From: fffurken <>
Subject: Re: VIDEO Pamela Geller to Geraldo Rivera: Why Should I ‘Pat on the Back’ Muslims Who Don’t Want to Kill Me?
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id s203mr3601064qke.15.1509657682128;
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 14:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by with SMTP id x82mr359958vkd.3.1509657681955; Thu,
02 Nov 2017 14:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=ooQ2cwkAAAD5fHesw79EWxuj2WdLyA1Z
References: <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_VIDEO_Pamela_Geller_to_Geraldo_Rivera=3A_Why_Shoul?=
From: fffurken <>
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 21:21:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 47
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 05:05:37 UTC, Seymore4Head  wrote:

That's a little eh, all over the place. I definitely noticed a disconnect with the Gorka fella here
(you can rewind a bit to see what he's talking about) -

I doubt Pamela Geller agrees that it's not about immigration.

Here's an article I read by Mark Steyn, plenty in there about Geraldo, or Geronimo, or whatever his
name is.

Three months ago, on the anniversary of 9/11, I wrote:

In any war, you have to be able to prioritize: You can't win everything, so where would you rather
win? Raqqa or Rotterdam? Kandahar or Cannes? Yet, whenever some guy goes Allahu Akbar on the streets
of a western city, the telly pundits generally fall into one of two groups: The left say it's no big
deal, and the right say this is why we need more boots on the ground in Syria or Afghanistan.
Yesterday President Trump said he was committed to ensuring that terrorists "never again have a safe
haven to launch attacks against our country".

By that he means "safe havens" in Afghanistan. But the reason the west's enemies are able to pile up
a continuous corpse count in Paris, Nice, Berlin, Brussels, London, Manchester, Copenhagen,
Stockholm, Orlando, San Bernadino, Ottawa, Sydney, Barcelona, [Your Town Here] is because they have
"safe havens" in France, Germany, Britain, Scandinavia, North America, etc. Which "safe havens" are
likely to prove more consequential for the developed world in the years ahead..? In Afghanistan,
we're fighting for something not worth winning, and we're losing. In Europe, Islam is fighting for
something very much worth winning, and they're advancing. And, according to all the official
strategists in Washington and elsewhere, these two things are nothing to do with each other.

I like the likes of Steyn, or Douglas Murray, because they know what to focus on, which is
immigration. And the time is five to midnight. Everything else is ultimately waffle, arguing with
delusional Islamopologist libtards, etc.

"It almost makes someone wonder why people waste money on medium to larger trucks when they could
just use their family car".

Reza Risky, 01/11/2017