Afghan refugee attacks several on train in Germany with axe

[Zaap]

When you finish throwing all that straw and bull crap around maybe there's a conversation to be had. Otherwise, just keep slinging.

edit: nothing to say about anything in the linked articles? Did you even bother?

It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that you haven't the foggiest inkling what a strawman is. (HINT: it's not just facts you're afraid to actually address.) Your attempts to shut down debate throwing out terms you don't even know how to use is lame.

That said, there's no having a ration discussion with you or any of the other apologists on this subject. You're simply not reasonable.

I have no problem saying a person who blows up an abortion clinic is a Christian RELIGIOUS NUTBAG. I have no problem saying that they've taken some aspect of Christianity, twisted it and that it's the clear motive behind their violence. I don't need to post a bunch of links that somehow explains their actions as "Workplace stress" or "They just lost a loved one!" or "Poor thing was abused and isolated" or "US foreign policy!" any of the rest of it, because none of that is the actual reason they blew up an abortion clinic. Citing it would just be making stupid excuses because for some reason I couldn't admit there were Christians who are loonbags.

But this is exactly what your ilk does with Islamic terrorists.

I ask again, what do you imagine is in it for you?

 

[Zaap]

Which is why I have strenuously called for isolationism in the Middle East. It is obvious that our continued involvement is nothing but a terrorism breeder.

The US firebombed Japan, and dropped two nukes on them. You ever see a Japanese terrorist? Is there a serious Japanese terror threat, then or now?

Do we face a constant wave of Vietnamese terrorists?

Do we face a constant wave of Native American terrorists?


When was the last time any of these 'bred terrorists' attacked the US on US soil?


What's their issue with the French? You may recall 80+ people dead on a beach there? Or do you remember the Paris attacks? 130 dead, nearly 400 injured.

What's their beef with Germany?

What's their beef with Sweden?

What's their beef with The Netherlands?

Hell, you do realize the #1 target of Islamic terrorists, is other Muslims right? What's their beef with them? How were they 'bred' by the Muslim men, women and children they kill more than anyone else?

Or are you saying it's rational that if someone attacked New York (and actually they did, 2000 people died you may recall) that the #1 target of retaliation would be people in say, Madison Wisconsin? What would make New Yorkers angry over being attacked kill mostly citizens of their own country?

It might dawn on you and others capable of rational thought, that the things bandied about that 'create terrorism' actually historically and currently DON'T.

The vast majority of people who have even grossly unjust violence visited on them don't take up terrorism as any form of logical revenge or reaction. Even the worst violence of war doesn't produce terrorists as a result- not historically, not currently. Even genocides, slavery and other forms of gross injustices done to peoples don't turn people into terrorists.

 

[agent00f]

So, am I correct in understanding that you personally cannot accept the fact that Muslims represent a disproportionate amount of terrorism because "America did and does bad things"?

I'm pointing out that "terrorism" is a fairly arbitrary rhetorical distinction used to characterized how poor people fight wars. Sort of like how conservative types call the dole that black people get "welfare" but not the handouts for themselves.

How did you get that from what I said? Are you a wizard!?

Because if it applied to let's say arabs, then it should be trivial to deduced that they might be peeved as a result. But I can see how some intelligence can be mistaken for wizardry.

 

[agent00f]

The US firebombed Japan, and dropped two nukes on them. You ever see a Japanese terrorist? Is there a serious Japanese terror threat, then or now?

Do we face a constant wave of Vietnamese terrorists?

Do we face a constant wave of Native American terrorists?


When was the last time any of these 'bred terrorists' attacked the US on US soil?


What's their issue with the French? You may recall 80+ people dead on a beach there? Or do you remember the Paris attacks? 130 dead, nearly 400 injured.

What's their beef with Germany?

What's their beef with Sweden?

What's their beef with The Netherlands?

Hell, you do realize the #1 target of Islamic terrorists, is other Muslims right? What's their beef with them? How were they 'bred' by the Muslim men, women and children they kill more than anyone else?

