Terrorist Attack in London

[gimmick]

It's obv a useless exercise.

My post wasn't 3 paragraphs. The relevant arguments you claimed i hadn't made in this thread were compiled in 3 paragraphs. If you disagree with any of them, you can very easily refute them with your mastery of basic logic and history. They are at the end of the post. You start at the bottom and count to 3.

Moving goalposts again....


Just tell me one argument and I'll refute it, how's that sound? You seem so interested in being a contrarian that you don't have any actual stance. I would like to hear what your thoughts on Islamic terrorism are... you seem to think the threat is overblown and not at all more extreme than any other group that used terrorism as a tactic in the past. No insults, no videos, just answer me that.

My one argument is "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."

I'll address the more extreme/on a another level/super terrorist angle to save time. I don't think ISIS is fundamentally different from past groups. Most notorious terrorist groups were more extreme than previous groups.

Below are the rest of the non-existing arguments i apparently have never made. They are in many ways tied together. Not that many sentences. I'm sure you're capable of reading them all. That way we can save time when i don't have to quote myself in the future in response.

"Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.

Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.

And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them."

[MumblesBadly]

Why? Because those evil Muslim bogeymen would then kill this infidel?

 

Blunder, you really are a pussy scaredy cat, aren't ya. Go ahead. Admit it. You're secret will be safe with us.

Nah, you're right. Killing infidels isn't something muslims would do. It's a religion of peace, after all.

Wow. You're right. Christians would never use violence to attack and control people of other religions.

Oh, wait. What's this?



Weapons Inscribed With Secret Codes
https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.g...3Fid%3D9575794

[GringoStar]

Moving goalposts again....


Just tell me one argument and I'll refute it, how's that sound? You seem so interested in being a contrarian that you don't have any actual stance. I would like to hear what your thoughts on Islamic terrorism are... you seem to think the threat is overblown and not at all more extreme than any other group that used terrorism as a tactic in the past. No insults, no videos, just answer me that.

My one argument is "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."

I'll address the more extreme/on a another level/super terrorist angle to save time. I don't think ISIS is fundamentally different from past groups. Most notorious terrorist groups were more extreme than previous groups.

Below are the rest of the non-existing arguments i apparently have never made. They are in many ways tied together. Not that many sentences. I'm sure you're capable of reading them all. That way we can save time when i don't have to quote myself in the future in response.

"Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.

Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.

And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them."

I am glad you laid these out again. I'll explain why your argument has been confusing and lacking conviction (to me at least).


YOUR NOT-A-BIGGER THREAT ARGUMENT:

Your thesis: "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."

Then you say: "Most notorious terrorist groups were more extreme than previous groups." Here you acknowledge the inclination for current thriving groups like ISIS and AQAP to be more "extreme" than previous groups, based on their current status as the world's biggest terrorist organizations. Previous groups were groups like the the PLO and IRA, but have since died down significantly through various splits and ceasefires over the decades.

So you don't think ISIS is fundamentally different than terrorist groups in the past, you just think it's more extreme and more violent as part of a natural continuum of increasingly extreme groups that resort to terrorism? To me, an exponential jump in size, capability and brutality is a meaningful enough difference to warrant a closer look. While we can argue whether religion is really a driving force behind the violence, the correlation to Islam is unfortunately undeniable.

YOUR GENDER POINT:

Your point about gender being a more accurate identifier of a terrorist than religion sounds good, but we both know (at least I hope) that it's worthless in this argument and is kind of one of those "you're more likely to get killed by a toddler than a suicide bomber" points that falls flat.

One thing is that trying to filter, identify and monitor people that pose a particular threat to a population is different than trying to do something like track a serial killer. It matters that 90% of serial killers are male because you are looking for one person, whereas with terrorism, you are often dealing with a network of people that can extend beyond just young men. Also, I am sure that analysts do take into account that a man is more likely to carry a bomb into an airport, but they also know that a Muslim man is more likely to bring a bomb into an airport.


YOUR 1.6 BILLION SHOULDN'T SUFFER FOR 50k:

I think the YouTube video I posted earlier actually covers part of the counter-argument to this quite nicely, but I'll add a couple things, because I feel this is your strongest argument and I completely sympathize with Muslims who are tired of receiving extra scrutiny due to the actions of others that they have no control over. I feel the same way about "the hood" in major US cities and I feel badly that innocent people get their doors kicked in or stop-and-frisked without probable cause, but that doesn't mean that "the hood" isn't deserving of increased policing.

Just because the highest incidents of police abuse occur in a rough neighborhood doesn't detract from the fact that the most murders occur in rough neighborhoods. Do you see the parallel? I think it's a fair analogy.

