patrick.net

Thanks for the condoms, but yours are too small for me.

Or is this just your way of telling me you want to ride me bareback?

I would be flattered if he wasn't such a fat fuck loser uggo.

I'm not worry about me so much as I am about all the neighborhood pets. Last time CIC visited Florida, there was a shortage of anal lube and dog food.

Bigsby says

Genius. Yes, they might have picked a softer target if necessary

Thank you, I aspire to be as intelligent as you someday. It's a real uphill battle though. But one day, by the grace of god, I can achieve your level of British Inbred royal stock level of excellence.

What is a softer target than a 5 star hotel in India? Please explain. Each and every one of those 'softer targets' have been hit at some point in the past and will be in the future.

Bigsby says

quite clear from past history that they are also willing to attack some pretty heavily defended

Outside of New Delhi, which attacks were 'heavily defended'? Here is an INCOMPLETE list of attacks (Mostly perpetrated by muslims). Tell me what percentage happened in 'highly secure' environments.

Just because a place has a few armed individuals (Parliament building, High Court), I doubt you can call it heavily defended with islamic interlopers on staff aiding and abetting. The death rate in those settings was low because of the security and no strategic kills occurred in that environment. Not a compelling argument for there to not be more people armed in a country with a big 'muslim problem' in areas typically lacking government-sanctioned security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_India

As stated earlier, attacks on New Delhi are a minuscule percentage of Terrorist Attacks in India and any place with jihadi intruders on staff make a place 'heavily armed' to reiterate the point, less secure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India

It seems to me that in your royal inbred brilliance that you are indirectly implying that they are somehow brave by attacking 'heavily guarded' government buildings. Also the kills at the parliament building totaled about 12 whereas when they attack less secure areas such as trains, the kill rate is much higher, such as the bombings in 2005, one of numerous examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Delhi_bombings

Wonder where the chechen assholes in Boston got the idea for pressure cooker bombs? Look no further than Mumbai 2006. Hell, the number killed or injured was almost as great as the 2008 attacks but got far less media coverage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mumbai_train_bombings

Bigsby says

do you just want to ignore those assaults for convenience sake

That's pretty much what you've done. Specifically claim that there are a lot of assaults on secure buildings where the kill rate was very low due to security and then claim that places that don't normally have security (i.e. train stations, trains), where the majority of attacks and kills have occurred, should continue to not have security because of the possibility of collateral damage. On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible to defend oneself against suicide bombers, but that is still a relatively low percentage of the terrorist attacks perpetrated by muslims on Indian soil. They don't need to blow themselves up because they know if they kill, they will get off lightly and not even spend life in prison in most cases or be hanged. India has to tread very lightly on meting out punishment to prevent the rest of the muslim psychos from rioting and looting.

The only tough stand was during the Godhra riots. Gujarat is prone to fewer attacks than say Mumbai or South India (Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning

There is a shortage of even rent-a-cops in India who wouldn't be able to defend against a gun attack from guys wielding automatic weapons and return fire capably enough kill or maim criminals. Those scrubs couldn't hit the broad side of the sky, if push came to shove. The biggest reason why muslims can commit murders relatively unscathed in India is India's police to population ratio is one of the lowest in the world, barring the poorer African countries. There is a high deficit of personnel in intelligence gathering. The IB has barely 3,500 field officers. Terrorists have no fear of being detected, arrested or prosecuted." PR Chari, a research professor at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, said "the blasts were a demonstration of their (terrorists) capabilities and a terse reminder of the state's helplessness, in reference to the blasts in 2008 in Ahmedabad killing 56 and injuring 200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ahmedabad_blasts

MMR says

Bigsby says

Genius. Yes, they might have picked a softer target if necessary

Thank you, I aspire to be as intelligent as you someday. It's a real uphill battle though. But one day, by the grace of god, I can achieve your level of British Inbred royal stock level of excellence.

What is a softer target than a 5 star hotel in India? Please explain. Each and every one of those 'softer targets' have been hit at some point in the past and will be in the future.

Re-read your own post. You talked about if there were armed guards... and I responded that they then might have picked a softer target. It really wasn't that difficult to follow. And hey, I never knew I was royalty. I better check on any missing inheritance.

MMR says

Outside of New Delhi, which attacks were 'heavily defended'? Here is an INCOMPLETE list of attacks (Mostly perpetrated by muslims). Tell me what percentage happened in 'highly secure' environments.

Just because a place has a few armed individuals (Parliament building, High Court), I doubt you can call it heavily defended with islamic interlopers on staff aiding and abetting. The death rate in those settings was low because of the security and no strategic kills occurred in that environment. Not a compelling argument for there to not be more people armed in a country with a big 'muslim problem' in areas typically lacking government-sanctioned security.

