Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump rising in polls since Paris terrorism

Detailed article at The Hill analyzing Trump’s improved polling since the terrorist attacks in Paris.

A Reuters poll on Tuesday asked voters which of the candidates was best-suited to deal with the threat of terrorism. Among Republican voters, 36 percent opted for Trump. The next most popular response was “none,” at 17 percent. Rubio was again in second place in the survey among actual candidates, but he lagged Trump by 20 percentage points.

Strangely, the article failed to see the obvious reasons why Carson’s polling has gone down since the terrorist attacks. No one can imagine mild-mannered Carson being able to stand up to Putin and ISIS.

It is my own personal opinion that Trump is indeed the best person to deal with hostile foreign leaders. He won’t be pushed around, but as revealed at debates, he’s a lot more restrained in foreign policy than other Republicans who say they won’t even talk to Putin and they are eager to put American troops everywhere without a plan for what they are going to do there. On the other hand, Trump’s recent idea about establishing a safe zone in Syria for refuges instead of letting them into the United States is a plan that makes sense.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 19, 2015 at 8:43 am

Posted in Politics

79 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. With the Russian presence in Syria, it’s impossible to do anything more than we’re doing now without dealing with Putin. Trump is the only one who has put that together.

    Mike Street Station

    November 19, 2015 at 9:00 am

    • Syria isn’t big enough for both Assad and ISIS. Should Russia’s strategy of pulling Assad back on his feet succeed, Assad will destroy ISIS himself: there’s no worse fate for ISIS personnel than being captured alive by Assad’s forces.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 19, 2015 at 10:20 pm

  2. President Nobody is obviously working for the Russians. ISIS is a CIA/Mossad Psy-op run to topple Syrian President Assad. Obama has sabotaged that operation twice. First he didn’t declare war on Syria, and now he’s stepping aside to let Putin clobber ISIS.
    Obama or whatever his name really is, is probably a relic from the Cold War. The Weather Underground sent him to the Soviet Union to be a KGB agent, but word is he was to dumb. He’s probably a sleeper agent who’s whole candidacy and Presidency is about damaging America. He’s helped Putin but stabbed all our allies in the back. Israel is shocked at how he’s treating them.
    Trump is not going to win. All the GOP insiders and “conservative” pundits aren’t panicking, so I suppose they’ll do to him what they did to Ron Paul, which is keep his delegates out of the caucuses. Rubio seems to be the guy the donors want now. Jebbie Boosh struck out too many times and now his financial stream is down to a bare trickle.

    Joshua Sinistar

    November 19, 2015 at 9:46 am

    • I could believe that Obama is anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white, racist, marxist, muslim and even gay. But I can’t believe he’s a Soviet sleeper agent working for Putin. The reason things are going to hell is that he simply doesn’t care about any of it. If anything, he’d like to knock America off its perch. He only cares about “transforming” America. The enemy is not only inside the gates, he’s inside the White House.

      destructure

      November 19, 2015 at 12:01 pm

      • I could believe that Obama is anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white, racist, marxist, muslim and even gay. But I can’t believe he’s a Soviet sleeper agent working for Putin

        I don’t think he’s anti-white, but I could be wrong. His politics are not those of a typical leftist African American.

        He’s probably sympathetic to the Palestinians & Muslims & thus opposes Israeli policy & likely shares the Muslim view that America is a problem because it’s empowering Israel.

        He probably sees Putin as someone who potentially negates Israeli/American power & thus lets him get away with a lot.

        But if he were anti-white, you might expect him to be tougher on Putin since Putin is a hero to white nationalists because he resists the cultural liberalism that has been dominating Europe & North America

        pumpkinperson

        November 19, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      • “I don’t think he’s anti-white, but I could be wrong. His politics are not those of a typical leftist African American.”

