World Are fear and ignorance driving our politics?

[MoreCoffee]

Time will tell

Only some roads lead to the USA. :smirk:

 

[psalms 91]

Yup and many wish to harm us anymoere so vifilence and caution is prudent

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yup and many wish to harm us any more so vigilance and caution is prudent

If it comforts you to think so ...

 

[psalms 91]

common sense tells me so, there is no comfort when I see women and children getting blown up, innocents that dont deserve it. I truly hope there is a special place in hell for people that do these things

 

[tango]

Nicely inebriated comments up above. Which means that they+ a quarter are worth about 25 cents.

Yes! Some more of that winning Highlander posting style! Do you actually have anything useful to say beyond personal smears? I'm slowly losing any hope of seeing this great political insight you allegedly possess because all I'm seeing is silly insults.

Currently there are about 2.75 million Muslims in the USA. It is estimated that between 15 and 25% of them are religious radicals. If you get out your crayon and do the math, this means there are potentially 687,500 radical Muslims in the USA right now. Why is it that you want to bring even more radicals in that wish to kill us?

So let's talk about these crayons. Who guessed that 25% of them are radicals, and how do they explain the existence of over half a million radical Muslims coinciding with a remarkable lack of carnage?

Do you read what I write or merely filter it through your own preconceived ideas? Can you point to a single place where I said I wanted more radicals? Just one will do. I suspect what you'll realise is that I'm saying banning a quarter of the world's population because a tiny minority are radicals is silly, as silly as banning men because a tiny minority are violent rapists.

What kind of an "American" are you? Are not 2,500+ dead Americans enough to satisfy you? Why do you wish for more?

I'm not actually an American at all, not that my nationality has anything to do with the silliness associated with banning a billion people for the actions of a tiny percentage. Did you read my posts about Americans killed by other things? Here's a clue, it's in post 24 of this very thread. Maybe you missed it while thinking of new ways to insult me while not actually address the points at hand.

To summarise it, since you apparently didn't read it the first time, from 2001 to 2013 there were 3030 deaths in the US due to terrorism. From 1999 to 2010 (a comparable amount of time) there were 3051 deaths in the US from anaphylaxis and fatal allergic reactions. Perhaps we should ban the nasty young men with brown skin and beards in case they are trying to smuggle peanuts into the country. Maybe we should spend endless trillions in a War On Peanuts to get those numbers down. Certainly peanuts seem to be a more dangerous threat than terrorism.

But the annoying numbers get even more annoying. In 2013 there were slightly over 30,000 fatalities on the roads in the US. So the number of people killed due to terrorism in 12 years is less than the number of people killed on the roads in two months. Maybe the nasty young men with brown skin and beards might look to do something really radical, like get behind the wheel of their SUV. Perhaps we should spend trillions of dollars getting cars off the roads. Maybe a suitable counterattack might be to shut down Ford and General Motors. We could close the borders and make sure no subversive foreign corporations slipped any of their dangerous wares past CBP as well. Whoever would have thought that the motor industry would cause more carnage than international terrorism?

Of course I don't expect the actual numbers (which are sourced in post 24, I just can't be bothered to repost the entire thing here) to make much difference if you've already decided that nasty young men with brown skin and beards are, well, nasty and and nasty enough to be banned from the country just as a precaution. But no doubt the real numbers, sourced from news outlets and government departments, are just further proof of my own inebriation.

Maybe I'll actually see some of this political insight you allegedly possess as a response, but frankly all I'm expecting is more silly comments about inebriation and smoking. I can only assume it's the best you can manage, since you seem unable to even acknowledge let alone address the points I'm actually trying to make here.

 

[tango]

Then if you like the idea of bringing them in I suggest you talk yto your leaders to allow them yo come flooding in

For what it's worth I lived in London for nearly 20 years, where there are quite a lot of Muslims. They never gave me any reason to fear them. I've walked and cycled through areas where just about every woman was wearing Islamic dress to some extent or another (most were wearing full-body black veils with only the eyes showing). I've lived and worked among Muslims. I don't know where people are getting their information about Muslims from, but having been around a fair few Muslims for quite a lot of years I have to say I don't recognise the descriptions of them as being universally Bad People.

 

[tango]

Good point. The idea is to only ban them until a way is found to weed out the terrorists that hide among the vast majority of good, peaceful Muslims.

