Yup it's just your bigoted biases. Catholics still have a huge lead with body count and the number of incidents in the UK. Like not even close to any other religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Printable View
Yup it's just your bigoted biases. Catholics still have a huge lead with body count and the number of incidents in the UK. Like not even close to any other religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
frightening.....here's almost the exact same thing, but done by a white man
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3005263
maybeeeee.....just mayyybbeeeee.......if we labeled this guy a fucking terrorist as well, then maybe you'd understand that white christians kill more people for sure. look at the last several attacks we've had here. Dylan Roof? white. alive....this guy? white alive.......
orlando guy? not white, dead.
see what we're getting at here Daniel?
I've been in the "sigh, Larry is annoying but people bitch about him too much too" camp, until today. I'm not sure why specifically but you've even lost my blasé indifference. I fucking hate you Larry. Just shut the fuck up already. You dominate every thread. You're retarded. DIAGFQuote:
Originally Posted by LarryLafferQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
frightening.....here's almost the exact same thing, but done by a white man
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3005263
maybeeeee.....just mayyybbeeeee.......if we labeled this guy a fucking terrorist as well, then maybe you'd understand that white christians kill more people for sure. look at the last several attacks we've had here. Dylan Roof? white. alive....this guy? white alive.......
orlando guy? not white, dead.
see what we're getting at here Daniel?
time to hit them with the pomp and awe.
Who said we are just taking about the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYup it's just your bigoted biases. Catholics still have a huge lead with body count and the number of incidents in the UK. Like not even close to any other religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And what if we take out Northern Ireland and look at the past 5 years? Who is leading then?
Be honest. Were you surprised when the name of the attacker turned out to be Khalid Massoud?
Funny how many of these type of attacks turn out to be perpetrated by Muslims, even in places with relatively small Muslim populations.
Just in my head, though!
Oh, you mean like all of the terror attacks that have happened in Muslim-majority countries? Which outnumber those in Muslim-minority countries by at least an order of magnitude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWho said we are just taking about the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
And what if we take out Northern Ireland and look at the past 5 years? Who is leading then?
Be honest. Were you surprised when the name of the attacker turned out to be Khalid Massoud?
Funny how many of these type of attacks turn out to be perpetrated by Muslims, even in places with relatively small Muslim populations.
Just in my head, though!
CANADA BANS CRITICISM OF ISLAM TODAY WHY DONT U LIBTARD FAGGOTS MOVE THERE PLZ
LOL @ gimmicks post at the top of this page
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22I've been in the "sigh, Larry is annoying but people bitch about him too much too" camp, until today. I'm not sure why specifically but you've even lost my blasé indifference. I fucking hate you Larry. Just shut the fuck up already. You dominate every thread. You're retarded. DIAGFQuote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
oh another lying weirdo scammer shitbrain doesn't like me?
Past 5 years modifier is the one that gives you the results you want. Taking North Ireland out of the equation does nothing to change the top spot (IRA and friends were quite active in their bombing campaign in the main land). The thing is i have no problem with honesty. I don't just randomly forget incidents that i talked about year ago and claim that "every major terrorist act" was done by a muslim in the last few years etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWho said we are just taking about the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
And what if we take out Northern Ireland and look at the past 5 years? Who is leading then?
Be honest. Were you surprised when the name of the attacker turned out to be Khalid Massoud?
Funny how many of these type of attacks turn out to be perpetrated by Muslims, even in places with relatively small Muslim populations.
Just in my head, though!
I'm not surprised about anything. It happens when you stop assuming things. Were you surprised the attacker turned out to be Adrian Elms?
The last terrorist that was sentenced in the UK was Thomas Mair. That was 4 months ago. Does that surprise you or are we at that point that if it's not a muslim it's not even terrorism?
Yea it's funny how many attacks in the main land UK turned out to be perpetrated my catholics in a 40 year period, even with a relatively small catholic population. Then 15 years ago it just stopped. Nothing major happened to prevalence of Catholicism. There wasn't any kinda purge. No final solution. Could it possible be that we can't use Catholicism to explain or predict terrorist activity. Here's a crazy thought maybe that applies to every major sect of every major religion. Could that possibly make sense since they've all pretty much had their place in the sun regarding acts of terror, jews included.
Oh and suspicious looking muslim grinning at scene of the crime
Prominent BBC political journalist/commentator Andrew Neil has never spoken for me. But he certainly did here.