Or are you saying it's rational that if someone attacked New York (and actually they did, 2000 people died you may recall) that the #1 target of retaliation would be people in say, Madison Wisconsin? What would make New Yorkers angry over being attacked kill mostly citizens of their own country?

It might dawn on you and others capable of rational thought, that the things bandied about that 'create terrorism' actually historically and currently DON'T.

The vast majority of people who have even grossly unjust violence visited on them don't take up terrorism as any form of logical revenge or reaction. Even the worst violence of war doesn't produce terrorists as a result- not historically, not currently. Even genocides, slavery and other forms of gross injustices done to peoples don't turn people into terrorists.

I've mentioned this before but it seems the west much prefers entirely submissive conquests who know their place, which I suppose is quite rational in the self-interested sense. This appear well imprinted on the conservative psyche which becomes indignant any time darkies get uppity.

 

[realibrad]

I'm pointing out that "terrorism" is a fairly arbitrary rhetorical distinction used to characterized how poor people fight wars. Sort of like how conservative types call the dole that black people get "welfare" but not the handouts for themselves.

Oh, my bad. So the guys in Paris who tortured people in that club, and even cut off a mans testicles and put them in his mouth is just a way that poor people fight wars. Totally F-ed up that one didn't I? Or killing all the people in Orlando was really just a strategic attack for military ambitions.

Because if it applied to let's say arabs, then it should be trivial to deduced that they might be peeved as a result. But I can see how some intelligence can be mistaken for wizardry.

No. Your response was to imply that I felt that only white people should not be murdered. In no way did I say that, imply that, or in any represent that it was okay. You somehow believe that I did, and are now doubling down on that idea.

How long can you fuck that chicken?

 

[realibrad]

I've mentioned this before but it seems the west much prefers entirely submissive conquests who know their place, which I suppose is quite rational in the self-interested sense. This appear well imprinted on the conservative psyche which becomes indignant any time darkies get uppity.

Oh, I did not realize that the US conquered Japan, you know, with all the settlements they built and what not.

 

[MajinCry]

Oh, I did not realize that the US conquered Japan, you know, with all the settlements they built and what not.

Well, with all the rape that the soldiers are doing around the military bases, it's not THAT far fetched.

 

[realibrad]

Well, with all the rape that the soldiers are doing around the military bases, it's not THAT far fetched.

That is the best rebuttal you have? The rapes that happen around Japan by US soldiers are the same as conquering the entire country. You should try at hyperbolic statements.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Well, with all the rape that the soldiers are doing around the military bases, it's not THAT far fetched.

Doesn't even compare to what the Japanese did in China.

 

[agent00f]

Oh, my bad. So the guys in Paris who tortured people in that club, and even cut off a mans testicles and put them in his mouth is just a way that poor people fight wars. Totally F-ed up that one didn't I? Or killing all the people in Orlando was really just a strategic attack for military ambitions.

Speaking of torture, recall that the civilized americans outsource theirs to the eastern bloc. But I suppose it was for a good cause.

No. Your response was to imply that I felt that only white people should not be murdered. In no way did I say that, imply that, or in any represent that it was okay. You somehow believe that I did, and are now doubling down on that idea.

How long can you fuck that chicken?

I not only imply this but claim it outright: arabs and other subhumans are political expendable in your mind.

There is simply no other explanation for believing that killing a few dozen people is worse than killing a few hundred thousand.

 

[agent00f]

Oh, I did not realize that the US conquered Japan, you know, with all the settlements they built and what not.

Failing at basic reading comprehension is only demeaning to yourself.

 

[realibrad]

Speaking of torture, recall that the civilized americans outsource theirs to the eastern bloc. But I suppose it was for a good cause.

So terrorism is an arbitrary distinction because the US also did terrorism? Do you think that I believe the US did not engage in terrorism torture? I went back and I dont remember saying that.

I not only imply this but claim it outright: arabs and other subhumans are political expendable in your mind.

There is simply no other explanation for believing that killing a few dozen people is worse than killing a few hundred thousand.