        I never said his politics were those of a “typical leftist African American.” He doesn’t really fit any profile most people are familiar with. I can see how that might confuse people.

        destructure

        November 19, 2015 at 4:13 pm

      • Obama is a progressive. That means he’s defacto pro liberal white and defacto let the proles fend for themselves. He has no problem throwing military and political power around as long as he thinks it’s abstractly social justice oriented towards the perceived weaker entity. You know the typical — That group is just pissed at the established power structure which pushes them down. Of course they’re suicide bombing you dumb racist! They aren’t as powerful as those they are bombing in the sports stadium so let’s give them moral support. They’re just humans! — That abstract “moral support” usually equals troops on the ground. On top of that, this progressive line of thinking completely ignores all the other stuff that happens on the streets in conflict zones, like giving guns to that-week’s allies who in turn give the guns to their sheep herding kinda-in-the-loop-with-ISIS relatives next week. Most people understand the moral/practical ambiguities here, but apparently progressives are really smart and see something the rest of us don’t. So yea, this isn’t very main-line American per say, it’s academic non-profit American.

        don't suicide bomb me bro!

        November 19, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      • “Obama is a progressive. That means he’s defacto pro liberal white and defacto let the proles fend for themselves.”

        Not exactly. Everyone who leans left is effectively self-hating. To what extent is variable. Some have an extreme, frothing at the mouth hatred for their own while others are merely lukewarm. I didn’t make this up — it’s part of the recognized psychological profile of liberals.

        Obama may be a socialist but he’s not like the “pro liberal white progressives” because he doesn’t hate his own. Where people get confused is with wealth redistribution. People assume that because Obama wants to redistribute wealth that he’s just another “progressive”. Not so. White progressives want to redistribute wealth to the poor. But blacks want to redistribute wealth from whites to themselves. The difference should be obvious. Blacks are no more liberal than a mugger who wants to redistribute your wallet to himself.

        The “church” Obama and the wookie attended for over 20 years was based on “liberation theology” which is essentially a racist version of marxism. Of course, there are those who try to claim Obama “didn’t know” or “didn’t really believe in it”. But Jerry Wright’s race cult was notoriously intertwined with the Nation of Islam. Everyone knew

        destructure

        November 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm

      • @destrucure:
        Left liberal progressives are in love with themselves. Their hatred is directed towards other white people. Only a small subset of whites have an actual pathological propensity for self-hatred and unjustified guilt. But these people are victims, not perpetrators of anti-white agitation.

        acolyte

        November 19, 2015 at 9:37 pm

      • ISIS is a CIA/Mossad Psy-op run to topple Syrian President Assad.

        Come back down from orbit.

        Obama supports ISIS because he’s a supporter of Islamic terrorism; the only Muslim nations he’s attacked have been ones with Western-oriented dictators. The Mossad was happy to see Assad knocked around, but they wouldn’t want ISIS in control of all Syria. At this point it’s better from Israel’s perspective if a gravely weakened Assad defeats the rebels and restores a minimum of control over the region.

        Now, if it were true Jews were so omniscient as to know in advance that an ISIS ruled Syria would work to Jewish advantage and have ordered Mossad to realize that outcome, Hitler would have been found to have “accidentally” gassed himself to death in 1921.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 19, 2015 at 10:09 pm

      • Obama HATES ISIS, but he’s also a wimp about taking action. And he also hates the idea of helping Assad, and he’s afraid to go all-in with the Kurds and piss off Turkey.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 10:45 pm

      • Obama HATES ISIS,

        American airstrikes, only one to five times a day, are going through the motions. Obama’s intentionally helping them takeover the Middle East because he is an atheistic ally of Islam.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 19, 2015 at 11:52 pm

      • ISIS is the wrong kind of Islam, and their existence says that “Islamophobes” were right.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 20, 2015 at 8:01 am

      • “Left liberal progressives are in love with themselves. Their hatred is directed towards other white people.”

        Agreed. I didn’t mean they literally hate themselves but others of their own group. It can mean either one depending on the context.

        destructure

        November 20, 2015 at 1:07 am

    • I hear so often about how Ron Paul got screwed by the insiders last time around, otherwise he would have run the table and won the Presidency. Hardly. Lots of Americans, too many for Paul to win nationally, thought Ronnie was a bit nutty. And I agree. Far too ideological.

      Andrew E.

      November 19, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    • @acolyte, good points. I hate it when conservatives call leftists “self-hating.” No, they don’t hate themselves. They hate conservatives, and less fortunate whites. The real self-haters are the cucks.

      gothamette

      November 20, 2015 at 8:41 pm

  3. Support for Trump is strong in Russia. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/10/09/Trump-Gets-Endorsement-Putin-s-Crimean-Crony

    I was told that Putin had endorsed him, but I’ve not seen the item myself.

