Breaking News – More Islamic Terror Attacks

by Jack

What kind of monster can rationalize the mass murder of families out for an evening of Christmas shopping?

I will tell you what kind, the kind who believes he is doing Allah’s will!  There is no end of twisted justifications to be found inside the Koran for radicalized lunatics bent on killing those they label as infidels.

This just in (Berlin, Germany): A large 18 wheeler truck sped into a crowd of shoppers, killing at least 9 and injuring another 50.  The driver then ran away from the carnage he caused and remains on the loose at this time.  (Update minutes ago – he’s been captured)

More on this story to follow as the facts become known.

islamtruckerAnkara, Turkey:  In another horrific act of murder, the Russian ambassador was just gunned down on television by his (Turkish police) bodyguard.

This murder was done before millions of people on live television as the ambassador prepared to give a short speech. The police officer, dressed in a black suit, pulled out his 9 mm service pistol and fired it at least 3 times into the ambassador’s back.  He then fell dead onto the stage floor. Other security personnel responded and shot the assassin dead, but not before he shouted slogans of Allah U Akbar, and praised ISIS.

The bodyguard carried ID that showed he had the highest of security clearance. I don’t know how well “vetted” the truck driver was that killed all those innocent people, but I know this officer was very well vetted and yet, nobody saw this coming!  This begs the question, how can we, as a country, expect to screen out terrorists from all the Muslims coming in from war ravaged middle east countries?

In every European country that has increased their Muslim (refugee) populations, they have experienced a major surge in arson, civil unrest, theft, rape, assaults and in many cases…direct acts of terrorism.

I ask now…what’s in it for America if we increase our Muslim refugee population like England, France or Germany? And if we do, should we not expect the same results?turkkiller

In America, it is not difficult for a citizen to come by dangerous materials.  We can easily make black powder pipe bombs, buy knives, hunting rifles, shotguns or even poisons.  There’s all kinds of stuff afforded to a citizen of the USA that may not be in Europe.  So, yeah, we’re more vulnerable.

We’ve accepted that risk within certain limits, because it’s been part of our pioneer heritage that incorporated self-defense, survival hunting and useful tools for a new and sometimes wild country.

But, I have to ask, should we take that risk for people who have no desire to assimilate (radical Muslims) and do not share our idealism?

Radicalized Islamic terrorists pose a greater threat here in the USA than in Europe because of our freedoms.   So I ask, what freedoms would you like to surrender in order to accept refugees and be at least as safe as Germany, France or England?  And which one of your friends, family and neighbors are you prepared to put at risk?

After 9/11, every liberal who welcomed Muslims with open arms, who then went on to kill our citizens in acts of terrorism, was played for a fool.   Are we willing to to repeat their mistakes and put our fellow citizens at risk?

Until we figure out exactly who wants to be here and that they want to here for the right reasons,  then maybe we should halt allowing Middle-East Muslim refugees in?  Again, let me be specific, this is temporary and the “right reasons” mean we are vetting immigrants to determine who among them will embrace our culture, our Constitution and love our freedoms (including equal rights).  If they can do that…then, I say lets take a chance and let them in, but at the first sign of them leaning towards radicalism, we deport them.

But, without that assurance, its wrong to risk American lives on people who have demonstrated no love for our country, who have actually been at odds with America and expressed hate for America.  Why would we do that?  Being a refugee is not enough, we must determine their Islamic beliefs and their feelings about America.  But, even then they could become radicalized after they are inside the country, as we saw in the Ft. Hood shootings and the shootings in Oklahoma.  We have no shortage of homegrown Muslim terrorists.

Remember: An extensive background investigation on a Muslim bodyguard didn’t save the Russian ambassador, how well do you think we’re going to do?

This entry was posted in Religion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Breaking News – More Islamic Terror Attacks

  1. Libby says:

    “Radicalized Islamic terrorists pose a greater threat here in the USA than in Europe because of our freedoms.”

    The Russian Ambassador to the U.S. was shot dead at the Neiman Marcus? I hadn’t heard.

    Why do you always get hysterical?

    “Remember this: An extensive background investigation on a Muslim bodyguard didn’t save the Russian ambassador, how well do you think we’re going to do?”

