Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Freedom of speech

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

A certain cult plows trucks into crowds all the time and it doesn't even phase 'em.

Instead the media and politicians prefer to write off that cult as just having a few bad people in it, and the rest of the people in that cult should not be blamed for what some cult member does. But according to the no mind liberal media all white nationalists groups are all just full of racists and Nazi's even though if only one of them commits some crime. Hypocrites.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

So some are okay? That's insane.

Its just common sense. Societies endure non lawful killings all the time.  Like I said... its just risk management. We know there is going to be murder. We know there is going to be terrorism. And we know there's hundreds of other threats as well. So its a mitigation game.... a simple numbers game... risk management.

You take the money you have for risk management and spend it where it makes sense.... Terrorism, domestic murder, drunk driving". If you do it right there will be more people alive at the end of the day than if you do it wrong.

Are lightening strikes ok? Asteroid strikes?

Edited by dre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It is fascinating that Donald Trump, mocked and ridiculed by many Canadians only a year ago, has now infiltrated their collective psyche so deeply.

History has been re-written....Canada's age old racism comes from....Donald Trump.

Amazing.

Actually the orange baboon has reacted to the NK 'threat' in the manner I've been advocating for years....go after China by linking trade to the issue of tyranny.

Too bad he's only bull-shitting for effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dre said:

Its just common sense. Societies endure non lawful killings all the time.  Like I said... its just risk management. We know there is going to be murder. We know there is going to be terrorism. And we know there's hundreds of other threats as well. So its a mitigation game.... a simple numbers game... risk management.

You take the money you have for risk management and spend it where it makes sense.... Terrorism, domestic murder, drunk driving". If you do it right there will be more people alive at the end of the day than if you do it wrong.

Are lightening strikes ok? Asteroid strikes?

 

It's insane to invite a cult into your nation that actively wants you kaput.

Spare me the "All Muslims" crapolla...

Islam refers to the West...my home...as Dar al-Harb

The House of War...

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's insane to invite a cult into your nation that actively wants you kaput.

Spare me the "All Muslims" crapolla...

Whats sane is to evaluate the data and base decisions on the actual risk these people pose. That how risk is managed world-wide. And in this case the risk is fairly low.

For example... Muslims in the US are less likely to kill an American, than another American. So every time you let one in the murder rate actually goes down a bit.

Its fun to single out a visible minority, and paint them as an existential threat, but at some point evidence should be considered. The threat of Islamic terrorism is statistically insignificant. According to the FBI your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. Your chances of being killed by a lightening strike is about 1 in 7 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, taxme said:

Instead the media and politicians prefer to write off that cult as just having a few bad people in it, and the rest of the people in that cult should not be blamed for what some cult member does. But according to the no mind liberal media all white nationalists groups are all just full of racists and Nazi's even though if only one of them commits some crime. Hypocrites.     

Well white nationalists by definition ARE racist. But that does not mean all of them commit crimes. You would probably brand me as a "no mind liberal", but I don't buy into what you are saying. I think the majority of people defined as "white nationalists" dont' commit any crimes at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dre said:

Whats sane is to evaluate the data and base decisions on the actual risk these people pose. That how risk is managed world-wide. And in this case the risk is fairly low.

For example... Muslims in the US are less likely to kill an American, than another American. So every time you let one in the murder rate actually goes down a bit.

Its fun to single out a visible minority, and paint them as an existential threat, but at some point evidence should be considered. The threat of Islamic terrorism is statistically insignificant. According to the FBI your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. Your chances of being killed by a lightening strike is about 1 in 7 million.

 

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

https://quran.com/8/39

-------------

Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely.

--- Sir Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dre said:

Whats sane is to evaluate the data and base decisions on the actual risk these people pose. That how risk is managed world-wide. And in this case the risk is fairly low.

For example... Muslims in the US are less likely to kill an American, than another American. So every time you let one in the murder rate actually goes down a bit.

Its fun to single out a visible minority, and paint them as an existential threat, but at some point evidence should be considered. The threat of Islamic terrorism is statistically insignificant. According to the FBI your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. Your chances of being killed by a lightening strike is about 1 in 7 million.