    Yakov

    November 19, 2015 at 10:07 am

    • Why is that? He’s a nationalist, and that will conflict with Russia at some point.

      gothamette

      November 20, 2015 at 8:42 pm

  4. It’s kinda like how Churchill started looking better and better to people as things got worse in Germany.

    What a comparison..!

    Mrs Stitch

    November 19, 2015 at 11:05 am

  5. Lion: are you going to talk about why the Dems are going all in on the Syrian refugees? Your fans want to hear your explanation for their sudden psychosis.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 19, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    • Because they are stupid.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 19, 2015 at 12:41 pm

      • It’s not just stupidity. Three other reasons:

        1) The elites/rulers don’t have to live with the 3rd worlders they import. So they can be “virtuous” while working middle-class whites actually have to live, work, and compete with them. Not to mention PAY for them and their broods of kid!

        2) Cheap Votes

        3) Submission Tactic of Evil Rulers: create a problem which forces the people to come to you to solve the problem. This simultaneously legitimizes the elites power and increases it.

        fakeemail

        November 19, 2015 at 12:46 pm

      • They are stupid in that they don’t realize that the tide of public opinion has turned and they will be punished at the voting booth for this.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 12:50 pm

      • They’re not stupid they’re evil. These Syrians are used to living under dictators and have no concept of freedom. Like the Mexicans, they don’t understand the Bill of Rights and will vote for free shit. Socialism is all fun and games until you run out of other peoples’ money. Then one day you run out of toilet paper, go to the store and find out the Army has closed it down. Then there are food riots, death squads, civil wars, etc. But what did you expect from a black African Dictator?

        Joshua Sinistar

        November 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

      • They are stupid in that they don’t realize that the tide of public opinion has turned and they will be punished at the voting booth for this.

        They are playing the long game.

        More Middle Eastern refugees = more Democrats, more jobs for Democrats administering to the “needs” of refugees, more people who hate the same people the Democrats hate (white Christians)

        Tarl

        November 19, 2015 at 2:25 pm

      • You are really talking about the liberal elite and not Democrats. Many white Christians ARE Democrats (who don’t realize that the Democrats are no longer the party of FDR and that the party elites now hate them).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 2:32 pm

      • Yes, and the liberal elite includes the Republican leadership, who are also going all-in on accepting refugees despite the rage this creates in the Republican base.

        Tarl

        November 19, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      • Obama probably wants to take in the refugees to set an example to other Western countries to take them in, because if there’s some humanitarian crisis, Obama’s foreign policy will be blamed. At this point he’s thinking more about his legacy than votes for Hillary who he probably hates more than Trump.

        Hillary is supporting the refugees because she doesn’t want to anger blacks by disagreeing with Obama on anything. She needs blacks to turn out for her in big numbers like they did for Obama

        But Hillary’s a very smart opportunist. She will change her position if it hurts her significantly.

        pumpkinperson

        November 19, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      • I have hard time believing there’s much if any black support for refugee resettlement. Is there any polling on that?

        J1

        November 19, 2015 at 4:27 pm

      • Blacks are very conservative, despite being Democrats. They would be strongly opposed to refugee settlement. No, black conservatism does not mean they are going to start voting Republican.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      • Blacks are very conservative, despite being Democrats. They would be strongly opposed to refugee settlement. No, black conservatism does not mean they are going to start voting Republican.

        If you define conservative as self-interested and religious, then blacks are conservative, but if you define conservative as “siding with the rich and powerful”, then I would say blacks are liberals on most issues because blacks lack money and power themselves.

        I agree they would probably oppose the refugees, but Hillary has spent 8 years try to repair her excellent relations with the black community which were tarnished when she ran against Obama, and so she probably doesn’t want to risk any perceived feud with the White House, especially with the FBI email investigation to boot. She may also need the Obamas to campaign for her in key states and the campaign infrastructure he built. Despite how much conservatives hate Obama, he remains far and away the most admired man in America and is wildly popular among Democrats and a lot of the media.

        pumpkinperson

        November 19, 2015 at 5:31 pm

      • Black side with rich blacks. They side against rich whites. Blacks always support the black team, the opposite of white liberals who always support the non-whites.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 8:55 pm

      • It would take a very well known candidate with media savvy to make blacks vote Republican.

