Sworder
Member
I dismiss you as stupid if you believe bringing in Muslims will increase the rate of terrorism.
What are your valid concerns?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Are you ok with Muslim refugees moving in next to you in the US?
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
What are your valid concerns?
Primordial949
New Member
I dismiss you as stupid for not comprehending what I wrote in plain English.
Sworder
Member
I read it. I just thought there was more than the financial burden. According to the others there are more. But if you want to stick to the financial burden ok. And yes, I think it is relevant to look at the spending we do in America and then maybe look at the refugee situation to see what's more important? Increasing military power when there is no need or pass some funds off to Refugees. Maybe you think it is irrelevant to look where other funds are being put that is fine.
There is increased risk with every new born American doing criminal acts. I really don't see why that is being mentioned?
Also you didn't respond to any of my queries.
The numbers don't lie. But for most people, the numbers are irrelevant.
xy5jn0
New Member
The "statistics" sited are incomplete. For instance the Ft Hood massacre is not counted and listed in the "workplace violence" category. As stated earlier figures don't lie, liars figure.
I agree. FYI, the 17 cited deaths occurred in 2011. The 13 Fort Hood deaths occurred in 2009.
xy5jn0
New Member
Point taken. And thank you for acknowledging my point. It's refreshing to finally discuss this with someone willing to concede a point.
If you made a point worth conceding it would be conceded to more often.....
Another "point", in 2011 you were 9x more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by terrorism. 404 civilian deaths at the hands of US non-military law enforcement and that number does not reflect every law enforcement bureau out there, that number reflects only VOLUNTARY reporting, and that number does NOT reflect non-justifiable homicides by police officers.
OMG no, let's deport all police officers now. They are too dangerous for us. We are more likely to die at the hands of someone sworn to protect and serve us than we are at the hands of a terrorist.
And one of the most relevant parts of the "supposedly" irrelevant article:
"Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death."
xy5jn0
New Member
Again you make an irrelevant argument.If you made a point worth conceding it would be conceded to more often.....
Another "point", in 2011 you were 9x more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by terrorism. 404 civilian deaths at the hands of US non-military law enforcement and that number does not reflect every law enforcement bureau out there, that number reflects only VOLUNTARY reporting, and that number does NOT reflect non-justifiable homicides by police officers.
OMG no, let's deport all police officers now. They are too dangerous for us. We are more likely to die at the hands of someone sworn to protect and serve us than we are at the hands of a terrorist.
And one of the most relevant parts of the "supposedly" irrelevant article:
"Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death."
xy5jn0
New Member
No, I'm pretty sure you're critical thinking skills are almost nonexistent. [emoji8]Again you're too slow to comprehend it
Says the person who's been too slow to keep up and the person whose showed less than none himself? Yup, I'm almost seriously worried....
xy5jn0
New Member
I'm sure you're not. Simpletons rarely are. Your ignorance is bliss.
Just like sheeple rarely think for themselves. Your ignorance was programmed hahaha
xy5jn0
New Member
Look, we could go back and forth with this forever. You think I'm an idiot and I know you are. You're free to respond whenever you want however I'm not going to reciprocate. It's not worth my time. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and I wish you well.
I don't think you're an idiot. That would be too harsh of a blame to place on your willful ignorance. I'd rather see it cast on those more deserving of the title, namely, the news media and politicians. You're more than welcome to continue to have your beliefs dictated to you by those in power, obviously, but I'd urge you to begin thinking for yourself sooner rather than later.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family as well.
I don't know why you people can't discuss this issue in a calm and rational manner.
The numbers don't lie but they are mostly irrelevant. Focusing only on the number of successful Islamic terror attacks on US soil underestimates the real risk. While it's true that the numbers have been relatively low since 9/11, it's not from a lack of trying. LE have thwarted several attacks that would have resulted in mass casualties, i.e., the shoe bomber, the panty bomber, Times Square, Fort Dix, etc., and I don't think anyone in the LE and intelligence community are disputing that eventually the jihadists are going to be successful. It's just a matter of time.