Any number of incidents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks in Iraq and Libya on heavily armed buildings etc. etc. My point, if you missed it, was to say that they are quite clearly not afraid to attack heavily armed installations. You see that every day in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these individuals are simply not afraid to die, in fact they embrace it, something that you seem to be utterly ignoring in your comments about them laying down arms in the face of a few armed individuals.

MMR says

Not a compelling argument for there to not be more people armed in a country with a big 'muslim problem' in areas typically lacking government-sanctioned security.

What relevance has that to the impossibility of protecting the inordinate number of potential soft targets that any country has? You can't completely protect a country from these attacks. That is just the reality. You want to go the gung-ho rambo approach of arming every individual willing - hardly an approach to make society safer given the number of firearm murders in your country compared to Europe. Clearly it doesn't have the desired affect you think it has.

MMR says

As stated earlier, attacks on New Delhi are a minuscule percentage of Terrorist Attacks in India and any place with jihadi intruders on staff make a place 'heavily armed' to reiterate the point, less secure

So? What has that got to do with the impossibility of securing a city from attacks?

MMR says

It seems to me that in your royal inbred brilliance that you are indirectly implying that they are somehow brave by attacking 'heavily guarded' government buildings. Also the kills at the parliament building totaled about 12 whereas when they attack less secure areas such as trains, the kill rate is much higher, such as the bombings in 2005, one of numerous examples.

There you go again, royal blood in the family indeed. And I made no comment about bravery or otherwise. I was talking about willingness - they are more than willing to give up their lives. Call that sort of suicidal belief whatever you like. It makes no difference to the end result. And who's arguing that the death rate wouldn't be lower when attacking Parliament compared to any number of other possibilities? What's your point? That every cafe, McDonalds, High Street, Farmers' Market... should/could have the same level of security as a government building?

MMR says

That's pretty much what you've done. Specifically claim that there are a lot of assaults on secure buildings where the kill rate was very low due to security and then claim that places that don't normally have security (i.e. train stations, trains), where the majority of attacks and kills have occurred, should continue to not have security because of the possibility of collateral damage.

Except that's not what I argued. I said they weren't afraid to attack heavily guarded institutions (when that is their aim). That isn't their aim in Europe though, is it? Their aim (amongst many others) is to sow as much fear as they can, to increase the paranoia and to increase hostility towards the Muslim community and so aid their recruitment. Increase protection in train stations and they'll attack somewhere else. You stop this by attempting to prevent it from happening in the first place.

MMR says

There is a shortage of even rent-a-cops in India who wouldn't be able to defend against a gun attack from guys wielding automatic weapons and return fire capably enough kill or maim criminals. Those scrubs couldn't hit the broad side of the sky, if push came to shove. The biggest reason why muslims can commit murders relatively unscathed in India is India's police to population ratio is one of the lowest in the world, barring the poorer African countries. There is a high deficit of personnel in intelligence gathering. The IB has barely 3,500 field officers. Terrorists have no fear of being detected, arrested or prosecuted." PR Chari, a research professor at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, said "the blasts were a demonstration of their (terrorists) capabilities and a terse reminder of the state's helplessness, in reference to the blasts in 2008 in Ahmedabad killing 56 and injuring 200

What exactly is your fixation with India? We are talking about what is happening in Europe and the fact that unlike all the rambos on this forum, I find the idea of arming any young adult with concealed weapons an utterly ludicrous response to what has happened. That and the idea of having armed security all over the place - precisely where obviously not being something the likes of CiC are willing to answer.

Thread title needs updating.

ISIS is the result of Obama war policy. If one considers an iota of historical reference, they would realize it takes multiple decades to complete the reform of a wayward civilization. Pulling out of Iraq was akin to performing brain surgery, and going on strike in the middle of the operation while the skullcap was still beaker-bound bathing in saline solution.
Democrats, in their haste to participate in history electing the first black president, regardless of his complete lack of experience, have all the blood spilled in the middle east for the past 7 years on their hands...

SoftShell says

ISIS is the result of Obama war policy. If one considers an iota of historical reference, they would realize it takes multiple decades to complete the reform of a wayward civilization. Pulling out of Iraq was akin to performing brain surgery, and going on strike in the middle of the operation while the skullcap was still beaker-bound bathing in saline solution.

Remind us all again of the basis of the troop withdrawal under Obama - you know, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed in, oh, yes, 2008.

This is treason by Neoliberals of both parties who are so attached the Saudi Barbaria and the Gulf States, they look the other way.

Both the Bush and Obama 'regimes' have studiously ignored the massive KSA/GCC connections to Fundamentalist Islam via AQ/MB/ISIS.