        Hmm.

        Mrs Stitch

        November 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm

      • “but if you define conservative as “siding with the rich and powerful”, then I would say blacks are liberals on most issues”

        And if you define liberals as “supporting wealth-redistribution” then muggers are liberals, too. No, pumpkinhead, blacks are NOT liberals.

        destructure

        November 19, 2015 at 8:46 pm

      • FDR wasn’t big on accepting refugees.

        Dave Pinsen

        November 19, 2015 at 10:21 pm

      • I agree that blacks are more tribal, though powerless people need to stick together.

        But their politics aren’t entirely self-serving: Blacks appear to be more liberal on foreign policy, (anespecially when you control for education/IQ):

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/7699/blacks-postgraduates-among-groups-most-likely-oppose-iraq-invasion.aspx

        pumpkinperson

        November 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm

      • Post-graduates are not typical blacks. They are more likely to believe what the liberal white elite belives.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 11:36 pm

      • I believe the article says black, comma, post-graduates, not black post-graduates (the title is awkwardly worded). But the key paragraph is:

        As on many issues in American politics, a racial divide is evident on opinions about the situation in Iraq. A majority of whites, 58%, favor of an invasion of Iraq — much higher than the 37% of blacks who favor an invasion. A majority of blacks, 56%, oppose an invasion. Sixty percent of Hispanics favor an invasion, while 33% are opposed

        pumpkinperson

        November 20, 2015 at 12:00 am

      • I agree that blacks are more tribal, though powerless people need to stick together.

        I grew up in a majority black city and was bussed to school in an all black housing project. For all the talk about marginalized, poverty, crime, etc blacks loved it there. They ran the place like a non-stop party doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. “Powerless” has absolutely nothing to do with black racism. If anything, the more power blacks have and the more others pander to them the more racist they are.

        But their politics aren’t entirely self-serving: Blacks appear to be more liberal on foreign policy,

        Blacks aren’t more liberal on foreign policy. They just don’t care and/or want to oppose whites. It’s an “enemy of my enemy” kind of thing.

        destructure

        November 20, 2015 at 1:35 am

      • destructure, I agree that a lot of so-called black liberalism is just racial opportunism, ,but as you know, a lot of white liberalism is also opportunistic. Many white “liberals” support the poor non-whites, not because of genuine compassion for the underdogs, but because it brings social status, or because their jobs in academia and social services depend on big government, or because the poor non-whites are the enemy of their enemies: the billionaires they are jealous of. And sometimes white liberalism is motivated by anti-antisemitism just as black liberalism is motivated by anti-white racism. So I applaud you and Lion (or Leon as you like to say) for your nuanced views, it’s hard to know where to draw the line.

        pumpkinperson

        November 20, 2015 at 9:17 am

      • I’m having difficulties seeing more than 1 in 100 blacks GAF about foreign policy. It’s something used to excite the whites.

        Glengarry

        November 20, 2015 at 10:06 am

    • But Lion, historically Democrats have been extremely intelligent about staying away from things that would politically hurt them. Bill Clinton was all about being “tough on crime” and signed welfare reform. Obama twice ran as a middle of the road patriotic American.

      Normally it is Republicans who do politically suicidal stupid stuff; this is very out of character for the Dems.

      Otis the Sweaty

      November 19, 2015 at 1:44 pm

      • They are so accustomed to the MSM keeping the sheeple in line that they don’t realize they’ve lost control on this issue.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2015 at 2:30 pm

      • If it weren’t so tragic, the whole situation would be pretty funny. ISIS gives the Leftards absolutely nothing to use for their typical liberal excuses, apologies, and victim-blaming. You’d think ISIS could at least throw the liberals a bone and blame their attacks on Israel.

        sabril

        November 20, 2015 at 10:09 am

  6. I have lefty friends who have offered to take in the “Syrian Refugees.” They’re naive and clueless but at least they’re willing to walk the walk.

