Quote Originally Posted by GringoStar View Post
Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post

1)The bigger threat

I can see a lot of words, but you really aren't saying here a whole lot and you're not actually addressing the argument at all.

"To me, an exponential jump in size, capability and brutality is a meaningful enough difference to warrant a closer look."

That would be the sane conclusion, but when you lump in all the Muslims with terrorists you're taking a farther look. Taking a few steps back so you can see the big picture when you're looking needle in a haystack.

"While we can argue whether religion is really a driving force behind the violence, the correlation to Islam is unfortunately undeniable."

Are you saying Muslims are Muslims or that Islamic terrorists are Muslim?

2) Gender

I don't know this argument is worthless. Maybe you should try refuting it instead of claiming to know what i think.

A terrorist threat refers to a threat of a terrorist act. It's not about being a card carrying member of an organization. There is no difference in profiling with serial killers and terrorists regarding the threat aspect.

But since we did get to profiling and airports with your assumption that a "Muslim man is more likely to bring a bomb into an airport", why is it ok to say a religion poses a threat instead of gender when gender shows a stronger correlation?

3) 1,6b guilty of 50k

"No insults, no videos, just answer me that" from your previous post. After Mumbles/FPS nobody is watching random youtube clips. So stop referring to video you posted.

Regarding your "fair" analogy Muslims aren't exactly a neighborhood. Most terrorist acts don't take place in Muslims. For an actual "fair" analogy you're going to have to embrace racism a bit more than that.

"I take your point that going after these groups leads to collateral damage, perceived racist persecution, and the increased likelihood that their numbers will grow... but we are not in control of the actions of our military and intel agencies, in the same way the average Muslim doesn't give advice to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. However, the threat is very real and, as you point out, likely increasing as the "War on Terror" continues."

I've never made any of these points. It would be that fallacy thingie again, but you're not really even refuting arguments i haven't made. I don't think there's a word for failed straw men.

Then there's a list of groups that pose a terrorist threat. It's likely a good idea to go after them. Seems like it would work better than going after all Muslims.

It's like you didn't address "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."-argument almost at all.
1) "That would be the sane conclusion, but when you lump in all the Muslims with terrorists you're taking a farther look. Taking a few steps back so you can see the big picture when you're looking needle in a haystack."

I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or if you really don't understand how terrorist networks are uncovered, but you need to look in the haystack before you find the needle - as convenient as it would be to only look exactly where the needle is located.

"Are you saying Muslims are Muslims or that Islamic terrorists are Muslim?"

I am saying that all Islamic terrorists are Muslim. I don't think this is a point of contention. If it is, we have nothing more to talk about.


2) "I don't know this argument is worthless. Maybe you should try refuting it instead of claiming to know what i think. A terrorist threat refers to a threat of a terrorist act. It's not about being a card carrying member of an organization. There is no difference in profiling with serial killers and terrorists regarding the threat aspect. But since we did get to profiling and airports with your assumption that a "Muslim man is more likely to bring a bomb into an airport", why is it ok to say a religion poses a threat instead of gender when gender shows a stronger correlation?"

This is where I think you're missing my point. First of all, I did refute your point about gender by pointing out that I believe and hope that males are looked at more closely than females because of the statistical likelihood that they are going to carry out an act of terror. So my point is that I don't think anyone thinks that gender should not be used for profiling and the same argument for gender can be made about your religious affiliations, unfortunately. It may not feel very American to admit it, but the unfortunate fact is that a Muslim person, in current day, is more likely to set off a bomb in a crowded place than someone of another religion, or no religion at all. To your point, a male Muslim is even more likely. I take no pleasure in stating this and I certainly can understand some of the reasoning behind the motives to attack the US and Western targets in general.

And for you to say that there is no difference between a traditional serial killer investigation and the tracking/identifying of potential terrorists is really stunning. I hope you are just saying that to help your side of the argument, because this calls into question your ability to make sincere points.


3) "Most terrorist acts don't take place in Muslims." Cute, but try addressing my actual analogy (which was fair!) or at least try to actually counter it would have been a better strategy. Of course Muslims aren't a neighborhood, but terrorists blend in with the larger, innocent Muslim community in a similar way that gang members and killers blend in "the hood." Were you deliberately being overly literal in order to not address that comparison?