Great intro to his weekly political show and captured Britain's mood perfectly. Take no notice what you may of heard on Fox News. Who, as per spewed out pure garbage and lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RcmVobP320
LOTF, what are your thoughts on this picture?
http://morungexpress.com/five-dead-a...rorist-attack/
Canada didn't ban criticism of Islam you retarded faggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Why don't YOU move somewhere that your idiocy can't impact the rest of us?
They banned it with flying colors, shit trash, like 201-93Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerCanada didn't ban criticism of Islam you retarded faggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Why don't YOU move somewhere that your idiocy can't impact the rest of us?
My first thought was "nice ass"Quote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerCanada didn't ban criticism of Islam you retarded faggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Why don't YOU move somewhere that your idiocy can't impact the rest of us?
CUCK NATION MUCH??? MOVE THERE PLZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22My first thought was "nice ass"Quote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
Yoga pants will do that.
No dog in this fight but to be fair there's this:Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerCanada didn't ban criticism of Islam you retarded faggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Why don't YOU move somewhere that your idiocy can't impact the rest of us?
Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
What do you want me to say?
Your first thought with anything like this is 'rigged'. But these things definitely DO happen. I know for a fact that 'Nice' went down exactly as it was reported with that lorry.
Also, the ease of such an attack. There are literally millions of people in the UK who could carry out such a crime at a moments notice if the will was there.
Now, whether you believe ISIS to be real or not, that doesn't take away the fact there are Muslims living amongst us who celebrate acts of violence committed against 'non-believers' - although I believe the number to be vasty, VASTLY over exaggerated by authorities.
So the plausibility for that attack is 100% real. I'm surprised it hadn't happened sooner.
I will concede there are things about this attack which could raise eyebrows. Actually, EVERYTHING about the attack could raise eyebrows for sceptics lol
I haven't been arsed visiting the sites who will be dissecting the whole False False angle. But the location of course, could make one suspicious.. As for the bridge. I'm not sure you could pick a better spot for backdrop and containment reasons.
The hero, bloodied MP also looked too good to be true.. Honestly that did make me pause for thought. But it's true that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
As for your pic. Granted, it does look sorta ridiculous. But ima need more than an inconclusive still picture to raise my suspicion levels on this one. And that's because the ease of a wannabe jihadi pulling this off, is highly plausible imo.
7/7 got my eyebrows way higher than this fella.
On the contrary it could be said that your first thought when you hear about this stuff, along with 99% of everyone else, is that these are all legit terror stories to be taken at face value.
It's like a form of backward logic, whereby you have your belief system already in place (terrorism/isis/gunman stories etc.), and look to support your belief regardless of how foolish it may be - instead of using inductive reasoning and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence right in front of you.
It's mad because you admit that several of the pictures look suspect, yet your preexisting beliefs won't allow you to follow through with your read. It's like Knish in rounders seeing the moves but not having the stones to make the plays. All that alimony and child support got you singing from the same hymm sheet as the rest of the sheep.
So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
Your head must be constantly battered.
The bigger picture concerns me infinitely more than second guessing a random attack. An attack which carried plenty of plausibility anyway imo.
Discret drip-drip propaganda from those in control, laughably has us believing we're the victims in the grand scheme of the past 15-20 years.
I don't need to question EVERYTHING to know why, or how we got here. The bogeyman-like fear has already been well and truly created, especially across the pond.
The West already got their blank cheque. FF aren't really necessary... Add to the fact that Muslims are sorta mad at us for dropping a few thousand tons of munitions onto their heads, meaning it's not difficult to comprehend that sometimes they go a little nuts like that murderess cunt did the other day.
IF the MSM suddenly claimed that the attack was a hoax. It wouldn't dramatically change my position on how I view things. So I honestly couldn't give a fuck if some paranoid prick believes I shit in a field while eating grass all day.
The motion was NON-BINDING (not a law) and condemns all racism and religious discrimination. Way to not know what the fuck you're talking about, as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
fucking this^^^ I SAY AGAIN THIS ^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerTerrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
The organizing principle of any society is for war.
Donald Sutherland in JFK.Quote:
Originally Posted by lewfather
You're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
:lol
Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to discredit the correct statement that Muslims are far more likely to commit acts of terror in today's western countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickPast 5 years modifier is the one that gives you the results you want. Taking North Ireland out of the equation does nothing to change the top spot (IRA and friends were quite active in their bombing campaign in the main land). The thing is i have no problem with honesty. I don't just randomly forget incidents that i talked about year ago and claim that "every major terrorist act" was done by a muslim in the last few years etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm not surprised about anything. It happens when you stop assuming things. Were you surprised the attacker turned out to be Adrian Elms?