It seems to be a waste of time presenting actual data to xenophobes. They are kinda like the sea, "just ain't listening". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Omni said:

It seems to be a waste of time presenting actual data to xenophobes. They are kinda like the sea, "just ain't listening". 

 

Xenophon had an unreasonable lack of trust in Persia.

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

BTW, this one is called the Fallacy of Postdiction...specifically: Counting the hits and not the misses.

You're right.  We should count the misses.  How about:

domestic attack casualties (Muslims) / total Muslims

domestic attack casualties (White Pride types) / total White Pride types

We can count those moving forward - what do you think the results will be ?  Order of magnitude difference ?  Which way ?

No disqualifying White Pride weapons such as Dodge cars etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

You're right.  We should count the misses.  How about:

domestic attack casualties (Muslims) / total Muslims

domestic attack casualties (White Pride types) / total White Pride types

We can count those moving forward - what do you think the results will be ?  Order of magnitude difference ?  Which way ?

No disqualifying White Pride weapons such as Dodge cars etc.

 

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

You forgot to count the misses.

 

You're free to list them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dre said:

For example... Muslims in the US are less likely to kill an American, than another American. So every time you let one in the murder rate actually goes down a bit.

 

Doesn't matter....the Canadian Muslims cross the border and try to kill Americans anyway (e.g. Flint Michigan Airport).

Alahu Akbar !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Doesn't matter....the Canadian Muslims cross the border and try to kill Americans anyway (e.g. Flint Michigan Airport).

Alahu Akbar !

Maybe but for each one of those, 10 thousand Americans will try to kill other Americans, and 5 thousand Mexican cartel narco-terrorists will try to kill them as well. 

When all is said and done, the majority of the death toll will be you guys killing yourselves all angry about some women and shittered on whiskey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're right.  We should count the misses.  How about:

domestic attack casualties (Muslims) / total Muslims

domestic attack casualties (White Pride types) / total White Pride types

We can count those moving forward - what do you think the results will be ?  Order of magnitude difference ?  Which way ?

No disqualifying White Pride weapons such as Dodge cars etc.

I posted SOME of that here... 

 

 According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim.

There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.

Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dre said:

I posted SOME of that here... 

 

 According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim.

There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.

Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims.

If a terrorist says he does it because of Allah, then he does it because of Allah. 

I am curious though.  In the last five years, in Europe, who did the other 98%?

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dre said:

Well in Hungary for example there'[s about 6000 Muslims. If they are all compelled to kill infidels by their holy book like DOP suggests there should be attacks every single day. I guess they arent interested in doing that, and want to do other things instead?

Hungary kept the total of those so-called refugees down to a bare minimum level entering that country, and probably did a proper screening test on those muslims that did enter Hungary. I guess that is why Hungary has been terrorist free along with the Czech Republic and Poland. Keep muslim immigration down to a low level and there should be peace and quiet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dre said:

Maybe but for each one of those, 10 thousand Americans will try to kill other Americans, and 5 thousand Mexican cartel narco-terrorists will try to kill them as well. 

When all is said and done, the majority of the death toll will be you guys killing yourselves all angry about some women and shittered on whiskey.

Use your head and think for a change. There is no way two planes can bring down two tall buildings just by hitting them at the top. They could possibly only bring down the floors that they hit and then bring down the ones above. But there is no way can the whole structure be brought down by planes hitting the top portion of those buildings. Those buildings were built to take a hit if a plane accidentally hit one of them. The bottom remaining floors would not buckle and break from a plane hitting the top part of the building. Those steel beams supporting the buildings would not buckle at all. It is impossible for that to happen. Ask any architect or any construction company and they will tell you that it would be impossible for the planes to have brought the twin towers down. 

In regards to the 3000 people that were suppose to have died that day, the coroner is suppose to record and keep a record of just who and how many people died in New York City that day. According to investigations done by outfits like AE 911 there were no records found of that many people dying that day in New York City. So, did 3000 die or not? I guess that we will never know for now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to list them.