I think it's important to take into account the fact that TODAY Islamic terrorist groups are the big startups in the terrorism world. I understand this may just be Islam's time to hold this title based on the uprisings, wars and subsequent power vacuums in the last several decades, but I am concerned about today and I am concerned about people who would want to attack a place like Chicago, where I currently live.

Maybe in 20-30 years some Christian or Jewish terrorist group will pose a bigger threat to Americans and the Islamic terror groups of today will seem preferable, but I am concerned with the current reality. For instance, the current top 5 most deadly terrorist organizations:

1) ISIS/ISIL (Muslim)
2) Boko Haram (Muslim)
3) Quds Force (Muslim)
4) Haqqani Network (Muslim)
5) Hezbollah (you guessed it... Muslim)

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.


UPDATED LIST, as the above is based on the 2015 Global Terrorism Index. Here is the 2016 Global Terrorism Index updated top 4, in case you want to mix some current reality into your historical stew of relativism:

1) ISIL (still Muslim)
2) Taliban (still Muslim)
3) Boko Haram (still Muslim)
4) Al-Qa'ida (Buddhist)

[Deal]

For instance, the current top 5 most deadly terrorist organizations:

1) ISIS/ISIL (Muslim)
2) Boko Haram (Muslim)
3) Quds Force (Muslim)
4) Haqqani Network (Muslim)
5) Hezbollah (you guessed it... Muslim)

Source? Where is the USA and Israel on that list and why aren't they 1 and 2?

[GringoStar]

For instance, the current top 5 most deadly terrorist organizations:

1) ISIS/ISIL (Muslim)
2) Boko Haram (Muslim)
3) Quds Force (Muslim)
4) Haqqani Network (Muslim)
5) Hezbollah (you guessed it... Muslim)

Source? Where is the USA and Israel on that list and why aren't they 1 and 2?

Well, I am glad you asked because my stats were actually based on the 2015 Global Terrorism Index. The 2016 Global Terrorism Index is slightly different, but it highlights the 4 most deadly terrorist groups. But unfortunately for you, it only further solidifies my point. Can't wait for you to start providing some information, but you should probably read the entire thing before pretending to know what you're talking about: http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-cont...dex-2016.2.pdf

1) ISIL (still Muslim)
2) Taliban (still Muslim)
3) Boko Haram (still Muslim)
4) Al-Qa'ida (Rastafarian)

I have no problem with Muslim people, but facts are facts. The problem with people who have a knee-jerk reaction to correct this is that they feel that laying out statistics is somehow my sneaky way of saying that all Muslims are suspicious and potential terrorists. By disagreeing with these stats you aren't telling everyone that you aren't a bigot, you are telling everyone that winning the argument is more important than learning new information. When the US army went into Iraq in 2003, I was calling the US administration monsters.

I won't for a second say that I am at all a fan of the US drone war and the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but the amount of innocent casualties resulting from the Israelis and US military currently is almost nothing compared to what is happening to Muslims and others at the hands of Islamic extremist groups. This isn't a pro Israel or pro American stance or pro al-Assad stance, this is a matter of fact.

[Deal]

Most terrorism is state sponsored and backed by external governments to further their sphere of influence and financial interests. Those governments cannot get a free pass. They should be recognized for the direct role they play in both creating the conflicts, financing the conflicts, and training the 'side' they have interests in.

The CIA kill list and drone strikes is a clear case of current direct US terrorism. They are indirectly responsible for a whole lot more of what is happening today and historically they have held the #1 position since the Great war.

It's ridiculous to assert that the brown man using US weapons and trained and directed by the US to overthrow a government or to stop democracy from taking hold is somehow the person solely responsible for the act.

[MumblesBadly]

Most terrorism is state sponsored and backed by external governments to further their sphere of influence and financial interests. Those governments cannot get a free pass. They should be recognized for the direct role they play in both creating the conflicts, financing the conflicts, and training the 'side' they have interests in.

The CIA kill list and drone strikes is a clear case of current direct US terrorism. They are indirectly responsible for a whole lot more of what is happening today and historically they have held the #1 position since the Great war.

It's ridiculous to assert that the brown man using US weapons and trained and directed by the US to overthrow a government or to stop democracy from taking hold is somehow the person solely responsible for the act.

[Deal]

It's unfortunate that Trump is just making it worse. For every civilian he kills how many oppressed brown people decide that the USA is to be avenged in the only way they know how? These drone strikes are not only missing the 'target' but they are creating more future targets and increasing the danger for terrorist attacks on US soil. No amount of Muslim banning and bashing will stop it.