I really don't even want to follow all of your crappy diversions. Especially your last point about how we should go after these groups instead of all Muslims. Are you being serious? Do you think that people in terrorist organizations and cells they setup are registering with the local embassy? They are extremely covert and take great measures to blend in with legitimate businesses and organizations.

I can't believe you are acting so arrogant about your argument, when your side of the argument is getting whittled down to basically admitting that Islamic terrorism is committing the most extreme acts of terrorism and have the most extreme and dangerous groups currently in the world, but we should just target them and not Muslims at-large.

It's disingenuous for you to assert that I've ever said all Muslims should be persecuted. That is not my argument and never has, so don't try to straw man me while accusing me a straw manning. You have no answer when I point out that the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world are Islamic based and you say that the increasingly growing extreme wing of this religion is no more violent or dangerous than any other religion. To stretch this far, I have to assume you have something personal at stake, because you are stepping beyond plain logic.
1) "Are you saying Muslims are Muslims or that Islamic terrorists are Muslim?"

"I am saying that all Islamic terrorists are Muslim. I don't think this is a point of contention. If it is, we have nothing more to talk about."

It's not a point of contention. It's just a waste of time to state it. Unless you think that fact in some way supports your argument or refutes mine.

2) "So my point is that I don't think anyone thinks that gender should not be used for profiling and the same argument for gender can be made about your religious affiliations, unfortunately."

Cool so now we are getting somewhere. If what you stated is true, then can we say "Men pose a terrorist threat"? I mean, it may not feel very human to admit it, but the unfortunate fact is that a men, in current day, are more likely to set off a bomb in a crowded place than women.

3) It's bad analogy so i didn't bother wasting too much time with it.

"your side of the argument is getting whittled down to basically admitting that Islamic terrorism is committing the most extreme acts of terrorism and have the most extreme and dangerous groups currently in the world, but we should just target them and not Muslims at-large"

Yes this is what i believe. I believe this because in your statement we can play with the words "Islamic", "currently" and "Muslims". We can swap "Islamic" with any terrorist group, "currently" with appropriate time period (or moving the statement to past) and "Muslims" with the appropriate larger group. And i believe that to be true every time.

For IRA the statement would have worked like this if you stated it during the "Troubles". The IRA is committing the most extreme acts of terrorism, they are the most extreme and dangerous group currently in the world, but we should just target them and not Catholics at-large. At the time you could have just swapped IRA with Christian (Provisional IRA wasn't the only Catholic group and protestants had their own groups).

"Do you think that people in terrorist organizations and cells they setup are registering with the local embassy? They are extremely covert and take great measures to blend in with legitimate businesses and organizations"

Do you think is true with just Islamic terrorists or does this apply to all terrorists? Also are you under the impression that serial killers register with their local embassy?

"It's disingenuous for you to assert that I've ever said all Muslims should be persecuted. That is not my argument and never has"

Well at this point it doesn't really matter that i've never asserted that, but what do you think that a statement like "Muslims pose a terrorist threat" leads to?

And then this gem, "don't try to straw man me while accusing me a straw manning. You have no answer when I point out that the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world are Islamic based and you say that the increasingly growing extreme wing of this religion is no more violent or dangerous than any other religion. To stretch this far, I have to assume you have something personal at stake, because you are stepping beyond plain logic."

From that, "you say that the increasingly growing extreme wing of this religion is no more violent or dangerous than any other religion" goes to the long list of things i've never said. And then this, "You have no answer when I point out that the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world are Islamic" combined with this from the previous paragraph, "your side of the argument is getting whittled down to basically admitting that Islamic terrorism is committing the most extreme acts of terrorism". Apparently i have no answer while simultaneously admitting something. I just didn't know that was possible. Live and learn. But at least we are aware of the concept of straw men and ad hominem. Not quite understanding what either means in practice, but that's likely just because i have something personal at stake that's clouding my judgement and in all likelihood it's only reasonable to assume that my words have less value because of it.