Ok - according to this report from the US Govt. GAO we have 106 victims of right-wing killed since 9/11.  Using Southern Poverty Law Centre estimates on KKK and other groups there could be 50,000 far right members in the US contributing to those murders.  (Conservative numbers, assuming SPLC doesn't inflate their numbers.)

Now, for your apples and oranges comparison: there are 3.3 *million* Muslims in the US.  For the similar period there have been 119 Islamist killings in the US including 49 in the Orlando nightclub shooting.  

So 106 victims from a group 66 times larger, ie. right-wing groups. Some of the incidents are disputed as being one or the other, but generally we have a similar scale by both 'groups' (your definition) one of which is 66 times the size of the other.

Now, I put these numbers out as a discussion of ongoing security policy moving forward since as you say looking back and counting misses is problematic and 9/11 isn't included here.  The attack on the US from foreign nationals on 9/11 prompted changes that have been very successful in thwarting repeat attacks.  My question was about how many Nazis are in Charlottesville (ongoing domestic security) and how dangerous are these groups.  I think we have the answer.  I do support extraordinary measures to monitor external attacks, including monitoring and profiling in transportation and communication.

I'm sure you will see that the threat level from domestic racists is orders of magnitude larger, and desist from equating or even dismissing the threat from these hate groups moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dre said:

 

For example... Muslims in the US are less likely to kill an American, than another American. So every time you let one in the murder rate actually goes down a bit.

 

My mind is having a difficult time trying to absorb that.  Must be the caffeine.  Why would anyone use that for an argument, I can't imagine.

 

Americans killing Americans - well, that's a homegrown problem!  That would be  like having a family member doing drugs, and comparing the havoc he creates within the family from a drug addict guest.  Of course you're stuck with your family member.  He's yours, and your own problem.  The guest, on the other hand - you can just refuse to let him in your house.  That's your right! 

Why would anyone want to add to their problem?  It's not like as if there are no problems with suicide-murders, domestic murders, serial killers, and riots of all sorts!  What rational mind would invite and import more?

If you'd got Bernardo for a son, why invite the Manson family to live with you, too? :rolleyes: 

 

 

What I do know is that when an Islamic terrorist commits murder - it's most likely going to be MULTIPLE MURDERS.  Isn't that the objective?  To kill as many as possible?

 

All it takes is 1 terrorist to be successful in his mission of death - and that usually means more than one person killed, and several maimed.

Anyway....maiming civilians does count, too!  Imagine how many of these maimed civilians lose their productivity ( and standard of life), due to injuries?  If you lose a leg, wouldn't that have an impact?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, betsy said:

My mind is having a difficult time trying to absorb that.  Must be the caffeine.

 

What I do know is that when an Islamic terrorist commits murder - it's most likely going to be MULTIPLE MURDERS.  Isn't that the objective?  To kill as many as possible?

 

All it takes is 1 terrorist to be successful in his mission of death - and that usually means more than one person killed, and several maimed.

A group of 3.3 million kills 119 people, with one person killing almost half that number.

A group of 50 thousand kills 106 people, one or two at a time.

Which group is more deadly?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

A group of 3.3 million kills 119 people, with one person killing almost half that number.

A group of 50 thousand kills 106 people, one or two at a time.

Which group is more deadly?   

 

I edited, btw. 

 

Which group is more deadly? 

That would be the outsider! He has no vested interest, and his allegiance/loyalty is questionable.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If a terrorist says he does it because of Allah, then he does it because of Allah. 

I am curious though.  In the last five years, in Europe, who did the other 98%?

The son of Sam said he did it because a dog told him to.  Does that mean he did it because of the dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The son of Sam said he did it because a dog told him to.  Does that mean he did it because of the dog?

  Every country has their share of whackos of all sorts!  But your own citizen, is your own.  Whatever the motivation to kill isn't the point: the point is the objective!  If someone wants to kill lots of people - for whatever reason - that's a huge problem! 

Knowing what motivates them help a great deal since you know what to watch out for. 

 

Just because a member of a family had committed a crime does not justify that, therefore, your home becomes an open-house to everyone, nor  should you be picky about whom you choose to come in!

Even Karla Homolka can be choosy whom she wants to invite to her house!

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...