After that is accomplished, then the rest would be welcome to move here and become Americans.

Nicely inebriated comments up above. Which means that they+ a quarter are worth about 25 cents.

Currently there are about 2.75 million Muslims in the USA. It is estimated that between 15 and 25% of them are religious radicals. If you get out your crayon and do the math, this means there are potentially 687,500 radical Muslims in the USA right now. Why is it that you want to bring even more radicals in that wish to kill us?

What kind of an "American" are you? Are not 2,500+ dead Americans enough to satisfy you? Why do you wish for more?

I have to chuckle at these two posts.

Firstly you refer to "the vast majority of good, peaceful Muslims" and then claim that up to 25% of them are radicals? And then for good measure you describe my comments as "inebriated".

The irony meter is going off the scale here. Just saying...

 

[Highlander]

I don't claim anything. The study shows a minimum of 15% and possibly as much as 25% of Muslims are radicals who would kill us.

Why do you support people who want to kill us? If someone within those percentages happens to slice your head off, kindly try to keep on chuckling all the way to the ground.

As for scales, the only person going off the rails in this conversation is you, my naive little buddy.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't claim anything. The study shows a minimum of 15% and possibly as much as 25% of Muslims are radicals who would kill us.

What study shows that 15% to 25% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals who would kill us?

Why do you support people who want to kill us? If someone within those percentages happens to slice your head off, kindly try to keep on chuckling all the way to the ground.

As for scales, the only person going off the rails in this conversation is you, my naive little buddy.

 

[tango]

I don't claim anything. The study shows a minimum of 15% and possibly as much as 25% of Muslims are radicals who would kill us.

The study? Which study would that be? The one you referenced in.... er .... oh yes, you didn't.

If 15% of Muslims are radicals who would kill us it's a miracle I'm still alive. If it's true that 1 in every 6 Muslims (or even 1 in every 4, as you also mentioned) then logically the parts of London I've been through must have had hundreds of people who wanted to kill me. Perhaps they forgot they were supposed to kill the infidel as I walked among them.

Why do you support people who want to kill us? If someone within those percentages happens to slice your head off, kindly try to keep on chuckling all the way to the ground.

Why do you keep twisting what I'm saying? Is it because you don't have anything useful to say to address my points and find it easier to knock down strawmen of things I didn't say than address what I did say?

Given the deaths on the road that vastly outnumber deaths due to terror perhaps we should just ban everybody from the US. You know, in case they did something dangerous like getting behind the wheel of a car. Better safe than sorry, right? Of course we should ban everyone already here from driving. Perhaps we could all live like the Amish and use horse-drawn buggies. The only downside is that the nasty people with brown skin and beards might blend in better among people with white skin and beards than among people with white skin and no beards. Perhaps the solution is more complex than a rabble-rousing sound bite.

As for scales, the only person going off the rails in this conversation is you, my naive little buddy.

Ah yes, finish off a lame post with another silly insult. How very mature. How very insightful. Truly there is no beginning to the political insight on show here.

 

[psalms 91]

Slice it any way you wish, we should not allow more muslims in this country. Europe who was afraid of offending them allowed so many to come in and what do they have? Ask Belguim if theythink they should allow even more to overrun them,or quite a few other countries

 

[tango]

Slice it any way you wish, we should not allow more muslims in this country. Europe who was afraid of offending them allowed so many to come in and what do they have? Ask Belguim if theythink they should allow even more to overrun them,or quite a few other countries

Gotta love a blanket statement. What's special about Muslims that we shouldn't allow them in? We never did get to that, other than vague comments about a tiny proportion of them being terrorists. As I've said repeatedly (and nobody seems to counter), by the same argument we should bar men from entering because a tiny proportion are violent rapists and we should bar Hispanics because a tiny proportion of them are drug lords.

We also need to take a more realistic look at actual threat rather than perceived and hyped threat. As I posted above the number of people killed on the roads is more than 3,000 in a couple of months, yet it barely gets a murmur in the media and is pretty much accepted as the price that must be paid for the freedom to move around. But when 3,000 people are killed by terrorism in a decade nothing is too far-reaching to lower the threat. Don't you see anything wrong with this picture? 3000 people dead in six weeks is acceptable, yet 3000 people dead in a decade is enough to trigger ever-further reaching government involvement.

Just to make sure even Highlander doesn't see a chance to twist my words again, one death is one too many. But let's not lose sight of relative threats. Looking at the figures it seems you're far more likely to die at the hands of a motorist than an angry young man with brown skin and a beard.

 

[psalms 91]

Gotta love a blanket statement. What's special about Muslims that we shouldn't allow them in? We never did get to that, other than vague comments about a tiny proportion of them being terrorists. As I've said repeatedly (and nobody seems to counter), by the same argument we should bar men from entering because a tiny proportion are violent rapists and we should bar Hispanics because a tiny proportion of them are drug lords.

We also need to take a more realistic look at actual threat rather than perceived and hyped threat. As I posted above the number of people killed on the roads is more than 3,000 in a couple of months, yet it barely gets a murmur in the media and is pretty much accepted as the price that must be paid for the freedom to move around. But when 3,000 people are killed by terrorism in a decade nothing is too far-reaching to lower the threat. Don't you see anything wrong with this picture? 3000 people dead in six weeks is acceptable, yet 3000 people dead in a decade is enough to trigger ever-further reaching government involvement.

Just to make sure even Highlander doesn't see a chance to twist my words again, one death is one too many. But let's not lose sight of relative threats. Looking at the figures it seems you're far more likely to die at the hands of a motorist than an angry young man with brown skin and a beard.

Lets talk numbers since their goal is to destroy western civilization and institute Sharia law. Seems to me that when you face an enemy you dont allow him entrance and make no mistake muslims are the enemy of christians, if you dont believe that then you are not following the news. Christians all over are being killed and sold into slavery by these barbarians.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Slice it any way you wish, we should not allow more Muslims in this country. Europe who was afraid of offending them allowed so many to come in and what do they have? Ask Belgium if they think they should allow even more to overrun them,or quite a few other countries

You use terms that are really prejudiced in the worst sort of way; "afraid of offending", "overrun", "more Muslims". I think your post is an excellent example of fear driven politics.

 

[psalms 91]

call it what you will, doesnt change the fact that prudence and caution is necessary

 

[MoreCoffee]

call it what you will, doesn't change the fact that prudence and caution is necessary

Prudence and caution do not need to mean prejudice and hostility. One can be just and fair while also being prudent and cautious. One can be kind and compassionate while being prudent and cautious. There's no need for fear to drive one's politics into the mould of Donald Trump's policy of walls, blanket exclusion of Muslims, and whatever other fear driven policy he has formed.

 

[psalms 91]

Prudence and caution do not need to mean prejudice and hostility. One can be just and fair while also being prudent and cautious. One can be kind and compassionate while being prudent and cautious. There's no need for fear to drive one's politics into the mould of Donald Trump's policy of walls, blanket exclusion of Muslims, and whatever other fear driven policy he has formed.

On that issue he makes sense. Illegal aliens should be stopped from entering and be deported if here. Muslims should be prevent ed from entering until the system is in order to properly vet them, that is prudent and wise. I still question why all these refugees do not go to other muslim nations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

On that issue he makes sense. Illegal aliens should be stopped from entering and be deported if here. Muslims should be prevent ed from entering until the system is in order to properly vet them, that is prudent and wise. I still question why all these refugees do not go to other Muslim nations.

When fear makes one act badly towards others then it makes no sense and is sinful.

 

[psalms 91]

that is not acting badly it is simply controlling our borders and saying who is allowed in. I do not like Trump but when it comes to immigration he has the right idea. If you lived in a border state whose resources were being overwhelmed by illegals I think you would sing a different tune, even Germany has closed its borders because itwas overwhelmed as has a lot of other eastern european countries. There has to be order and control or else the resources of a country will become overwhelmed and noone gets helped

 

[MoreCoffee]

that is not acting badly it is simply controlling our borders and saying who is allowed in. I do not like Trump but when it comes to immigration he has the right idea. If you lived in a border state whose resources were being overwhelmed by illegals I think you would sing a different tune, even Germany has closed its borders because itwas overwhelmed as has a lot of other eastern european countries. There has to be order and control or else the resources of a country will become overwhelmed and noone gets helped

"controlling our borders" is code for rejecting the poor and hungry. "even Germany has closed its borders" they took 1,000,000 refugees in in one year. How many has your border state taken in in one year? "There has to be order and control" is code for we like our lives as they are and don't want to be hospitable to the poor and hungry.