    Ripple Earthdevil

    November 19, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    • Talk is cheap. Most of the actual volunteer work in Germany is performed by quiet Christians and small town folks, not by the signaling leftists types. Some of the latter showed up at train stations to hand out free stuff to get a short altruism rush. But even that has receded. It is the former group that prepares shelter and food and cleans up for the invaders on a daily basis.

      acolyte

      November 19, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      • Quietly suicidal.

        Glengarry

        November 20, 2015 at 10:04 am

  7. The “safe zone” idea is basically what the Republicans have been advocating for years now since the Syrian civil war started. At the least, it requires the US air force to establish a “no-fly zone” above the “safe zone” and support for the Syrian rebels on the ground to maintain the “safe zone”. It may require American boos on the ground as well.

    Tom

    November 19, 2015 at 1:44 pm

  8. Not sure if this is practical. What about a deal that:

    1. Promises an independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq and Syria.
    2. Requires that the Kurds maintain a refugee safe zone in northern Iraq.

    Lamb

    November 19, 2015 at 3:31 pm

  9. I wish more people would pay attention to Trump’s actual position on immigration. All he favors idiot illegals is “touchback,” not permanent deportation.

    http://www.newsweek.com/who-knew-trump-favors-amnesty-undocumented-immigrants-395512

    Artark

    November 19, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    • It must be true because the MSM says so? Trump is talking about Eisenhower. That was no touchback. In any case, if they left and got in line, that doesn’t mean that they would have a spot.

      Dan

      November 19, 2015 at 6:02 pm

      • You do know that “get in line” doesn’t literally mean queue in a giant line at the border. They come back to America, they’re just waiting in a metaphorical, bureaucratic line for permanent legal residency status.

        Petey

        November 20, 2015 at 12:50 am

      • Trump also mentioned the 14th amendment was never intended to include anchor babies. That’s huge.

        destructure

        November 20, 2015 at 1:46 am

    • It’s a negotiating tactic. Everyone mindlessly repeats the number of illegals as 11 million when Ann Coulter and Trump know the real number is closer to 50 million. So if the “good” illegals are 80%, then that’s 8 million of the commonly believed 11 million total. But when the deportations reveal the real number is, say 40 million, then only keeping 8 million out of 40 million isn’t so bad.

      There’s no way we actually keep 80% of the real number.

      Andrew E.

      November 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm

  10. If Bill Clinton was still leading the Dems would they be behaving this idiotically? Is there any Dem who would be able and willing to restore sanity to the Democratic party?

    The guy I really fear is Cory Booker. Very likable and actually intelligent. I could see him stopping the Democrats self destructive behavior if he is their nominee in 2020.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm

  11. In the REAL polls, not the crappy internet polls, Trump has risen a tiny bit to ~26% and Carson has dropped to the ~20% range, but what is really concerning is that the establishment candidates all polled together have 30% support. If the establishment rallies around Rubio then idiot Carson could still pick up enough morons to cost Trump the nomination.

    There are a lot of evangelical idiots in SC so we need Carson out of the race by then. I don’t think Evangelicals should even be allowed to vote in primaries because they only vote based on Christian identity politics.

    I absolutely cannot stand Ben Carson.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 19, 2015 at 6:18 pm

  12. I was pondering something here. Why is the Islamic world getting more and more violent and dangerous? Sure there were some dangerous countries in the past, but there were some Muslim countries that were safe to visit for tourism (Egypt and Lebanon come to mind). It seems that the people were more safer to interact with 20-30 years ago. (I personally haven’t visited any countries there, but I do know that there was little terrorism to worry about)

    Also, I know Europe had been importing Muslims since the 50’s, yet they tended to be quiet people looking for a decent living. We all know that it’s the 2nd or 3rd generations that have been making trouble mostly.

    Then I read the Sword and the Prophet by Srdja Trifkovic. He wrote on the scary nature of true Islam, based on the Koran and the example of Muhammad. Decent Muslims are those who actually are either ignorant or reject parts or all of Islam. It’s when they become more knowledgable of their religion are they more likely to become terrorists.

    We all know of how slick the Islamic State is in using modern technology to get their point across. After watching another slick propaganda video of theirs, it hit me. The reason more and more Muslims are becoming terrorists is that they have the Internet to get all the accessible resources of discovering their true religion. Much like we have Wikipedia to search for anything instantaneously what would have taken someone in the past several days of painstaking research in the library, Muslims now have infinite access to articles, videos, podcasts to explain their religion.