I choose to remind you instead of the converted bastions of democracy...Germany...South Korea...Japan.
Those examples are living proof that the process of conversion takes a large presence of troops and decades of time, something the touchy-feely left has no stomach for.
It's funny that libbies can remember way back to the horrors of slavery, but draw blanks at what worked after WWII...

SoftShell says

I choose to remind you instead of the converted bastions of democracy...Germany...South Korea...Japan.

Those examples are living proof that the process of conversion takes a large presence of troops and decades of time, something the touchy-feely left has no stomach for.

It's funny that libbies can remember way back to the horrors of slavery, but draw blanks at what worked after WWII...

It's just a shame that those examples had little to nothing in common with what happened in Iraq.

Irrelevant. Obama had the power to reverse this policy and stock Iraq with a hundred thousand troops or so to preserve the process.
Instead, he catered to liberal angst over shouldering additional guilt brought on by collateral damage the process incurs...

Bigsby says

Remind us all again of the basis of the troop withdrawal under Obama - you know, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed in, oh, yes, 2008.

This comment highlights the shortsightedness of the progressives...

Bigsby says

It's just a shame that those examples had little to nothing in common with what happened in Iraq.

bgamall4 says

Bush created ISIS. Obama fostered ISIS and at least didn't invade Assad. That is one thing he did that will help mankind, keeping a stable government in Syria. It isn't his long term goal because he works for the neocons. But really girls, it is just one government committed to one goal, regime change and world domination.

So America and Israel carried out the Paris attacks.

SoftShell says

Irrelevant. Obama had the power to reverse this policy and stock Iraq with a hundred thousand troops or so to preserve the process.

Because the US Public, including at least half of GOP voters and probably more, were REALLY in favor of sending a million troops to Iraq... which would have required a draft.

The null hypothesis was superior: Let Secular Arab Dictators keep Islamists in check, and keep on secularizing their societies.

SoftShell says

Irrelevant. Obama had the power to reverse this policy and stock Iraq with a hundred thousand troops or so to preserve the process.

Instead, he catered to liberal angst over shouldering additional guilt brought on by collateral damage the process incurs...

Sure, sure, everyone in your country wanted the troops to remain and it's all Obama's fault they didn't. Spend your time rewriting history, do you? And the dismantling of the Iraqi army was done under Bush's watch. He let the partisan politics in Iraq take over, he allowed and in many ways instigated the disintegration of the Iraqi army. Have you never actually wondered how a few thousand ISIS fighters were able to rout the entire Iraqi army? That was down to Bush and Cheney's policies not Obama.

But my version makes the story more colorful and intrigues the reader......
thunderlips11 says

The null hypothesis was superior:

No...
Bigsby says

Sure, sure, everyone in your country wanted the troops to remain

Yes...
Bigsby says

and it's all Obama's fault they didn't.

A true leader makes the right moves...not the popular ones...

Yeah, yeah, hindsight makes it so easy. Let me imagine the reaction if those troops had stayed and US forces were then being attacked by ISIS from Syria on a day-to-day basis. Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.
And you didn't answer my question - why was the Iraqi standing army so easily routed by a few thousand relatively lightly armed fanatics? Who's fault do you imagine that to be? A well functioning army doesn't need to have another army standing alongside it in order to operate. You understand that I presume. So again, why was the army in the state it was?

Why would anyone have to "imagine" chronicled history?
Bigsby says

Who's fault do you imagine that to be?

Not to worry. We'd put the British segment of coalition forces on the Syrian border. Problem solved...
Bigsby says

Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.

SoftShell says

Why would anyone have to "imagine" chronicled history?

Bigsby says

Who's fault do you imagine that to be?

Who's asking you to imagine actual history? I asked you to imagine the reaction to him not removing the troops as everyone wanted. You would have been on here screaming to high heaven, or do you want us all to believe now that you wanted the troops to remain? It's you who is making up an alternate history.

SoftShell says

Not to worry. We'd put the British segment of coalition forces on the Syrian border. Problem solved...

Bigsby says

Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.

That would be difficult seeing as the vast majority of British forces withdrew in 2009.

mell says

Come on, don't play dumb. Messing with and trying to topple Assad, arming "moderate" rebels was likely much more important to strengthen the terrorists than Iraq was, at least the same. And as I said, there was no pressure to topple Assad but there was international pressure to topple Saddam.

I think you are overestimating the role of the US in that particular scenario. This is a power game between the Sunni and Shiite blocks in the region. The US was simply unable to manipulate events in its favour because the reality on the ground is far too muddled to effectively manage.

Right. Obama - and I believe he was dragged into Syria after being fooled on Libya by Nuland, Clinton, etc - caused the Syrian and Libyan messes.