But focusing on the number of dead is to miss an even bigger point: We're not having an open and honest discussion about Islam and that is the goal of the jihadists. Mark Steyn, in a recent column:
The snot-nosed sophists of a fin de civilisation west like to sneer - even as the bodies are still in the streets - that you've got more chance of winning the lottery than of being killed by terrorism. They're a near parodic reductio of the man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. For terrorists, the point is not the dead: The dead are there to cow the living. They've done that very effectively on everything from freedom of speech to the right of their chattels to take the oath of citizenship in head-to-toe body bags. In my speech at the Danish Parliament on the tenth anniversary of the Mohammed cartoons, I quoted my compatriot George Jonas:
Terrorism's great achievement isn't hijacking jetliners, but hijacking the debate. Successful terrorism persuades the terror-stricken that he's conscience-stricken.
Which is why, in the decade after 9/11, Western governments ramped up Islamic immigration instead of slowing it to a trickle; and their citizens were "very supportive" of those who converted to Islam in record numbers, instead of mourning the wholesale abandonment of their inheritance; and their community-outreach enforcers dragged those who disrespected the Prophet into court for ever more footling infractions, instead of obliging Islam to adjust to core western values like freedom of expression.
Last edited:
xy5jn0
New Member
Correct. And the problem with all these studies is the words "since 9/11" as if that somehow doesn't count. It's like saying "since an hour ago there are no deaths from islamic terrorism in the US." So what? If you properly factor in 9/11, Islamic Terrorists easily have "the lead." But then, that wouldn't fit the narrative they're pushing.I don't know why you people can't discuss this issue in a calm and rational manner.
The numbers don't lie but they are mostly irrelevant. Focusing only on the number of successful Islamic terror attacks on US soil underestimates the real risk. While it's true that the numbers have been relatively low since 9/11, it's not from a lack of trying. LE have thwarted several attacks that would have resulted in mass casualties, i.e., the shoe bomber, the panty bomber, Times Square, Fort Dix, etc., and I don't think anyone in the LE and intelligence community are disputing that eventually the jihadists are going to be successful. It's just a matter of time.
But focusing on the number of dead is to miss an even bigger point: We're not having an open and honest discussion about Islam and that is the goal of the jihadists. Mark Steyn, in a recent column:
The snot-nosed sophists of a fin de civilisation west like to sneer - even as the bodies are still in the streets - that you've got more chance of winning the lottery than of being killed by terrorism. They're a near parodic reductio of the man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. For terrorists, the point is not the dead: The dead are there to cow the living. They've done that very effectively on everything from freedom of speech to the right of their chattels to take the oath of citizenship in head-to-toe body bags. In my speech at the Danish Parliament on the tenth anniversary of the Mohammed cartoons, I quoted my compatriot George Jonas:
Terrorism's great achievement isn't hijacking jetliners, but hijacking the debate. Successful terrorism persuades the terror-stricken that he's conscience-stricken.Which is why, in the decade after 9/11, Western governments ramped up Islamic immigration instead of slowing it to a trickle; and their citizens were "very supportive" of those who converted to Islam in record numbers, instead of mourning the wholesale abandonment of their inheritance; and their community-outreach enforcers dragged those who disrespected the Prophet into court for ever more footling infractions, instead of obliging Islam to adjust to core western values like freedom of expression.
Sworder
Member
Al Qaeda is considered to be an Islamic following "group?" They practice the Islam faith so perfectly and that's why you are grouping them with Muslims?
Funny how you choose to identify them as "muslim terrorists." Al Qaeda would be the most specific. Why classify by religion, especially when they don't follow it? Extremists, political stance, "humans," and there are tons of other classifications that would make more sense but "religion," especially if it is foreign is easier to classify by?
KKK is "Christian" but since you are white you know they are extremists and not representative of the rest of the Christians out there. This doesn't apply or compute that the same could be with Al Qaeda or IS.
Last edited:
OMG those Muslim terrorists
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...aded-planned-parenthood-office-colo/76455300/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...aded-planned-parenthood-office-colo/76455300/
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
MESO-Rx Sponsor GenericAsia - International & US Domestic- Latest: MajinMuscle777
-
-
