|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2016 01:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Since 2012 France has really seen a lot of extra terrorist activities. Some of whom claim this increased frequency in attack is due to their involvement in the Libyan strikes. Hell, the terrorists themselves shout it. But what can France do to stop it at this point and what should they do? I think it's clear I'd rather have a show of such supreme force that the threat is real. Because clearly, Mohammed and his self radicalized terrorist cell in Toulouse will give plenty of fucks when you guys bomb plenty of innocent civilians. That'll show them. Sidenote, is there a chart or something i can look at to see how much of a problem islamic terrorism in the US actually is, compared to "white dudes with mental health issues"? Would be interesting. edit: actual numbers please, not some Breitbart crap and the like.
It'd be nice if the left didn't keep trying to obfuscate and re-write history so the numbers are less than they are. I know we've had multiple attacks in Canada / attempts in Canada. And we're relatively tiny population wise. USA has caught / thwarted many attacks in recent years and detained many people.
It's about attacks per capita. Europe will experience the brunt of simply due to not being divided by an ocean. American Muslims while a percent of them actually are radical and sympathetic to ISIS or some other Islamic groups there will always be less attacks on American soil. i.e. a Somali man took a hostage in Texas in the past week or so and got shot dead right after the Orlando shootings. The increased # of terrorist attacks where there is almost one happening every single day of Ramadan is quite telling after all the jihadist groups shouted for increased action.
Many attacks in the US aren't even called terrorist attacks when they are. They tried to pass off both the San Bernardino attacks as 'disgruntled employee / workplace violence' and the Orlando shooter as 'self-hating gay brought upon by Republicans'. Meanwhile both shooters took trips to Saudi Arabia, both shooters had family members who knew what was going to happen, and it's very clear what ideology they most identified with.
I'm not arguing that Muslims attack more people per capita in the USA actually because I don't have the evidence for that to make such a claim. But in Europe we're seeing more and more of it definitely. And we have to go through a left vs right on each attack rather than a, "what actually happened, let's wait for the actual facts without spinning this." But every attack is a new argument. "Paris didn't happen because of the refugee crisis!" "Yes it did!" "No it didn't!" "Yes it did!" etc.
+ Show Spoiler +2008.07.06 USA Jonesboro, GA 1 0 A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
2009.02.12 USA Buffalo, NY 1 0 The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.
2009.04.12 USA Phoenix, AZ 2 0 A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.
2009.06.01 USA Little Rock, AR 1 1 A Muslim shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.
2009.11.02 USA Glendale, AZ 1 1 A woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too 'Westernized.' (10-20-09)
2009.11.05 USA Ft. Hood, TX 13 31 A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.
2009.12.04 USA Binghamton, NY 1 0 A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.
2010.04.14 USA Marquette Park, IL 5 2 After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'.
2011.04.30 USA Warren, MI 1 0 A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.
2011.09.11 USA Waltham, MA 3 0 Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Muslim terrorists.
2012.01.15 USA Houston, TX 1 0 A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim for helping to convert his daughter.
2012.11.12 USA Houston, TX 1 0 A 28-year-old American man is shot to death by a conservative Muslim over an alleged role in converting a woman to Christianity.
2013.02.07 USA Buena Vista, NJ 2 0 A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.
2013.03.24 USA Ashtabula, OH 1 0 A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.
2013.04.15 USA Boston, MA 3 264 Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.
2013.04.19 USA Boston, MA 1 1 Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.
2013.08.04 USA Richmond, CA 1 0 A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death.
2014.03.06 USA Port Bolivar, TX 2 0 A Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death and leaves a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
2014.04.27 USA Skyway, WA 1 0 A 30-year-old man is murdered by a Muslim fanatic.
2014.06.01 USA Seattle, WA 2 0 Two homosexuals are murdered by an Islamic extremist.
2014.06.25 USA West Orange, NJ 1 0 A 19-year-old college student is shot to death 'in revenge' for Muslim deaths overseas.
2014.09.25 USA Moore, OK 1 1 A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.
2014.12.18 USA Morganton, NC 1 0 A 74-year-old man is shot several times in the head by a 'radicalized' ISIS supporter.
2015.07.16 USA Chattanooga, TN 5 2 A 'devout Muslim' stages a suicide attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center which leaves five dead.
2015.12.02 USA San Bernardino, CA 14 17 A 'very religious' Muslim shoots up a Christmas party with his wife, leaving fourteen dead.
