that none of the terrorists actually came in through the refugee stream. They were carrying fake Syrian passports in an effort to look like they had done so, specifically to provoke a public backlash against Syrian refugees

Well, you just never know with those wily terrorists. I mean, they went to the extra trouble of securing fake Syrian passports for the sole purpose of provoking public backlash against the Syrian refugees. Because, you know, drying up routes and making it more difficult for masses of 'refugees' to gain access to other countries helps the terrorists' cause, right? SMH.

I don't know what "SMH" means.

But in answer to your questions, yes. It helps their cause by winning the war for hearts and minds. It makes it easier to radicalize people. Just look in our own country. An awful lot of people here (mostly Republicans but some Democrats as well) have been radicalized to the point of publicly advocating that only Christian refugees, or none at all, should be admitted.

As for how they knew that these people weren't actually refugees, I think the first clue was that they turned out to be citizens of France and Belgium. But you just never know with these wily terrorists. Perhaps they went to the trouble of traveling to Syria so they could return to their countries of citizenship disguised within the refugee population.

By the way, why did you take the time to remove the link to the original story that was in my post that you quoted? --Bob

[BackInTex]

By the way, why did you take the time to remove the link to the original story that was in my post that you quoted? --Bob

She didn't use the "quote" button at the bottom of your post. The box says "Quote:" instead of "Bob78164 wrote:". She probably just highlighted what she wanted to quote, copied it and hit the "Quote" button in the standard message box and pasted it.

Why would you go to the trouble to rework her quote within your quoting of her quote so it now says "Bob78164 wrote:" and to include the hyperlink?

[tlynn78]

By the way, why did you take the time to remove the link to the original story that was in my post that you quoted? --Bob

She didn't use the "quote" button at the bottom of your post. The box says "Quote:" instead of "Bob78164 wrote:". She probably just highlighted what she wanted to quote, copied it and hit the "Quote" button in the standard message box and pasted it.

Why would you go to the trouble to rework her quote within your quoting of her quote so it now says "Bob78164 wrote:" and to include the hyperlink?

I simply got the "you've embedded too many quotes" message when I initially tried to post, so deleted some of the extraneous stuff. And Bob, SMH means "shaking my head." As in, "you can't fix (edited to add) willfully stupid."

[silverscreenselect]

How did they "confirm". Most if not all of those terrorists were killed before they could be questioned. Seems made up to me.

I would think that the police and intelligence forces of France have the ability to distinguish a fake passport from a real one. And they're probably pretty good at identifying bodies from the various evidence that's left behind.

Having said that, Bob's source doesn't seem to be the most reliable in the world. However, this story in the New York Times attributes the comment to the German minister of the interior, who would seem to have more information on the subject than the right wingers on this Bored.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attac ... n-or-fake/

[flockofseagulls104]

How did they "confirm". Most if not all of those terrorists were killed before they could be questioned. Seems made up to me.

I would think that the police and intelligence forces of France have the ability to distinguish a fake passport from a real one. And they're probably pretty good at identifying bodies from the various evidence that's left behind.

Having said that, Bob's source doesn't seem to be the most reliable in the world. However, this story in the New York Times attributes the comment to the German minister of the interior, who would seem to have more information on the subject than the right wingers on this Bored.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attac ... n-or-fake/

Well, I guess that confirms it for all us right wingers. That pretty much proves beyond any doubt that it could never happen that any of those Syrian Refugees are ISIS plants. Thanks for setting us all straight, SSS. It makes us all feel pretty foolish to even bring that possibility up for discussion. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

[silverscreenselect]

. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

Yes, flock, you should be ashamed of yourself. You and the Republicans have seized on this as the one possible campaign issue that might get some traction with the public, so they have already doubled down on xenophobic and Islamaphobic fearmongering diatribes against a lot of hapless individuals whose only "crime" was the misfortune of living in a war zone. Of course, Trump, Carson, and the rest have no real stomach for doing what it really takes to to effectively fight a threat like ISIS since they don't understand the nature of the threat in the first place.

That's how ISIS came into being over the last decade, as a fairly natural reaction to the last round of right wind Islamophobia that took a country, Iraq, that had no real terrorist presence to speak of and created an organization that a decade later masterminds the Paris bombings and controls large chunks of Iraq and Syria. And the only solution they have is to attach convenient labels "radical Islamists" to a bunch of people without any real idea of whether the label fits or not and then getting tough with a group of destitute refugees. And therefore sow the seeds for the next ISIS in a few more years. And just like ISIS is more media and tech savvy and sophisticated than Al Qaeda ever was, you can bet the next group will be even better in those regards.