    In many ways, it’s like finding the red pill. Much like people here who have used the internet to connect the dots on how reality works, Muslims are able to connect the dots to the vague teachings they had growing up. Instead of illiterate Muslims who only got their knowledge of their religion from an imam/ayatollah, today’s Muslims are now able to connect the dots all on their own.

    danielsvoboda2014

    November 19, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    • The problematic teachings of Islam aren’t hidden. Most muslims believe in Sharia law, jihad, the caliphate, harsh punishment for unbelievers, apostates, blasphemers, that muslims should rule over the world, that Mohammed the warlord should be imitated, etc. This is islamic orthodoxy and consensus and taught at every mosque. Many mosques are named after muslim conquerors. However the Imams usually stopped short of advocating immediate political and violent action, because they themselves don’t want to get in trouble.

      The internet allows enthusiastic, young muslims to team up and attempt to bring about what everybody else in their community was only LARPing about.

      acolyte

      November 19, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    • “Egypt and Lebanon come to mind”

      In the past, Lebanon was a Christian country. As for Egypt, it has been run by military dictators for decades.

      sabril

      November 20, 2015 at 9:32 am

    • I’d say it’s because the West used to be strong but now is weak and contemptible.

      Glengarry

      November 20, 2015 at 10:11 am

  13. There are safe zones already, in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey where millions of refugees are currently. Another safe zone in Syria will not change anything.

    Hashed

    November 19, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    • It will lessen the incentive to claim refugee status as an economic ticket and make it easier to go back to their homes as things improve.

      destructure

      November 20, 2015 at 9:53 am

  14. “I was pondering something here. Why is the Islamic world getting more and more violent and dangerous?”

    I think you’d need to go back to two events:

    a) The 1973 Yom Kippur War, which Egypt was poised to win, had it not been for Nixon’s intervention in supporting the Israelis with materiel and intelligence. That probably got the ball rolling for Arab resentment.

    b) Carter pulling the rug out from under the Shah in Iran. We have always done business with secular dictators in the Middle East, as well as relatively benign dictators like Somoza in Nicaragua and Pinochet in Chile. But Carter had this notion that people in Iran had the same sensibilities as people in the United States of the mid-1970s, so nearly 40 years later we’re living with the mess that Carter made.

    FDR once said of the elder Somoza, “he’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” Would that we could have such pragmatic leadership today.

    lark7576

    November 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    • Egypt and Israel have been at peace for 40 years.

      Yakov

      November 19, 2015 at 9:14 pm

  15. “I think you’d need to go back to two events:”

    Ridiculous, there have been terrorist attacks in the Muslim world for hundreds of years. Long before there was even a modern state of Israel and long before the Shah was around. By the way, at the time of the ceasefire in 1973, the Israelis had regained control of much of the Suez Canal, had surrounded Egypt’s Third Army, and were still in control of almost all of the Sinai penninsula.

    sabril

    November 20, 2015 at 9:31 am

    • The collapse of the Ottoman Sultanate and Western nations carving out the region like a turkey for Thanksgiving, which did not reflect the diverse ethnic and sectarian divides, for deliberate reasons, because divide and conquer means more power and wealth,is the core issue and heart of the matter of the tensions in the Middle East today.

      The State of Israel and a staunch ally of Meriprolestan, ruled by Ashkenazi Jews (who are more loyal and physically in line with their past European gentile masters) is just another injury inflicted into the region.

      JS

      November 20, 2015 at 11:05 am

      • Interestingly, the divide & conquer – ruthlessness and the colonizing behavior of White gentiles have been both a strength and a downfall for them, not felt and achieved, by any other group of people.

        JS

        November 20, 2015 at 11:13 am

      • “The collapse of the Ottoman Sultanate and Western nations carving out the region like a turkey for Thanksgiving, which did not reflect the diverse ethnic and sectarian divides, for deliberate reasons, because divide and conquer means more power and wealth,is the core issue and heart of the matter of the tensions in the Middle East today.”

        Oh really? Where exactly should the lines have been drawn?

        sabril

        November 20, 2015 at 4:06 pm

      • I don’t know!