Peace out.

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-war-c...s-syria-577353

[GringoStar]

It's unfortunate that Trump is just making it worse. For every civilian he kills how many oppressed brown people decide that the USA is to be avenged in the only way they know how? These drone strikes are not only missing the 'target' but they are creating more future targets and increasing the danger for terrorist attacks on US soil. No amount of Muslim banning and bashing will stop it.

Peace out.

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-war-c...s-syria-577353

Again, I said I am not a fan of the drone war that was escalated greatly by Obama and clearly is being continued under Trump.

This has nothing to do with "brown people" and you are merely showing an example of the too-often-referenced "bigotry of low expectations." Also, again, my concern is the reality to me and what I can control. You aren't going to stop the drone war, the same way that moderate (lay) Muslims will have no influence on the growing number of people who would love to murder you.

It's a sad reality, but it's reality nonetheless. I try to keep my outlook on this based on what is real and what I can control, instead of how the historical context makes me feel as an American. Sure I feel guilty, I grew up extremely liberal and I am more than aware of the pattern of colonialism and blowback, but to act like these are just "brown people" who are hopping on white people's modern technology kind of gives off a fairly racist, Planet of the Apes view of Arabs and Muslims at-large. Shame on you.

[Deal]

You aren't going to stop the drone war.

Not with that attitude. The terrorism you refer to is a defense, not an offense. 911 was the middle east tweeting directly to the American people to look into their governments actions. There are legitimate grievances that have festered. Stop the offensive behavior that is leading to the terrorism and see what happens. That ultimately is what stopped the IRA.

The concept that you can end terrorism by droning the shit out of civilians and walling off white country is drunk miner logic. This we can agree on.

[gimmick]

My one argument is "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."

I'll address the more extreme/on a another level/super terrorist angle to save time. I don't think ISIS is fundamentally different from past groups. Most notorious terrorist groups were more extreme than previous groups.

Below are the rest of the non-existing arguments i apparently have never made. They are in many ways tied together. Not that many sentences. I'm sure you're capable of reading them all. That way we can save time when i don't have to quote myself in the future in response.

"Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.

Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.

And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them."

I am glad you laid these out again. I'll explain why your argument has been confusing and lacking conviction (to me at least).


YOUR NOT-A-BIGGER THREAT ARGUMENT:

Your thesis: "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."

Then you say: "Most notorious terrorist groups were more extreme than previous groups." Here you acknowledge the inclination for current thriving groups like ISIS and AQAP to be more "extreme" than previous groups, based on their current status as the world's biggest terrorist organizations. Previous groups were groups like the the PLO and IRA, but have since died down significantly through various splits and ceasefires over the decades.

So you don't think ISIS is fundamentally different than terrorist groups in the past, you just think it's more extreme and more violent as part of a natural continuum of increasingly extreme groups that resort to terrorism? To me, an exponential jump in size, capability and brutality is a meaningful enough difference to warrant a closer look. While we can argue whether religion is really a driving force behind the violence, the correlation to Islam is unfortunately undeniable.

YOUR GENDER POINT:

Your point about gender being a more accurate identifier of a terrorist than religion sounds good, but we both know (at least I hope) that it's worthless in this argument and is kind of one of those "you're more likely to get killed by a toddler than a suicide bomber" points that falls flat.

One thing is that trying to filter, identify and monitor people that pose a particular threat to a population is different than trying to do something like track a serial killer. It matters that 90% of serial killers are male because you are looking for one person, whereas with terrorism, you are often dealing with a network of people that can extend beyond just young men. Also, I am sure that analysts do take into account that a man is more likely to carry a bomb into an airport, but they also know that a Muslim man is more likely to bring a bomb into an airport.


YOUR 1.6 BILLION SHOULDN'T SUFFER FOR 50k:

I think the YouTube video I posted earlier actually covers part of the counter-argument to this quite nicely, but I'll add a couple things, because I feel this is your strongest argument and I completely sympathize with Muslims who are tired of receiving extra scrutiny due to the actions of others that they have no control over. I feel the same way about "the hood" in major US cities and I feel badly that innocent people get their doors kicked in or stop-and-frisked without probable cause, but that doesn't mean that "the hood" isn't deserving of increased policing.

Just because the highest incidents of police abuse occur in a rough neighborhood doesn't detract from the fact that the most murders occur in rough neighborhoods. Do you see the parallel? I think it's a fair analogy.

I think it's important to take into account the fact that TODAY Islamic terrorist groups are the big startups in the terrorism world. I understand this may just be Islam's time to hold this title based on the uprisings, wars and subsequent power vacuums in the last several decades, but I am concerned about today and I am concerned about people who would want to attack a place like Chicago, where I currently live.