First, you are an idiot because the US has not had 100k deaths in collateral damage. That should not detract from the fact that the actual number in the thousands is far to fucking high for sure, but somehow because I did not virtue signal that I hate the US, I must be okay with the real number. I am not, and you are dumb for even thinking that. You saying that I think Arabs and all other "non-whites" are subhuman is sad and sick. Your disdain for anyone who is not 100% in agreement with you is also sad and sick. Trying to conflate what I have actually said with what you just said is pathetic.

But, you did indeed keep fucking that chicken. Were you a body double in Pink Flamingos?

 

[realibrad]

Failing at basic reading comprehension is only demeaning to yourself.

As Japan was mentioned and put forth as an example of a country heavily bombed and far more innocent people killed and yet did not turn to terrorism, I continued with it. What country did the west take over that was submissive? And, what do you mean in that context of the west? The answers to these questions should help my dummy mind understand your complex beliefs.

 

[agent00f]

So terrorism is an arbitrary distinction because the US also did terrorism? Do you think that I believe the US did not engage in terrorism torture? I went back and I dont remember saying that.

No, as explained quite clearly terrorist is what we label the evil poor people, thus by definition the US doesn't commit terrorism.

First, you are an idiot because the US has not had 100k deaths in collateral damage. That should not detract from the fact that the actual number in the thousands is far to fucking high for sure, but somehow because I did not virtue signal that I hate the US, I must be okay with the real number. I am not, and you are dumb for even thinking that. You saying that I think Arabs and all other "non-whites" are subhuman is sad and sick. Your disdain for anyone who is not 100% in agreement with you is also sad and sick. Trying to conflate what I have actually said with what you just said is pathetic.

But, you did indeed keep fucking that chicken. Were you a body double in Pink Flamingos?

I simply believe that the size of numbers matter, even for folks who can't count real good. For example, 10 people killed is 10 times worse than 1 person, and 100 people 10x more worse, and so on.

Going by scientific epidemiological studies that makes a few hundred k in just one war about 10,000 worse than dozens, without figuring the concentration of that number in a moderate population.

This paints a pretty clear picture of the relative worth of arabs vs westerners in your mind whether you admit to it or not.

 

[realibrad]

No, as explained quite clearly terrorist is what we label the evil poor people, thus by definition the US doesn't commit terrorism.

Except I believe they do. For some reason, you are trying to say that I believe only poor people aka non-whites commit terrorism. That is simply false. But, saying otherwise does fit your narrative.

I simply believe that the size of numbers matter, even for folks who can't count real good. For example, 10 people killed is 10 times worse than 1 person, and 100 people 10x more worse, and so on.

No. 10 people whom commit suicide is less bad than 10 doctors killed while in a poor country helping underprivileged people. 1 dead Hilter is not equal to 1 dead Beyonce.

Going by scientific epidemiological studies that makes a few hundred k in just one war about 10,000 worse than dozens, without figuring the concentration of that number in a moderate population.

This paints a pretty clear picture of the relative worth of arabs vs westerners in your mind whether you admit to it or not.

Except I have not given any comment about the value of the lives lost at all. You have created a feeling that I have because you consider me something to be disagreed with. I have literally said things that show I do not believe the narrative you are painting, but you wont let that stop you, too much chicken fucking to be done and so little time!

 

[bshole]

Going by scientific epidemiological studies that makes a few hundred k in just one war about 10,000 worse than dozens, without figuring the concentration of that number in a moderate population.

This paints a pretty clear picture of the relative worth of arabs vs westerners in your mind whether you admit to it or not.

I think America bagged 100k or so innocent civilians in the Iraq war. So we definitely got our pound of flesh for 9/11. Too bad Iraq had nothing to 9/11.

Unfortunately we got a little more than we bargained for. I feel that the Iraq war will be the gift that never stops giving.

 

[realibrad]

I think America bagged 100k or so innocent civilians in the Iraq war. So we definitely got our pound of flesh for 9/11. Too bad Iraq had nothing to 9/11.