    You wanna make yourself a police state, holed up there in Chico? Put up some signage: “No Muslims Allowed.”? Run it by the city council, and see what they say. But I can’t think of a better way to create, and then attract the attention of, Islamic extremists.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, my how you go off on a tangent. “You wanna make yourself a police state, holed up there in Chico? Put up some signage: “No Muslims Allowed.”? Run it by the city council, and see what they say.” That would be illogical and I never said anything remotely close to that.

      I did say, “Until we figure out who wants to be here for the right reasons, then maybe we should halt letting middle eastern refugees in. Again, let me be specific, right reasons mean immigrants who will embrace our culture, our Constitution and love our freedoms (including equal rights). If they can…then, I say okay, lets take a chance and let them in.

      But, without that assurance, its wrong to risk American lives on people who have demonstrated no love for our country, who have actually been at odds with America and expressed hate for America. Why would we do that?” Apparently my real words make too much sense so you have to replace them with something silly.

  2. Libby says:

    “But, without that assurance, its wrong to risk American lives on people who have demonstrated no love for our country….”

    No it isn’t. Not if you purport to be an American … which means that you do not act against individuals based on their religion or ethnicity. It would be very wrong to deny a Muslim entry to the country … on that basis … if you do indeed espouse the founding principles … which I have long suspected you do not.

    As to risk … again, this free and open society ain’t cheap. If you can’t muster the guts to pay what it costs, there is always Pootyland.

    • Tina says:

      “…you do not act against individuals based on their religion or ethnicity.”

      How about on the likelihood that they want to blow people up?

      During WWII there were two primary enemies, one white and one yellow. We were rightfully suspicious and careful of both because of the greater potential that they could be the enemy. At the same time both Germans and Japanese served in our military. It’s possible to be careful and smart and name the enemy.Your problem is you can’t get passed your obsession with race to do what is practical (temporarily) until we can defeat this enemy. That makes you (Obama et al) illogical, emotional, and dangerous. The appeasing approach to terrorism is the reason we still find ourselves in this mess eight years later.

      You don’t have the guts to get real and tell the truth. This enemy is an enemy of freedom and every minority you pretend to care about and yet you cannot fight them in a way that work. No one said our republic should not defend itself against enemies of any race or religion. In fact our founders did defend this nation based on a religion at odds with ou principles:

      In 1801, President Jefferson sent the Navy to the Barbary Coast to stop Islamic pirates’ reign of terror on U.S. merchant ships. Jefferson read the Quran to understand what was motivating the pirates, and he learned that the Muslim holy book commanded the faithful to “plunder and enslave” non-Muslims.

      In 1814, after Tripoli broke its truce and began attacking U.S. ships again, former President John Adams wrote Jefferson a letter advising that Islam’s founder and prophet was “a military fanatic.” In another writing, he condemned Islamic law as “contemptible.”

      His son and future president, John Quincy Adams, went further, arguing that the essence of Islam is “violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.” He suggested the Quran’s commands to fight and conquer other lands “in the cause of Allah” were at odds with democracy, peace and the Judeo-Christian ethic on which America was founded.

      “The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Muhammad is the prophet of God,” he added. “The vanquished may purchase their lives by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Muslim creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike by fraud or by force.”

      Progressive notions about freedom and equality are often twisted and illogical. Progressives are interested in central power, power over people. That is hardly indicative of a free and open society.

      Dig deeper into our history.

      • Libby says:

        First of all, there is no “likelihood” … unless you are some kind of craven paranoid. There is a remote possibility … a possibility no more likely than that you will get mowed down by some deeply disturbed white boy (which does, alas, happen on a fairly regular basis). But you don’t want to corral all the white boys, only the brown ones … which is racist.

        Second of all, the internment of the Japanese was a great stain on the national honor … and you want to make another one? Very conservative of you.

        • Tina says:

          Libby you are full of caca.

          Interesting you make your argument based on a fantasy individual (always innocent) rather than your usual “group” approach (Islamist terrorist).

          This would be much easier if our enemies wore ID tags or uniforms. Until they do we are forced to profile and vet as best we can. Increased attacks across the world indicate that the PC approach isn’t effective.

