9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

History does not support your opinion.

While Rome was at it's most brutal and cruel it was the ruler of the known world. It was only when it became corrupt and soft that it was lost.

When Britain ruled the world, it wasn't exactly a "gentle" country and indulged in lots of very immoral behaviour.

Is that what you want the U.S.A. to become? 

40 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Is that what you want the U.S.A. to become? 

Would you rather see another World Trade Center?

If they got no qualms about cutting my head off, I got no qualms about seeing them  waterboarded

 

It's okay to kill them with drones, but not okay to wrap a towel around their head (don't go there) and pour water over it to make them think they're drowning?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

14 hours ago, KenKadz said:

Would you rather see another World Trade Center?

This is a terrible argument. Do you realize how few deaths per year are actually from terrorist attacks in the U.S. in relation to normal gun attacks. And do you realize there are a similar number of christian terrorist attacks as muslim ones? This is irrational fear. You are more likely to have a toddler murder you than you are to be killed by a terrorist. 

3 hours ago, jcsmith said:

This is a terrible argument. Do you realize how few deaths per year are actually from terrorist attacks in the U.S. in relation to normal gun attacks. And do you realize there are a similar number of christian terrorist attacks as muslim ones? This is irrational fear. You are more likely to have a toddler murder you than you are to be killed by a terrorist. 

Tell the families of the 3,000 ++ people killed in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and other airplanes on 9/11 what a terrible argument this is.

Terrorism has been limited in the U.S.A., but not world wide, and it is a world wide problem.

1 hour ago, KenKadz said:

Tell the families of the 3,000 ++ people killed in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and other airplanes on 9/11 what a terrible argument this is.

Terrorism has been limited in the U.S.A., but not world wide, and it is a world wide problem.

Oh please don't try to twist what I was saying. Security obviously ramped up sinificantly after 911. The U.S. vets heavily already. Muslim terrorism makes up less than 1% of the murders in the United States since then. Since 911 there have been more people killed by American extremists than there have been by radical islamic terrorists. 

 

Look nobody likes terrorism. It needs to be stopped. But the fear of it to the extent of trying to ban muslims is irrational given the chances of it actually affecting you. It's like being afraid to fly because you are afraid your plane will crash. Yes, planes do crash, but its extremely rare. You can't persecute innocent people out of irrational fear. And that is what this is, irrational fear. Just as irrational as it would be to ban christianity as a result of a tiny percentage of christians blowing up abortion clinics. 

 

A recent study on this from Duke University: https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2017/01/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Involvement_in_Violent_Extremism_2016.pdf

Edited January 29, 20179 yr by jcsmith

I think the point is, large-scale terrorism has been relatively limited in the U.S. since 9/11, and I'd wager to say, most Americans want to keep it that way and not have things spiral out of control as has occurred in Europe and elsewhere.

 

These kinds of Muslim/Islamic inspired domestic terrorism events listed below are bad enough. And perhaps a lot of non-Americans reading here might not even be aware that all these attacks have occurred in the U.S. in recent years by Muslim assailants with varying elements of Muslim/Islamic extremism or inspiration involved--including the first three all in just the past year. The U.S. certainly doesn't need more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

49 killed, 53 wounded -- terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslim

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing#Perpetrator

10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

14 killed, 22 wounded - terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslims

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

13 killed, more than 30 wounded -- terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslim

 

 

Edited January 29, 20179 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

11 hours ago, jcsmith said:

This is a terrible argument. Do you realize how few deaths per year are actually from terrorist attacks in the U.S. in relation to normal gun attacks?

The point is that one suicide bomber with a dirty bomb would change all that. We might need black sites to interegate terrorists captured overseas. There is a new sherriff in town and we are not playing by PC rules anymore.

Just wanted to clarify, my post above of recent Islamic extremist inspired attacks in the U.S. was NOT intended to support a return to the CIA's past practice of black site interrogation and illegal torture.

 

Rather, it was more of a response to those who have been attacking Trump's temporary exclusion order for citizens from six or so Muslim countries with terrorism ties.  While the implementation of that has been handled very poorly (excluding an Iraqi who had been working for the U.S. military, for example), I believe the underlying concept is the correct one.

 

I'm NOT OK with the U.S. torturing foreign nationals or anyone else. I'm perfectly OK with the U.S. telling countries that sponsor and support terrorism, that your citizens aren't welcome to come to the U.S. until you renounce and change your M.O. (or, until the U.S. can develop a reliable means of screening out individuals who may harbor Islamic extremist views).

Edited January 29, 20179 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

The point is that one suicide bomber with a dirty bomb would change all that. We might need black sites to interegate terrorists captured overseas. There is a new sherriff in town and we are not playing by PC rules anymore.

So let's do a preemptive strike based on irrational fear? 

Edited January 29, 20179 yr by jcsmith

@TallGuyJohninBK: It's irrational far. You are 250% more likely to get killed by a toddler than a terrorist. You are more than 300% more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist. How does that justify banning muslims? There have been more deaths caused by right wing American born extremists than there have been by muslim immigrant terrorists. 

 

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

So let's do a preemptive strike based on irrational fear? 

 

Only no one has suggested that. 

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The point is that one suicide bomber with a dirty bomb would change all that. We might need black sites to interegate terrorists captured overseas. There is a new sherriff in town and we are not playing by PC rules anymore.

 

As trump is so enthusiastic about not following the rules of war and relevant international Conventions , why does't the US cease proposing using facilities for the abuse of prisoners abroad and develop facilities on US domestic territory - for the moment comes across as a an attempt to avoid responsibility.

 

We will see how the policy evolves now that Trump, for the moment, has backed off on the use of torture on the advise of his appointee/s.

@TallGuyJohninBK: It's irrational far. You are 250% more likely to get killed by a toddler than a terrorist. You are more than 300% more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist. How does that justify banning muslims? There have been more deaths caused by right wing American born extremists than there have been by muslim immigrant terrorists. 
 

There are many more toddlers and thunderstorms in the US than there are terrorists.

You and Kim, two peas in a pod.

7 hours ago, jcsmith said:

@TallGuyJohninBK: It's irrational far. You are 250% more likely to get killed by a toddler than a terrorist. You are more than 300% more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist. How does that justify banning muslims? There have been more deaths caused by right wing American born extremists than there have been by muslim immigrant terrorists. 

 

 First off, no one's banning Muslims or Muslim emigrants per se. There is an Administration order temporarily banning citizens from a limited group of predominantly Muslim countries that have a history of ties to terrorism.

 

As for your last sentence minimizing the threat of Muslim immigrant terrorism, please deliver that news to the victims in the following attacks below. I'm sure they'll be heartened to hear it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing#Perpetrator

10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

But I do agree about one thing, the problem and threat of Islamic extremism in the U.S. isn't just limited to emigrants. As my list above clearly shows, it also extends to U.S. born Muslims who somehow, for some reasons, become radicalized at some point in their lives and see their heroes as leaders of ISIL and such. Why that happens to U.S. born Muslims I don't understand. But clearly, that kind of domestic radicalization is equally a problem and needs to be combatted -- not ignored.

Edited January 30, 20179 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

Immigrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

39 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

As for your last sentence minimizing the threat of Muslim immigrant terrorism, please deliver that news to the victims in the following attacks below. I'm sure they'll be heartened to hear it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing#Perpetrator

10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

But I do agree about one thing, the problem and threat of Islamic extremism in the U.S. isn't just limited to emigrants. As my list above clearly shows, it also extends to U.S. born Muslims who somehow, for some reasons, become radicalized at some point in their lives and see their heroes as leaders of ISIL and such. Why that happens to U.S. born Muslims I don't understand. But clearly, that kind of domestic radicalization is equally a problem and needs to be combatted -- not ignored.

Of course you can't debate the numbers I say so you point to random events that happen. You will be quick to point out any attack by a muslim, even if they are a tiny number of incidents compared to the rest of the violence in the country. One could easily cherry pick a similar list from christian extremists in America. But you won't link those will you?

 

8 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Of course you can't debate the numbers I say so you point to random events that happen. You will be quick to point out any attack by a muslim, even if they are a tiny number of incidents compared to the rest of the violence in the country. One could easily cherry pick a similar list from christian extremists in America. But you won't link those will you?

 

 

I don't know what "numbers" you're referring to. But I do know this, all four of these Muslim extremist attacks I've listed below occurred in the space of one calendar year in the U.S. I'm not aware of any other religious extremist violence in the U.S. that resulted in that kind of heavy death and injury toll in the same period of time (Dec. 2015 to Dec. 2016).

 

It should -- and did -- serve as a wake-up call to Americans for the threat of domestic Islamic extremism and terrorism. And you'd have to be blind and deaf to call them "random" events. They're all part of the same fabric of Islamic extremism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

49 killed, 53 wounded -- terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslim

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing#Perpetrator

10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

14 killed, 22 wounded - terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslims

 

Edited January 30, 20179 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

19 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Oh please don't try to twist what I was saying. Security obviously ramped up sinificantly after 911. The U.S. vets heavily already. Muslim terrorism makes up less than 1% of the murders in the United States since then. Since 911 there have been more people killed by American extremists than there have been by radical islamic terrorists. 

 

Look nobody likes terrorism. It needs to be stopped. But the fear of it to the extent of trying to ban muslims is irrational given the chances of it actually affecting you. It's like being afraid to fly because you are afraid your plane will crash. Yes, planes do crash, but its extremely rare. You can't persecute innocent people out of irrational fear. And that is what this is, irrational fear. Just as irrational as it would be to ban christianity as a result of a tiny percentage of christians blowing up abortion clinics. 

 

A recent study on this from Duke University: https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2017/01/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Involvement_in_Violent_Extremism_2016.pdf

Whatever!

53 minutes ago, KenKadz said:

Whatever!

Exactly. Trump supporters do not want to hear the truth.

23 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Exactly. Trump supporters do not want to hear the truth.

Naw, I got bored!