Unfortunately we got a little more than we bargained for. I feel that the Iraq war will be the gift that never stops giving.

No, America did not "bag" that many. The only way you can get close to the 100k is if you include injured as casualties and deaths that were not done by US solders. US forces in no way killed anywhere near that number.

 

[agent00f]

No, America did not "bag" that many. The only way you can get close to the 100k is if you include injured as casualties and deaths that were not done by US solders. US forces in no way killed anywhere near that number.

Scientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. Now to be fair, they weren't all killed by westerners, but that's like saying the poverty & radicalism & such resulting from war can't be blamed on the west because westerners didn't directly steal food from those people.

 

[realibrad]

Scientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. Now to be fair, they weren't all killed by westerners, but that's like saying the poverty & radicalism & such resulting from war can't be blamed on the west because westerners didn't directly steal food from those people.

Those things cant be explicitly blamed on the "West". I am not saying the US should be blameless for entering into a war based on lies and helping start a destabilizing effect in the region, but it should not hold anywhere near 100% responsibility for those deaths. Civil war was mainly due to the hatred of the people that was building long before the US invaded. So to claim that there was 100k+ deaths by the US and or West is absurd.

 

[agent00f]

Those things cant be explicitly blamed on the "West". I am not saying the US should be blameless for entering into a war based on lies and helping start a destabilizing effect in the region, but it should not hold anywhere near 100% responsibility for those deaths. Civil war was mainly due to the hatred of the people that was building long before the US invaded. So to claim that there was 100k+ deaths by the US and or West is absurd.

Something like 15% of those deaths were by air strikes, which I'm pretty sure weren't from iraqi planes, and is about in line with previous wars. This suggests a majority of those deaths were caused directly by massive military might instead of the podunk fighting afterward.

 

[MajinCry]

Doesn't even compare to what the Japanese did in China.

Shame that the US soldiers are raping today's Japanese women then, and not said Japanese rapists of yore.

 

[realibrad]

Something like 15% of those deaths were by air strikes, which I'm pretty sure weren't from iraqi planes, and is about in line with previous wars. This suggests a majority of those deaths were caused directly by massive military might instead of the podunk fighting afterward.

And 15% of 100k is vastly different than 100k. Still sickeningly and makes my stomach turn when trying to wrap my mind around a number that can never fully be emotionally understood, but still very different than what your originally purported.

 

[agent00f]

And 15% of 100k is vastly different than 100k. Still sickeningly and makes my stomach turn when trying to wrap my mind around a number that can never fully be emotionally understood, but still very different than what your originally purported.

No, that's ~15% of ~500,000, from weaponry that's typically responsible for ~15% of deaths from modern military campaigns.

In any case it's frankly completely immaterial whether that 10,000x number is 1,000 or even 100.

 

[realibrad]

No, that's ~15% of ~500,000, from weaponry that's typically responsible for ~15% of deaths from modern military campaigns.

In any case it's frankly completely immaterial whether that 10,000x number is 1,000 or even 100.

You do not understand what you are reading and or you sources are shit. Check out this site. Scroll down and change all perpetrators to US-led coalition, no Iraqi state forces.

See how different the numbers are?

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/


Then lets go back to the original point.

Do you accept the fact that Muslims represent a disproportionate amount of terrorism?

 

[agent00f]

You do not understand what you are reading and or you sources are shit. Check out this site. Scroll down and change all perpetrators to US-led coalition, no Iraqi state forces.

See how different the numbers are?

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/

The IBC only tallies verified deaths from media reports & such, which necessarily underscounts particularly in midst a warzone. Fortunately science/math has better tools available to calculate such figures.

Then lets go back to the original point.

Do you accept the fact that Muslims represent a disproportionate amount of terrorism?

I suppose they're responsible for a lot of poor people fighting in the same way that the US is responsible for some thousands times more fatalities in the guise of "military actions" as someone here puts it.

Evidently arguments by rhetorical definition work really well on the dummies because they don't even realize how it works even after clear explanations.