The last terrorist that was sentenced in the UK was Thomas Mair. That was 4 months ago. Does that surprise you or are we at that point that if it's not a muslim it's not even terrorism?
Yea it's funny how many attacks in the main land UK turned out to be perpetrated my catholics in a 40 year period, even with a relatively small catholic population. Then 15 years ago it just stopped. Nothing major happened to prevalence of Catholicism. There wasn't any kinda purge. No final solution. Could it possible be that we can't use Catholicism to explain or predict terrorist activity. Here's a crazy thought maybe that applies to every major sect of every major religion. Could that possibly make sense since they've all pretty much had their place in the sun regarding acts of terror, jews included.
The IRA was an outlier. How many Catholics in the US or elsewhere do you see committing acts of terror? For whatever reason, the IRA decided to resort to terror tactics on behalf of their cause. However, as wrong as they were, this was a very specific cause, specific conflict, and taking place in a specific country.
Terror attacks are the MO of Muslims. That's why they occur all over the world, and why people jump to the conclusion of "It must be an Arab/Muslim" whenever we hear of terror attacks.
Let's take the US, for example.
Muslims make up 1% of the US population.
Do you think Muslims make up 1% of all terror attacks in the US? Is it even close to 1%?
Let's multiply that figure by 10. Since the year 2000, would you say the percentage of Muslim-committed terror attacks in the US were greater than 10% or less than 10%?
Unless you're trying to make the case that Muslims commit 1% of all US terror attacks (or somewhere near that), then I think it's pretty safe to say that Muslims ARE indeed terror threats.
For some reason this is very difficult for lefties like you to admit, and instead you resort to naming all the non-Muslims who committed acts of terror.
Sure, we've had our Tim McVeighs and our Ted Kaczynskis. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims are a far, far, far greater threat per capita than any other segment of our population.
The victims don't, and unlike Americans they are aware what's happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYou're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
:lol
Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?
There are unfortunately deaths as a result of war, especially if terrorists use human shields or hide among civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerThe victims don't, and unlike Americans they are aware what's happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I can understand your raising issue with this, but you can't call it terrorism.
These type of arguments come from the left in order to humanize the Islamic terrorists.
"Sure, these terrorists are bad, but our government is guilty of the same sort of thing in a different way, so you can't hate them for it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYou're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
:lol
Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?
You are smart enough (I think) to follow a cause and effect argument.
The US is trying to regain control of regions of the world they have lost control of. The people they kill in order to retain control get a bit pissed off. The act of bombing their schools, hospitals, civilian buildings really doesn't make things any better. The more you marginalize Muslims the more they will defend themselves. Just like Vietnam, there is no way to control the middle east via bombing. Just get the fuck out and let them sort it out. You lost. Oil is not the future anyhow. Quit listening to your war industrial complex. Build up your own country instead of tearing apart other countries.
obviously i havent read this thread thoroughly because its garbage, but druff im not sure you really understand what a drone strike is like.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...rticle9707992/
im actually pro-drone strikes because they are, without question, the best option on the table for this current theaters but honestly, this shit is going to come back on us.
real soon.
I've heard this argument before, yet most of the terror attacks we see are religious-based, not of the "we feel cornered and are fighting back the only way we know how" variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by DealQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You are smart enough (I think) to follow a cause and effect argument.
The US is trying to regain control of regions of the world they have lost control of. The people they kill in order to retain control get a bit pissed off. The act of bombing their schools, hospitals, civilian buildings really doesn't make things any better. The more you marginalize Muslims the more they will defend themselves. Just like Vietnam, there is no way to control the middle east via bombing. Just get the fuck out and let them sort it out. You lost. Oil is not the future anyhow. Quit listening to your war industrial complex. Build up your own country instead of tearing apart other countries.
It is foolish to believe that a policy of "We leave Muslims alone, they will leave us alone" will work. That can work with the secular, but not with the fanatically religious.
Any major western power which Islamic fundamentalists see as an affront to Muslim values will be a target.
I'm not understanding the point you're making, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
If you are pro-drone strikes, yet feel it's going to come back to haunt us, what's the solution?