        The Ottomans were able to keep Arab tribalism in line for many centuries, the same in the likes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi with their populace. Europeans just went into the Middle East and divided up the territories hastily with straight lines, took what they wanted and left those irritable hotheads to their own devices, who later turn on their colonial masters via terrorism.

        Blame it on reckless Western Imperialism, not too different from our elites who aggressively assert that non-Whites are inherently no different from them, when it comes to assimilation into mainstream White American society.

        JS

        November 21, 2015 at 11:13 am

      • “I don’t know!”

        If you don’t know where the right place to draw the lines was, then you are hardly in a position to claim that such a right place to draw the lines existed at all.

        “The Ottomans were able to keep Arab tribalism in line for many centuries, the same in the likes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi with their populace. Europeans just went into the Middle East and divided up the territories hastily with straight lines, took what they wanted and left those irritable hotheads to their own devices, who later turn on their colonial masters via terrorism.”

        The phrase here is “left . . . to their own devices” of course.

        “Blame it on reckless Western Imperialism,”

        Why? How would things be any different if the Ottomans had simply left and there had been no European involvement?

        sabril

        November 22, 2015 at 6:47 am

      • Simple, Frenchie’s colonial subjects in the Middle East would not have existed, PERIOD!

        You wouldn’t find disenfranchised North African migrants in Paris, hellbent on killing people, because of some hazy personal vendetta that is really envy, when they see Frenchmen enjoying a glass wine with their girlfriends.

        JS

        November 22, 2015 at 5:27 pm

      • “You wouldn’t find disenfranchised North African migrants in Paris, hellbent on killing people, because of some hazy personal vendetta that is really envy, when they see Frenchmen enjoying a glass wine with their girlfriends.”

        Fine, but the Middle East would still be full of people beheading eachother, shooting up weddings, etc.

        sabril

        November 25, 2015 at 8:27 pm

  16. If you read the history of Fallujah, you can put everyone’s responsibility into perspective :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah

    Bruno from Paris

    November 21, 2015 at 8:20 am

  17. Leon — They recently took out a Russian airliner, several attacks in France this year and another in Mali yesterday. Not to mention, New York was the scene of a major attack and they’ve vowed to hit America again. I’d be surprised if another one doesn’t get through eventually. The odds of you being in the direct line of fire are slim. But they could do something to cause major disruption, especially around the holidays. Even something as simple as a blackout can lead to chaos, riots and looting as well as criminals looking to take advantage. It might be prudent for you to keep some necessities on hand in case you have to hole up in your apartment for a few days. Also, you may not like firearms, but it’s better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it. No one ever regretted a Rem 870. Police carry them for a reason. Just be sure to get the version you want… and practice.

    destructure

    November 21, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    • It’s legal to own rifles in NYC if you pay for a license (which is only denied if you have a criminal record). I’ve previously determined that a .22 caliber is the most practical for urban defense (which even though a small caliber is a lot more powerful than a .22 handgun).

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm

      • 12ga is superior to 22 for urban situations. But you’re right that 22 out of a rifle is substantially higher velocity than 22 out of a pistol. It’s light but more effective than people give it credit for not only due to higher velocity but it’s higher capacity and lower recoil. With a little practice, short range head shots under stress are easily possible. We’ve found the 22 to be more effective than larger calibers because it has the power to penetrate the skull but not exit. So it just rattles around like a pinball shredding the brain. If you’re going that route then I’d recommend the Ruger 10/22.

        http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm

        destructure

        November 21, 2015 at 3:57 pm

      • I recall recommending the Ruger 10/22 on here several months ago. Is that what you got? If so then that’s an excellent choice for first firearm. I wish that had been my first. Also this is a good article to read if you plan to buy more. http://www.wideopenspaces.com/top-4-guns-everyone/

        PS: My last post about head shots makes me sound like an assassin. Experience is based on livestock not people. 🙂

        destructure

        November 21, 2015 at 8:41 pm

      • The Ruger 10/22 is what I previously determined was the best rifle for home defense in NYC. With a wooden handle, because the wood version looks like a friendly hunting rifle, and not a scary paramilitary weapon like the all-black model.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 21, 2015 at 8:54 pm

      • 22 calibers can have feeding problems. The guns may be subject to jams.

        map

        November 25, 2015 at 10:43 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: