What's the likelihood of that happening?

My google fu seems to say that Muslims make up somewhere between 5-10% of the French Population with only about 1/3 of those being "practicing" Muslims.

Seems about on par with worrying about the influence of Catholicism once the Hispanics become the dominant culture in the US?

I was thinking about your comment while I was running today.

While the shooter clearly spent a lot of time forming and describing his motivation, his decided course of action was lazy and cowardly. And if he had really thought it through, he'd see that his shooting would only serve to hurt his own cause.

He went and shot a bunch of defenseless people.

What's that going to do? Probably incite other terrorists to look for revenge.

But is it going to turn away the "invaders" as he calls them? Not at all. As bad as it is to shoot up a religious place, it's not going to inspire the level of fear he desires. When refugees in war-torn countries are capable of fleeing to a first world nation, it's a no-brainer for them. As long as that level of strife exists, where it's dangerous for them every single day, they will want to leave.

General Petraeus' Counterinsurgency Field Manual extends this line of thought to actually stabilizing those war-torn areas. This is the real long-term goal. But it's a project of years, and to the guy who wrote that manifesto, it probably seems like doing nothing.

So, will it be fair to assess, by comparison, the response to this incident from the WH? I am sure there is a little red book for such, and that no way has he or his staff consulted it.

What's the likelihood of that happening?

My google fu seems to say that Muslims make up somewhere between 5-10% of the French Population with only about 1/3 of those being "practicing" Muslims.

Seems about on par with worrying about the influence of Catholicism once the Hispanics become the dominant culture in the US?

Isn't the purpose of a jihad to kill the infidel, whenever, wherever? In his mind, he is carrying that out (much like the jihadists). Isn't he saying - we can get you whenever, wherever? Nowhere is safe for you. I think that was his goal (sick and misguided as it is).

I've said that multiple times here but the Fox News watchers keep wanting to equate North African descent with Muslim. In reality, most folks are largely secular.
But with Fox News folks, it's easier to match looks with ideology.
As for the number of Norther African descent people in France...it's ironic that the killer calls them invaders, when the reason they are in France in the first place is because France actually did invade them.

Nobody is asking you to say anything mean about Senor Trump. Just drop the whole "I am neutral observer" bullshit.

You aren't.

In any way.

Not even close.

And that's ok.

Just admit it.

That is all.

No. That wouldn't be fair at all. That would be the LEFT WING MEDIA WHO IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE PUSHING THEIR AGENDA!!!

You're the ones who bring up this "impartiality" BS as regards me, not I.

What's the likelihood of that happening?

My google fu seems to say that Muslims make up somewhere between 5-10% of the French Population with only about 1/3 of those being "practicing" Muslims.

Seems about on par with worrying about the influence of Catholicism once the Hispanics become the dominant culture in the US?

No. That wouldn't be fair at all. That would be the LEFT WING MEDIA WHO IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE PUSHING THEIR AGENDA!!!

Isn't he saying - we can get you whenever, wherever?

Really? That's what you are going with?

I can't be bothered to pull up the numerous times that you have said this. Stop being an ass.

BK, please pay no attention to BLeP being BLeP. My question was not rhetorical nor in want of sarcasm. I asked earlier if moving forward, do you/we believe that the pulpit of the WH ,regardless of the occupant, has any influence at all on the action of crazies. I believe there is a little red PC book for such commentary by the president and the central premise of the book is to do no further harm or inflame without a game plan to back up words. That the president chooses to self script only enables criticism from detractors as well as justification from some seeing support of bad actions. What say you?

This is in no way an original idea of mine but the question is being asked, is the political experiment of liberalism in the West running out of gas? In the face of the discontent of a large number of citizens is the solution to double down on liberalism insist on more gov't intervention to produce equal outcomes and enforce conformity or will that only exacerbate the situation?

OF COURSE what a U.S. president says or does or doesn't do can affect the crazies out there. These are the same people who listen to Beatles records, for example, and think that the group is commanding them to start some sort of race war, when all the lads are doing is singing about a damn roller coaster. This lunatic Tarrant is of the same stripe.

So what's a U.S. president supposed to do? And especially a guy like the current occupant who, if you try to punch him is going to try to punch you right back? Just STFU and deliver nonsense homilies in a fireside chat in the Oval Office? Leaving aside that his supporters -- including most Republicans, who still support him at levels exceeding 90% -- would throw him over if he ever stopped, it's also the case that the presidency has long since given up that sort of "gentlemanly" interaction with the American people and with the rest of the world, for good or ill.

OF COURSE what a U.S. president says or does or doesn't do can affect the crazies out there. These are the same people who listen to Beatles records, for example, and think that the group is commanding them to start some sort of race war, when all the lads are doing is singing about a damn roller coaster. This lunatic Tarrant is of the same stripe.

So what's a U.S. president supposed to do? And especially a guy like the current occupant who, if you try to punch him is going to try to punch you right back? Just STFU and deliver nonsense homilies in a fireside chat in the Oval Office? Leaving aside that his supporters -- including most Republicans, who still support him at levels exceeding 90% -- would throw him over if he ever stopped, it's also the case that the presidency has long since given up that sort of "gentlemanly" interaction with the American people and with the rest of the world, for good or ill.

An alternative view on what contributes to this kind of attack:

https://www.theguardian.com/...n-muslim-immigration

Senator Anning is looking for a new job after losing his senate seat in the election. Good riddance.