The Jew in you should understand that political leaders co opt religion as a recruiting tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
There are quite a few Christian terrorist organizations that are presently active. Lord's Resistance Army and National Liberation Front of Tripura among others. They aren't mainstream Catholics but neither is ISIS a mainstream Sunni organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI'm not sure why you're trying so hard to discredit the correct statement that Muslims are far more likely to commit acts of terror in today's western countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
The IRA was an outlier. How many Catholics in the US or elsewhere do you see committing acts of terror? For whatever reason, the IRA decided to resort to terror tactics on behalf of their cause. However, as wrong as they were, this was a very specific cause, specific conflict, and taking place in a specific country.
Terror attacks are the MO of Muslims. That's why they occur all over the world, and why people jump to the conclusion of "It must be an Arab/Muslim" whenever we hear of terror attacks.
Let's take the US, for example.
Muslims make up 1% of the US population.
Do you think Muslims make up 1% of all terror attacks in the US? Is it even close to 1%?
Let's multiply that figure by 10. Since the year 2000, would you say the percentage of Muslim-committed terror attacks in the US were greater than 10% or less than 10%?
Unless you're trying to make the case that Muslims commit 1% of all US terror attacks (or somewhere near that), then I think it's pretty safe to say that Muslims ARE indeed terror threats.
For some reason this is very difficult for lefties like you to admit, and instead you resort to naming all the non-Muslims who committed acts of terror.
Sure, we've had our Tim McVeighs and our Ted Kaczynskis. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims are a far, far, far greater threat per capita than any other segment of our population.
It's cute you think that IRA and Thomas Mair were the only non-Muslims who committed acts of terror. Remember that Sikh that just got out of prison in Canada after 30 years that was the only one sentenced in relation to Air India Flight 182 bomb. That thread where even you participated in wasn't that long ago. There would be no reason to keep naming any non-Muslim terrorists if you'd stop randomly forgetting them or if you'd stop assuming that things you're not aware of didn't happen.
The percentage of Muslims in the US would be more relevant if they were the only ones you'd have to worry about. 911 hijackers weren't exactly permanent residents and since you insist on generalizing all Muslims i think it's only fair that we use all Muslims in this particular exercise in futility. So 1.6 billion it is. And what exactly is the time frame we are using? Once we've finished with this and come to the conclusion that maybe 1 in a million Muslims commits an act of terror how strong do think the predictive powers of a statement like "Muslims ARE indeed terror threats" is? Is it perfectly ok to you that a statement generalizing all Muslims ends up being wrong 999999 times out of a million? For me personally that sounds kinda retarded.
Here's a completely useless fact for you. Gender shows a stronger correlation with terrorism than religion. This has been true since the beginning of recorded history. I believe roughly 50% of people living in US are indeed male and they have committed quite a bit more than 50% of all terrorist attacks.
I don't equate them but the collateral damage makes it counterproductive. To the victims and their families the distinction is immaterial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThere are unfortunately deaths as a result of war, especially if terrorists use human shields or hide among civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkonger
I can understand your raising issue with this, but you can't call it terrorism.
These type of arguments come from the left in order to humanize the Islamic terrorists.
"Sure, these terrorists are bad, but our government is guilty of the same sort of thing in a different way, so you can't hate them for it."
ISIS is not the root of the problem. Islam isn't the root of the problem. Islam is being used to dupe otherwise poor, helpless people into sacrificing themselves on behalf of the people who are really in control over there. To overcome the problem that whole region of the world will have to be brought into the 21st century, which is not going to be achieved with bombs. I'm not sure how it can be done or if we are capable, but I know this isn't the way.
I do know that the way is going to involve educating and empowering the women of the Muslim world, and to do that we are going to need the assistance of all the moderate and progressive Muslims we can possibly enlist to our cause, and that means not insulting them and lumping them in with the extremists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI'm not understanding the point you're making, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
If you are pro-drone strikes, yet feel it's going to come back to haunt us, what's the solution?
Re-architecting our foreign policy to diminish anti-western/American sentiments, would be an excellent first step.
But in more pragmatic and immediate terms, we need to engage in drone strikes in a way that stops giving an entire generation acute PTSD. Children are coming of age with absolutely zero expectation of survival, no parents, no education, absolutely nothing but the inescapable assertion that to die a martyr will fix everything.
Drone strikes started as a surgical option, that went out the window with Obama and now Trump has turned them into an outright surrogate for high altitude carpet bombing by severing the vertical authentication command structure that (to some extent) modulated their use.