[Bob78164]

How did they "confirm". Most if not all of those terrorists were killed before they could be questioned. Seems made up to me.

I would think that the police and intelligence forces of France have the ability to distinguish a fake passport from a real one. And they're probably pretty good at identifying bodies from the various evidence that's left behind.

Having said that, Bob's source doesn't seem to be the most reliable in the world. However, this story in the New York Times attributes the comment to the German minister of the interior, who would seem to have more information on the subject than the right wingers on this Bored.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attac ... n-or-fake/

Well, I guess that confirms it for all us right wingers. That pretty much proves beyond any doubt that it could never happen that any of those Syrian Refugees are ISIS plants. Thanks for setting us all straight, SSS. It makes us all feel pretty foolish to even bring that possibility up for discussion. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

How can you prove beyond any doubt that anyone is not a Daesh plant? Even yourself? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

Yes, flock, you should be ashamed of yourself. You and the Republicans have seized on this as the one possible campaign issue that might get some traction with the public, so they have already doubled down on xenophobic and Islamaphobic fearmongering diatribes against a lot of hapless individuals whose only "crime" was the misfortune of living in a war zone. Of course, Trump, Carson, and the rest have no real stomach for doing what it really takes to to effectively fight a threat like ISIS since they don't understand the nature of the threat in the first place.

That's how ISIS came into being over the last decade, as a fairly natural reaction to the last round of right wind Islamophobia that took a country, Iraq, that had no real terrorist presence to speak of and created an organization that a decade later masterminds the Paris bombings and controls large chunks of Iraq and Syria. And the only solution they have is to attach convenient labels "radical Islamists" to a bunch of people without any real idea of whether the label fits or not and then getting tough with a group of destitute refugees. And therefore sow the seeds for the next ISIS in a few more years. And just like ISIS is more media and tech savvy and sophisticated than Al Qaeda ever was, you can bet the next group will be even better in those regards.

Of course, SSS. We need a spanking badly. We should just do what President Obama wants. He knows best.

[flockofseagulls104]

How can you prove beyond any doubt that anyone is not a Daesh plant? Even yourself? --Bob

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?

[flockofseagulls104]

It is so convenient to have it set up that whenever someone disagrees with your policy, you can easily accuse them of being a hater.

[BackInTex]

It is so convenient to have it set up that whenever someone disagrees with your policy, you can easily accuse them of being a hater.

Or when the atheists say WWJD?

[flockofseagulls104]

Or when SSS says he knows the thinking and motivation of everyone who disagrees with him.

When someone accuses me or a specific group of people of whatever-ism or whatever-phobia, I know everything else they say is full of sh*t. Because I KNOW it isn't true [for me]. And I'm not going to defend myself, because there is nothing to defend. And I am pretty sure it isn't true for 99% of the people they are accusing.

I think that's the major thing that liberals just do not understand. When they do that, it makes us that much more sure that our opinion is correct.

[silverscreenselect]

When someone accuses me or a specific group of people of whatever-ism or whatever-phobia, I know everything else they say is full of sh*t. Because I KNOW it isn't true [for me]. And I'm not going to defend myself, because there is nothing to defend. And I am pretty sure it isn't true for 99% of the people they are accusing.

And any time someone says, "I know I'm not a bigot" but refuses to consider the practical consequences the stands they take and the decisions they make, then that tells me they are unwilling to address the problem seriously. I'm sure flock and BiT don't hate a lot of the people they take stands against. Bigotry feeds off preconceptions and misconceptions, many of them quite sincerely held, which people have that influences their thinking. It's that type of Pavlovian response that makes it very easy for ISIS to manipulate Western opinion and make their own job easier, as the German interior minister pointed out. But he's probably just a dumb Kraut who doesn't know what every red blooded American is sure of deep in his Rush Limbaugh loving heart.

[flockofseagulls104]

When someone accuses me or a specific group of people of whatever-ism or whatever-phobia, I know everything else they say is full of sh*t. Because I KNOW it isn't true [for me]. And I'm not going to defend myself, because there is nothing to defend. And I am pretty sure it isn't true for 99% of the people they are accusing.