          Muslims can stop this by working with free government to eradicate the radicals and more importantly in the long run work to reform their religion.

          You can shout racism or zenophobia till you lose your voice permanently..it doesn’t make it true.

          Of course we would coral white boys were they waging war. What we do with the criminals is arrest and try them and lock them up when found guilty. there is a difference between bad actors acting independently and organized well funded army of warriors…we fight them in different ways but we fight them both.

          The internment of the Japanese is a stain. So what? War is not pretty. The stain is overwhelmed by the good we did in bringing down the truly evil murdering Nazi’s and Imperialist Japanese. There is no culture or race that is without stain. Your need to make America the worst of the bunch baffles.

          You would feel a lot better if you would stop embellishing what is intended with such obviously ignorant rot.

          • Libby says:

            “Interesting you make your argument based on a fantasy individual (always innocent) rather than your usual “group” approach (Islamist terrorist).”

            Telling. Are you suggesting that all Muslim individuals are terrorists? … that only “fantasy” Muslims are out to lead a quiet American life? That seems to be what you are suggesting. The clerk at your local Seven-Eleven will be very disturbed to hear this.

            As to corralling, do you notice that there is a call for much the same with regard to the disturbed white boys. Only there it is couched in mental health terms. Why should the Islamic bad boys not be considered in the same light?

            Tina, you are a flaming racist. And if you didn’t have an “enemy”, I swear, you’d curl up and die.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Re Lippy “But you don’t want to corral all the white boys, only the brown ones … which is racist.”

          Baseball bat.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, have your heard of the Immigration and Nationality Act? It was passed into law on June 27, 1952. That law revised U.S. laws regarding immigration, naturalization and nationality.

      Section 313 of that law states:

      (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-

      (1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or

      (2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or

      (3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or

      (4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or

      (5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or

      (6) who is a member of or affiliated with any organization, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5).

      (b) The provisions of this section or of any other section of this Act shall not be construed as declaring that any of the organizations referred to in this section or in any other section of this Act do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

      (c) The provisions of this section shall be applicable to any applicant for naturalization who at any time within a period of ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for naturalization or after such filing and before taking the final oath of citizenship is, or has been found to be within any of the classes enumerated within this section, notwithstanding that at the time the application is filed he may not be included within such classes.

      (d) Any person who is within any of the classes described in subsection (a) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization may be naturalized without regard to the provisions of subsection (c) if such person establishes that such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or occurred and terminated prior to the attainment by such alien of the age of sixteen years, or that such membership or affiliation is or was by operation of law, or was for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and where necessary for such purposes.

      The law prohibits entry to the US if the person belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the US government by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.”

      Writing at the Sons of Liberty, Tim Brown said, “The Koran and the Hadiths present Sharia and demand submission to Islam, which is antithetical to Biblical law and the US Constitution, as well as to our Republic.”

      He added:

      Whether one pushes Islam as a religion is irrelevant. It’s ideology is opposed to America and her laws, including her Constitution.

      First, consider that Hussein Obama has ignored immigration law, both with regards to those coming across our southern border and those from the Middle East.

      Now, consider that this is about immigration and naturalization and its aim was primarily at Communism. However, it also mentions totalitarianism being promoted. That is all that Islam does. They are no different than Communism in their ideology. They just claim to do it in the name of Allah rather than advance the idea of a Creator.

      And it’s interesting to note that Communists, Islamists and many radical leftists are quite united in their calls for violence, revolution and “change.”

  3. Tina says:

    Libby you are a flaming numbskull…missed the point entirely. Not surprising your bigotry is entrenched.

    You are the person who divides people into little groups. There are the groups you defend and then there are the groups you hate: white Christians, white conservatives and conservative men are the groups you particularly hate.

    The human race…ever heard of it?

    Islamic Terrorists have formed into a group/s to terrorize, oppress, and eradicate all in the human race who won’t bend to their will. And to these you give a pass!

    You ‘re such a phony…a silly PC phony.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Lippy’s response to “But, without that assurance, its wrong to risk American lives on people who have demonstrated no love for our country….”

    No it isn’t.

    There you have it folks. The lunatic left thinks it is right to risk American lives on people who have demonstrated no love for our country. An absolutely brilliant position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *