|
|
Post by Jindred on Mar 22, 2016 17:58:19 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure your video saskabronco is cut off right after that statement on purpose. So you can't hear the rest. I have heard him say that several times and each time he talks of people who know what is going to happen. The refrigerator thing is kind of silly. If we could stop refrig's from killing people we would. So tell the families of the victims in France, Belgium, San Bernadino, etc that we should do nothing because of refrigerators. The hands thing was not said years ago. It was Rubio a day or so before Trump brought it up and I don't hear him talk about it constantly. Just once. But all of these people do repeat themselves a lot. Hmm maybe I was wrong about when it was said, but I have heard and seen multiple quotes about Trump referencing his hand size. |
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Mar 22, 2016 18:05:02 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure your video saskabronco is cut off right after that statement on purpose. So you can't hear the rest. I have heard him say that several times and each time he talks of people who know what is going to happen. The refrigerator thing is kind of silly. If we could stop refrig's from killing people we would. So tell the families of the victims in France, Belgium, San Bernadino, etc that we should do nothing because of refrigerators. The hands thing was not said years ago. It was Rubio a day or so before Trump brought it up and I don't hear him talk about it constantly. Just once. But all of these people do repeat themselves a lot. Hmm maybe I was wrong about when it was said, but I have heard and seen multiple quotes about Trump referencing his hand size. Nope I was right, In 1998 a magazine called him a "short fingered vulgarian". And he had to send a picture of his hand to prove that his fingers are not in fact short. And he has made reference to his hands throughout the years, obviously still offended. |
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Mar 22, 2016 18:16:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Mar 22, 2016 18:55:00 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure your video saskabronco is cut off right after that statement on purpose. So you can't hear the rest. I have heard him say that several times and each time he talks of people who know what is going to happen. The refrigerator thing is kind of silly. If we could stop refrig's from killing people we would. So tell the families of the victims in France, Belgium, San Bernadino, etc that we should do nothing because of refrigerators. The hands thing was not said years ago. It was Rubio a day or so before Trump brought it up and I don't hear him talk about it constantly. Just once. But all of these people do repeat themselves a lot. The video is cut off because that is the end of the discussion on that topic. How can you possibly spin what he said there in a positive light? He says to kill the families of terrorists. Check his explanation of it below. Is this the reasonable explanation you are talking about? He is saying he would wipe out terrorists families and make them suffer dearly because he knows deep down that they knew what was going on. He doesn't know that at all... He has no way of knowing that. He just wants to play the same game that the terrorists play which violates international law and is batshit fucking crazy. You trying to justify his comments makes me lose so much respect for you. Trump is nothing more than an insanely petulant child with serious self esteem issues who is prone to severe overreaction to basically any slight to him or anything he holds dear. You want that running your country? You're a complete moron if you think he would do anything but a horrendous job. Nothing he has said or done suggests that he has a fucking clue with what to do in that job. All he knows how to do is get idiots excited by saying offensive shit that they wish they could say. Now they don't have to say it, they just support him and get to stand with a large group of bigots who were all too scared to voice their fear and hatred before Trump came along. |
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Mar 22, 2016 20:33:34 GMT -5
I know what you meant by suffer. You didn't mean torture or anything drastic obviously, you meant that they have to deal with the media and the general population generalizing all Muslims in a really bad way. That's precisely the problem though; that shouldn't be happening and it shouldn't be allowed. Except he did mention extent. His article claims there have been 37 deaths due to Muslim terrorists in America since 9/11, per a UNC study in 2014. Not that that really matters anyways, because that's not what the article is truly trying to say imo. I also don't think it matters because the intent to commit terrorism is the core problem here. Carrying out terrorist acts is the result of the intent that the terrorist has. If you're trying to insinuate that Muslims cause more damage per terrorist, for whatever reason, I'd love to see you back that statement up. Because it seems to me like batshit Christians and right wingers are just as (if not more) dangerous to America than Muslim terrorists are. There are plenty of articles out there about this, like this one and this one. And yes, I do realize the 37 number that the UNC study found doesn't match up with the 26 number that the New America study found, and that could obviously be investigated further to try and figure out why the discrepancy. But that still doesn't change the fact that both studies are in agreement that Muslims have -NOT- killed more people through terrorist acts since 9/11 than right wingers/Christians have. This isn't a jab at Christians or Rep politics at all, I'm just trying to add some perspective. The point is that Muslims attacks, especially in America, are pretty far and few between, and the Islamophobia a lot of people have on top of the assumption that Muslims are way more likely to commit terrorism is misguided.. And "misguided" is me putting it nicely. Okay last one, at least you're not being insulting. I didn't read your linked articles. But from the URL alone, seems both are talking about deaths on American soil. Let's add in Paris, and now Brussels in a relative short period of time. Wanna recalculate? It can happen here anytime. We have many cities with millions of people, and hundreds of thousands in concentrated areas any weekday. You wanna breathe a sigh of relief it didn't happen here, fine - not me. And for others who wanna talk about Israelis and Palestinians, they keep that over there, it's confined - not international terrorism, although many innocent lives may be casualties. Of course I have been only talking about terrorism on American soil. That's what our conversation up until this point has revolved around. I never said or insinuated that I'm indifferent to or that I "breath a sigh of relief" every time an act of terrorism happens someplace other than America. It's awful everywhere it happens. If we're going to talk about Europe, I'm very confident that even in Europe, just like in America, Muslim terrorist attacks are outnumbered by many other types of terrorism. Less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe between the years 2009-2013 were religiously motivated, per a study by Europol (the European law enforcement agency). Of course, we're in the year 2016 now, but that's still pretty overwhelming evidence that terrorism in Europe carried out by Jihadist groups don't happen nearly as often as people believe they do, and that they aren't even really that close to being the most likely to commit a terrorist act. Because I seriously doubt that religious terrorism takes up a much larger percent now than it did just a few years ago. And if you're wanting raw numbers and not just percentage, that 2% means that out of the 1088 terrorist attacks committed in Europe between the years 2009-2013, only 12 of them were religiously motivated (which, certainly, Islamic terrorist attacks would/should definitely be classified as "religiously motivated"). And it's worth mentioning that that doesn't mean all 12 were committed by Muslims, since (obviously) there are other religions in existence as well..  |
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Mar 22, 2016 21:25:36 GMT -5
|
|
craig440
College Starter
My dog
Posts: 547
|
Post by craig440 on Mar 22, 2016 22:08:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Mar 22, 2016 22:41:09 GMT -5
Okay last one, at least you're not being insulting. I didn't read your linked articles. But from the URL alone, seems both are talking about deaths on American soil. Let's add in Paris, and now Brussels in a relative short period of time. Wanna recalculate? It can happen here anytime. We have many cities with millions of people, and hundreds of thousands in concentrated areas any weekday. You wanna breathe a sigh of relief it didn't happen here, fine - not me.And for others who wanna talk about Israelis and Palestinians, they keep that over there, it's confined - not international terrorism, although many innocent lives may be casualties. Of course I have been only talking about terrorism on American soil. That's what our conversation up until this point has revolved around. I never said or insinuated that I'm indifferent to or that I "breath a sigh of relief" every time an act of terrorism happens someplace other than America. It's awful everywhere it happens. If we're going to talk about Europe, I'm very confident that even in Europe, just like in America, Muslim terrorist attacks are outnumbered by many other types of terrorism. Less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe between the years 2009-2013 were religiously motivated, per a study by Europol (the European law enforcement agency). Of course, we're in the year 2016 now, but that's still pretty overwhelming evidence that terrorism in Europe carried out by Jihadist groups don't happen nearly as often as people believe they do, and that they aren't even really that close to being the most likely to commit a terrorist act. Because I seriously doubt that religious terrorism takes up a much larger percent now than it did just a few years ago. And if you're wanting raw numbers and not just percentage, that 2% means that out of the 1088 terrorist attacks committed in Europe between the years 2009-2013, only 12 of them were religiously motivated (which, certainly, Islamic terrorist attacks would/should definitely be classified as "religiously motivated"). And it's worth mentioning that that doesn't mean all 12 were committed by Muslims, since (obviously) there are other religions in existence as well.. Only back here cuz I was unclear, and my bad. Did not mean "you" in particular, in any way, shape, or form 'breathe a sigh of relief' - I meant 'you' in the general sense, like everyone. Would it have helped to say 'ya' instead? Probably not. hehe All that other stuff with stats, sorry, but I have less than no interest to address. Not about to chase my tail on spin-doctored stats. WTF is 'religiously motivated terrorism'? It's a joke. A joke. If people wanna believe whoever defines whatever, to either help them find their way or substantiate one or both of their agendas, god bless. Hope the 'whatever' part, namely 'religiously motivated' isn't too vague. NONE of it is religiously motivated. Do some really think otherwise? Don't need a bar graph to tell me that. Good video. Was half into it, and sounded like a Cliff Notes going nowhere. Glad I listened on. |
|
|
|
Politics
Mar 23, 2016 0:36:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Jindred on Mar 23, 2016 0:36:57 GMT -5
Of course I have been only talking about terrorism on American soil. That's what our conversation up until this point has revolved around. I never said or insinuated that I'm indifferent to or that I "breath a sigh of relief" every time an act of terrorism happens someplace other than America. It's awful everywhere it happens. If we're going to talk about Europe, I'm very confident that even in Europe, just like in America, Muslim terrorist attacks are outnumbered by many other types of terrorism. Less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe between the years 2009-2013 were religiously motivated, per a study by Europol (the European law enforcement agency). Of course, we're in the year 2016 now, but that's still pretty overwhelming evidence that terrorism in Europe carried out by Jihadist groups don't happen nearly as often as people believe they do, and that they aren't even really that close to being the most likely to commit a terrorist act. Because I seriously doubt that religious terrorism takes up a much larger percent now than it did just a few years ago. And if you're wanting raw numbers and not just percentage, that 2% means that out of the 1088 terrorist attacks committed in Europe between the years 2009-2013, only 12 of them were religiously motivated (which, certainly, Islamic terrorist attacks would/should definitely be classified as "religiously motivated"). And it's worth mentioning that that doesn't mean all 12 were committed by Muslims, since (obviously) there are other religions in existence as well.. Only back here cuz I was unclear, and my bad. Did not mean "you" in particular, in any way, shape, or form 'breathe a sigh of relief' - I meant 'you' in the general sense, like everyone. Would it have helped to say 'ya' instead? Probably not. hehe All that other stuff with stats, sorry, but I have less than no interest to address. Not about to chase my tail on spin-doctored stats. WTF is 'religiously motivated terrorism'? It's a joke. A joke. If people wanna believe whoever defines whatever, to either help them find their way or substantiate one or both of their agendas, god bless. Hope the 'whatever' part, namely 'religiously motivated' isn't too vague. NONE of it is religiously motivated. Do some really think otherwise? Don't need a bar graph to tell me that. Good video. Was half into it, and sounded like a Cliff Notes going nowhere. Glad I listened on. I... like... I... Huh?? Are you saying that the "Muslim extremists" aren't religiously motivated... I am 100% not getting what you are saying... |
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Mar 23, 2016 4:31:56 GMT -5
Wow. How can you misinterpret MO so badly? No one is saying ISIS and radical Islamists are not dangerous. The point is that they are dangerous but that does not mean all Muslims are dangerous. But Trump is saying he wants to bring back illegal torture methods and use them on innocent family members of suspected terrorists because he thinks they have information, despite the fact that those torture methods have been proven to no be effective in any way. Cruz wants to ban immigration from Muslim countries and patrol Muslim neighbourhoods. These are both extreme overreactions that will harm many non-radical Muslims as a result, and both overreactions have been tried in the past and have been proven to be extremely ineffective. ISIS is dangerous, but we need to focus on battling them, not all Muslims, because there is a major difference between the two. As for your link, that was just dumb. If it actually was a sinking ship that Trump was running, what would he actually do? Trump would single out one group who he determined at fault (let's call them Muslims for the sake of accuracy) for causing the ship to sink and get the rest of the ship passengers worked up towards that group. Then he will find another group to blame (let's call them Mexicans) and promise to make them build more life rafts for everyone else on the ship. The problem is, they don't have the resources for more life rafts, so the only way to actually make them would be to rip the hull of their ship apart, which would cause the ship to sink even faster, leaving no time for the Mexicans to build those new rafts. All the while, if anyone made a negative comment towards him in anyway, he would simply throw them overboard. So you'd be left with a ship sinking faster than before with divided groups blaming one another for the problem and no real solution to anything. Meanwhile captain Trump would be locked away in his captains quarters with all the life vests lining the luxury life boat he made by combining all of the other life boats, to be used to whisk himself and his family away from this mess in extreme comfort. |
|