2016.06.13 USA Orlando, FL 49 53 An Islamic extremist massacres forty-nine people at a gay nightclub.
Here's a list of confirmed Islamic attacks. It doesn't count failed attacks / thwarted attacks of which there were many as well. But no I do not have numbers on hand that compare # of terrorist attacks to one another. "White dudes with mental health issues" made up 61-64% of mass shootings, which is actually representative of their population size.
|
On June 24 2016 01:07 SolaR- wrote:
Generally, that is how I see kwizach as well. It is nice he provides sources and obviously has a lot of knowledge and experience to support his own agenda. However, I feel like his entire motive is his agenda and he doesn't really seem objective or open minded to anything that doesn't fall into his perspective.
In that post, he only provided secondary sources. While they are scholarly sources, they all fit in line with his opinions. History can be very interpretative and you can find different scholars using the same facts to support completely different assertions. Or they purposely include certain facts that support their arguments but purposely disclude others that work against their argument.
I skimmed through it but didn't find anything convincing enough to make me think with absolute certainity that his reasoning is correct.
This would be fine if you provided any kind of sources for your position. Let's assume his position on this would be largely correct (like in factually correct), how would his presentation have to be in this case to convince you? On the other hand why should someone take your position?
On June 24 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:
I couldn't have said it better myself. Half of the time he just throws out a wall of sources claiming that they stand for proposition X when there is no realistic possibility of verifying either the claim that the source actually stands for that proposition, or that the source cited is sound/unimpeachable. I did take the time to look at some of the stuff that he posted in his most recent wall of bullshit post, and I found it highly wanting. Points were misrepresented, sources were over-cited, and some of the sources were just ridiculous. If I had several free days, I could have posted a meaningful response if I was so inclined. And I'm not. The only result would be the complete shitting up of this thread with stuff that basically no one cares about.
Long story short, there's a reason why kwizach is ignored by many of the veteran posters in this thread.
I'd be interested to hear about the parts you found wanting. I mean that seriously (I admit that I didn't have the time to go through the sources myself but I am still interested to do so and your reply might help me with choosing).
|
On June 24 2016 01:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Since 2012 France has really seen a lot of extra terrorist activities. Some of whom claim this increased frequency in attack is due to their involvement in the Libyan strikes. Hell, the terrorists themselves shout it. But what can France do to stop it at this point and what should they do? I think it's clear I'd rather have a show of such supreme force that the threat is real. Because clearly, Mohammed and his self radicalized terrorist cell in Toulouse will give plenty of fucks when you guys bomb plenty of innocent civilians. That'll show them. Sidenote, is there a chart or something i can look at to see how much of a problem islamic terrorism in the US actually is, compared to "white dudes with mental health issues"? Would be interesting. edit: actual numbers please, not some Breitbart crap and the like.
The Times did a detailed article a year ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0
Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.
In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.
The article has a good number of lines to where they found the data. White Nationalist are much more of an active threat to the average person and Islamic extremists just by raw numbers alone.
|
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists.
|
Ascribing motivations to the dead is always a rather tricky matter; and most people have many sources feeding into their actions.
In case anyone missed it the first tim around in this thread: The RAND report on why terrorist groups end:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1.html
If you just want to read the brief:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351.html
and if you just want an abstract:
"How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force."
|
Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company?
On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists.
They usually act alone, but the radicalization of unstable white men is quite similar. They are almost always part of some community that shares their views, either on the internet or locally. It's not as if either comes to the idea of shooting innocent people wholly on their own despite the moniker of "lone wolf" always being used to describe white shooters. Even if they are more closely tied to a supremacy group than this Orlando shooter was ISIS.
|
On June 24 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company?
Got a link to the email?
|
On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists.
It is sort of telling that you automatically assume any violent act by a white person is due them being mentally unstable. But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about Sovereign Citizens, Free state and white nationalists.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/september/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418262038/homegrown-threat-fbi-tracks-white-supremicists-domestic-extremists
The FBI has been following these group for the past decade and warning that they are just as much of a threat as any Islamic terrorist. They even issued a warning of them trying to infiltrate law enforcement.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/402521/doc-26-white-supremacist-infiltration.pdf
(The report is redacted by the FBI)
And the raw numbers speak for themselves. The difference is that these groups don't want headlines and are not seeking press like international terrorists. They want power to intimidate local governments and control over local law enforcement.
|
On June 24 2016 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company? Got a link to the email?
It was posted here earlier by someone else. Did you not see it or are you questioning the veracity?
|
On June 24 2016 01:40 silynxer wrote:
I'd be interested to hear about the parts you found wanting. I mean that seriously (I admit that I didn't have the time to go through the sources myself but I am still interested to do so and your reply might help me with choosing).
I don't remember all of the details, but one of the most obvious problems with kwizach's post was using an article discussing the lack of efficacy of carpet bombing in Vietnam to demonstrate that total warfare does not work. Other stuff that he cited also used varying definitions of "total warfare" or "barbarism" that weren't even necessarily germane to the points that I and other posters were making (and that's without even taking into consideration the laughably crude analysis that at least one of those authors employed).