Maybe in 20-30 years some Christian or Jewish terrorist group will pose a bigger threat to Americans and the Islamic terror groups of today will seem preferable, but I am concerned with the current reality. For instance, the current top 5 most deadly terrorist organizations:

1) ISIS/ISIL (Muslim)
2) Boko Haram (Muslim)
3) Quds Force (Muslim)
4) Haqqani Network (Muslim)
5) Hezbollah (you guessed it... Muslim)

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.


UPDATED LIST, as the above is based on the 2015 Global Terrorism Index. Here is the 2016 Global Terrorism Index updated top 4, in case you want to mix some current reality into your historical stew of relativism:

1) ISIL (still Muslim)
2) Taliban (still Muslim)
3) Boko Haram (still Muslim)
4) Al-Qa'ida (Buddhist)

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.

[GringoStar]

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.

[GringoStar]

911 was the middle east tweeting directly to the American people to look into their governments actions.

That sounds really familiar... Did you steal that definition of "blowback" from an editorial in Teen Vogue?

[adamantium]

Bottom line is I think we all can agree that all Muslims must die

[gimmick]

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.

[GringoStar]

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.

I think we can end this here, I don't either of us are effectively convincing the other one and this has become an exercise that I would otherwise request compensation for.

But I have enjoyed this back and forth, although I still don't think there is any argument for stating that Islamic terrorism isn't the biggest threat currently, in terms of terrorism. Perhaps we have some minute differences on how people should be profiled, but I don't think you really believe that the world is really as flexible and relative as a sentence and that merely demonstrating the ability to swap words and subjectively get a sense that something is true is no metric for factual accuracy.

And you have done a good job at catching me making personal attacks/assumptions and it was your own muted version of an off-track personal attack, but well played. We will have to agree to disagree.

[thesidedish]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/848900228484919296

U STILL LIBTARDED???

[gimmick]

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.

I think we can end this here, I don't either of us are effectively convincing the other one and this has become an exercise that I would otherwise request compensation for.

But I have enjoyed this back and forth, although I still don't think there is any argument for stating that Islamic terrorism isn't the biggest threat currently, in terms of terrorism. Perhaps we have some minute differences on how people should be profiled, but I don't think you really believe that the world is really as flexible and relative as a sentence and that merely demonstrating the ability to swap words and subjectively get a sense that something is true is no metric for factual accuracy.

And you have done a good job at catching me making personal attacks/assumptions and it was your own muted version of an off-track personal attack, but well played. We will have to agree to disagree.

There is no argument that Islamic terrorism isn't the biggest threat currently(of all terrorist groups if you go by religion). At least i've never made one. My argument has been just that you can't claim that Muslims are a threat because of it. Mostly because we haven't really done it with most other religions, nationalities, ideologies etc. And we've dealt with the past forms of terrorism just fine.

The argument that all Muslims pose a terrorist threat btw was done way before Islamic terror groups took the top spot (excluding gender). I'm not sure, if increasing the number of jihadists and their activity was an official mission goal for War on Terror, but in that regard it sure has been successful.



Oh and there's no profiling done by airport security. It's just randomized. It's gives by far the best results with their limited resources. Sure you could get better results if you knew what you were doing by other methods, but if you don't know exactly what to look for you can do way worse.
Think of it like playing rock-paper-scissors by randomizing.

[FPS_Russia]

Just think if gun deaths and car crashes got as much coverage as terrorism.
The MSM and the MIC are one and the same, stop letting Bibi and all these Pentagon blohards scare our country into financial ruin. The Neocons are draft dodging pussies who talk a good game, think for yourself.


The neocons created this mess now they're trying to "protect us". Gorsuch is a card carrying neocon.


I think we should give Nader a $600 billion annual budget to keep us safe from crashes and gun violence.

[Deal]

Just think if gun deaths and car crashes got as much coverage as terrorism.
The MSM and the MIC are one and the same, stop letting Bibi and all these Pentagon blohards scare our country into financial ruin. The Neocons are draft dodging pussies who talk a good game, think for yourself.


The neocons created this mess now they're trying to "protect us". Gorsuch is a card carrying neocon.


I think we should give Nader a $600 billion annual budget to keep us safe from crashes and gun violence.

Add sugar and cigarette pushers to your list of terrorist organisations. They kill way more Americans than 'religious extremists' Call them corporate elite extremists or to be more opportunistic "Republican extremists" Send the drones to takeout Coke and Philip Morris.