And any time someone says, "I know I'm not a bigot" but refuses to consider the practical consequences the stands they take and the decisions they make, then that tells me they are unwilling to address the problem seriously. I'm sure flock and BiT don't hate a lot of the people they take stands against. Bigotry feeds off preconceptions and misconceptions, many of them quite sincerely held, which people have that influences their thinking. It's that type of Pavlovian response that makes it very easy for ISIS to manipulate Western opinion and make their own job easier, as the German interior minister pointed out. But he's probably just a dumb Kraut who doesn't know what every red blooded American is sure of deep in his Rush Limbaugh loving heart.

This is just too much. Who appointed you as the arbiter of everything? Do you not realize how arrogant this is?

[SportsFan68]

How did they "confirm". Most if not all of those terrorists were killed before they could be questioned. Seems made up to me.

I would think that the police and intelligence forces of France have the ability to distinguish a fake passport from a real one. And they're probably pretty good at identifying bodies from the various evidence that's left behind.

Having said that, Bob's source doesn't seem to be the most reliable in the world. However, this story in the New York Times attributes the comment to the German minister of the interior, who would seem to have more information on the subject than the right wingers on this Bored.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attac ... n-or-fake/

Well, I guess that confirms it for all us right wingers. That pretty much proves beyond any doubt that it could never happen that any of those Syrian Refugees are ISIS plants. Thanks for setting us all straight, SSS. It makes us all feel pretty foolish to even bring that possibility up for discussion. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

I dunno about "all . . . right wingers." I do know that you, Flock, should be ashamed of yourself. Anytime you take a scientific study to support a faulty conclusion, then use that conclusion to support a point, then when you're called on your faulty conclusion, you fold up like a cheap tent with "Hey, don't argue with me" and vanish from the discussion, then yes, I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

[flockofseagulls104]

I dunno about "all . . . right wingers." I do know that you, Flock, should be ashamed of yourself. Anytime you take a scientific study to support a faulty conclusion, then use that conclusion to support a point, then when you're called on your faulty conclusion, you fold up like a cheap tent with "Hey, don't argue with me" and vanish from the discussion, then yes, I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry to upset you, Sprots. As I said "I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political."

I am not wanting to get into a debate on how dangerous or not dangerous second hand smoke is. The point I was trying to make is that once something like this gets into the public consciousness, it ain't going to change. It's not going to matter to you or anyone else that the risk of getting cancer is much less than is being portrayed. I understand that cancer is not the only risk, and the study also points that out. But are any of the anti smoking advocate groups going to take that into account and point out that they may have overestimated the risk of getting cancer from second hand smoke? I doubt it. They have their agenda and they are going to stick with it. Your reaction to what I said kinda confirms it.

So if you're mad at me because you think I want to overturn the 'clean air' laws or something, you are wrong. I said nothing of the sort.

If you want to know for sure, ask SSS. He is the arbiter of everthing.

[SportsFan68]

I dunno about "all . . . right wingers." I do know that you, Flock, should be ashamed of yourself. Anytime you take a scientific study to support a faulty conclusion, then use that conclusion to support a point, then when you're called on your faulty conclusion, you fold up like a cheap tent with "Hey, don't argue with me" and vanish from the discussion, then yes, I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry to upset you, Sprots. As I said "I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political."

I am not wanting to get into a debate on how dangerous or not dangerous second hand smoke is. The point I was trying to make is that once something like this gets into the public consciousness, it ain't going to change. It's not going to matter to you or anyone else that the risk of getting cancer is much less than is being portrayed. I understand that cancer is not the only risk, and the study also points that out. But are any of the anti smoking advocate groups going to take that into account and point out that they may have overestimated the risk of getting cancer from second hand smoke? I doubt it. They have their agenda and they are going to stick with it. Your reaction to what I said kinda confirms it.

So if you're mad at me because you think I want to overturn the 'clean air' laws or something, you are wrong. I said nothing of the sort.

If you want to know for sure, ask SSS. He is the arbiter of everthing.

I accept your apology, Flock. You didn't upset me, but the apology was properly phrased and all.

Your point fails. Some things that get into the public consciousness do change, for example, that this is a free country and that we therefore shouldn't curtail the freedom of smokers to light up in public places. That changed dramatically in the past 50 years, and perhaps even more dramatically, it is now the law of the land that two people of the same gender can legally marry.

You did not at any point say you thought we should overturn clean air laws, and I never said you did. That's even more nonsensical than your original point.

Most nonsensical of all is making snarky remarks about SSS.