The bottom line is that a full response to all of this would ruin this thread. No one wants to go that far our into the weeds.
|
On June 24 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company?
Yes, Hillary laid out everything on Assad in her e-mails. The only thing I didn't see mentioned was the Qatar pipeline.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 24 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists. It is sort of telling that you automatically assume any violent act by a white person is due them being mentally unstable. But that isn't what we are talking about.
Um, multiple posters who disagree with me on this issue have used the "mentally white unstable person is more dangerous than the Islamic terrorist" as a foil in this thread. I'm not assuming anything.
|
On June 24 2016 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company? Got a link to the email? It was posted here earlier by someone else. Did you not see it or are you questioning the veracity?
I can't keep track of every post in this thread. Wasn't really sure what to search for, so I was assuming you had it on hand in some way.
|
On June 24 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists. It is sort of telling that you automatically assume any violent act by a white person is due them being mentally unstable. But that isn't what we are talking about. Um, multiple posters who disagree with me on this issue have used the "mentally white unstable person is more dangerous than the Islamic terrorist" as a foil in this thread. I'm not assuming anything.
There was a lot more to that post, do you have anything else to say? Because we are not talking about the mentally ill here.
|
On June 24 2016 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:40 silynxer wrote:
I'd be interested to hear about the parts you found wanting. I mean that seriously (I admit that I didn't have the time to go through the sources myself but I am still interested to do so and your reply might help me with choosing). \ The bottom line is that a full response to all of this would ruin this thread. No one wants to go that far our into the weeds.
I think this is wise. Let's not forget that genocide and that kinda thing got the thread locked last time. And it's never going to happen, so there are likely more compelling topics for us to discuss. I mean, we've got a general election going on. We can ignore all-out war for now lol
|
On June 24 2016 02:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On June 24 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists. It is sort of telling that you automatically assume any violent act by a white person is due them being mentally unstable. But that isn't what we are talking about. Um, multiple posters who disagree with me on this issue have used the "mentally white unstable person is more dangerous than the Islamic terrorist" as a foil in this thread. I'm not assuming anything. There was a lot more to that post, do you have anything else to say? Because we are not talking about the mentally ill here.
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, and frankly, I don't care, when you go out of your way to misrepresent my post.
|
On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists.
Am I less dead if someone kills me without an agenda? If not I don't really care. The dangerous part is the murder thing, not the agenda
|
On June 23 2016 23:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 23:27 ticklishmusic wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the affirmative action program at the University of Texas at Austin, ending a protracted legal battle.
It was not immediately clear how far-reaching the ruling will be because of the specifics of the Texas program at issue.
A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race.
That last step was the program under court challenge, upheld by the justices Thursday. Supreme Court upholds Affirmative ActionThank goodness. But seriously, this girl didn't get into her dream school and couldn't get over it in 4 years? Jeez. Why thank goodness? Maybe affirmative action had its place, but why should race be on any application? The best way to guarantee fair acceptance into a college is based on academic and merit. The reviewer should never have to see, nor consider the race of the applicant. Diversity should be based on the character of the individual and not the color.
+1 it would be great if we could all come to that conclusion but the problem is there are going to be unreasonable people on all sides. Whites who see discrimination against themselves and overvalue it while undervaluing discrimination against say blacks, and vice versa. Each one of these unreasonable groups continues to home-in on the other sides transgressions against the other, even if the vast majority of people are attempting to behave in the 'color-blind' manner in which you described. It's a self-replicating cycle that continues to breed more future racists as a result of irrationality and cognitive bias.
The only way it stops is an external threat that unites people under common ground. I don't think racism will ever truly die until we discover intelligent alien life. Then maybe humans will stop seeing each other as 'black' or 'white' and maybe as 'human' to distinguish themselves from the other 'non-human'. It's just how the brain works to distinguish itself and like-entities from 'the other'.
On June 23 2016 23:42 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote:I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column?  100%, I actually think you're a sociopath (at the least) for advocating those things.
On June 23 2016 23:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote:I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? Sociopathic asshole is the description your searching.
This is an incorrect application of 'sociopathic' you are wrong. You can argue it's unethical, but it by no means makes him a sociopath.
|
I think we should stand in the middle of Syria completely naked with signs written in paint that say "love always wins". I believe if we demonstrate peace and love they will grow to see that their wicked ways are wrong.
|
Somewhere in between killing families and complete pacifism lies the solution, clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pDewE/ba54be27cb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pDezT/566faf1d57.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pDeEi/7baf07b61b.jpg)