Somebody bragged they killed some ISIS dude in Libya. That dude would have been killed years ago if Qaddafyi's jails were still working. Extra added benefit: No tens of thousands of boat people from Africa landing in Italy, too.

Ironman says

Sure looks like the death toll was "mounting" the last few years while we were still there.

Are you really that thick? Where is ISIS in your little death toll scenario?

Ironman says

Exactly.... They didn't come to strength until AFTER we left.... Duh...

I never knew the US withdrew their troops from Syria. How interesting. And what do you imagine the death toll to be if the US troops had stayed and were being attacked by ISIS as that was the point? Did I really need me to spell it out to you again? Stop wasting everyone's time on here and go and play with your Lego.

Ironman says

AQI saw an opportunity to regain its power and expand its ranks in the Syrian conflict that started in 2011, moving into Syria from Iraq. By 2013, al-Baghdadi had spread his group’s influence back into Iraq and changed the group’s name to ISIS, “reflecting its greater regional ambitions,” according to the U.S. State Department.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190

When did we pull out all our troops again?

What has that got to do with being attacked by ISIS if you had remained? Where did they attack Iraq from you buffoon? A name change is irrelevant - they drew their strength from the conflict going on in Syria.

Ironman says

Are you really that big of an idiot to think that our troops, if left there, couldn't easily handle this "JV" team?

Your troops were being killed on a fairly regular basis even before things got worse in Syria, so yes, I quite obviously can imagine a much higher death toll with insurgents crossing the border and attacking US targets. Or do you think that the US ground forces would have been dragged into Syria? And how many deaths would have come from that? Your army is geared to battle another massive standing army. It struggled with insurgents throughout its time in Iraq just as the Russians did in Afghanistan. And your troop deaths declined because they weren't on the front line any more - they were being withdrawn back and replaced by Iraqi regulars. What do you imagine would have happened if they'd been front line again?

Ironman says

Sure thing Bigs, ISIS would have just taken a nice Sunday ride into Iraq, even with the US military sitting there waiting for them. Maybe they would have had lunch together or a picnic!!

Duh. Insurgency CIC. Insurgency.

Ironman says

Sure thing Bigs, the chart I posted confirms that...

Oh wait, it doesn't....

US troops had already been pulled back and weren't facing a massive insurgency at that time, which is why numbers were dropping. Change that and you change the death toll. Not that complicated to understand even for you.

Strategist says

How many are we bringing in?

Obama, in his usual grand liberal stupidity, promised to bring in at least 250,000 refugees from Syria.

That second amendment is going to come real handy for self-defense with those crazies running around.

FortWayne says

Obama, in his usual grand liberal stupidity, promised to bring in at least 250,000 refugees from Syria.

When did he ever say that? It's increased from 2000 to 10000.

Bigsby says

When did he ever say that? It's increased from 2000 to 10000.

http://realnewsrightnow.com/2015/09/u-s-to-house-250000-syrian-refugees-at-navajo-standing-rock-indian-reservations/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/as-pressure-mounts-for-us-to-open-its-borders-to-syrian-refugees-some-lawmakers/

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced in December that Western nations had pledged to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and is calling for 130,000 Syrians to be resettled by the end of 2016.

This is just from googling it now, I remember hearing a lot of news a month ago about that number.

FortWayne says

http://realnewsrightnow.com/2015/09/u-s-to-house-250000-syrian-refugees-at-navajo-standing-rock-indian-reservations/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/as-pressure-mounts-for-us-to-open-its-borders-to-syrian-refugees-some-lawmakers/

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced in December that Western nations had pledged to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and is calling for 130,000 Syrians to be resettled by the end of 2016.

This is just from googling it now, I remember hearing a lot of news a month ago about that number.

So you've just proved yourself wrong. 250,000 isn't what Obama agreed to bring in. It's European nations that agreed to take in the vast majority of those refugees despite the fact most of this mess is down to Bush and his pals' incompetency.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

It's increased from 2000 to 10000.

The proposed resettling of at least 10,000 Syrian refugees would be allocated out of a U.S. quota of 75,000 refugee admissions slated for next fiscal year, beginning October 1, a senior administration official said.

Already, a Senate aide said that Kerry had told senators that "they'd seek an additional increase beyond that," referring to the 75,000 quota.

"He gave a range of numbers," the aide said. Kerry mentioned a potential new total as high as 100,000, as well as other possible maximum numbers, according to the aide.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/u-s-take-10000-syrian-refugees/

And again, you've just reinforced my point - that 75,000 number isn't 250,000, nor is it the figure for refugees from Syria - it is the entire quota for the world, 10,000 of which are from Syria. What was the number I posted again?

How are all the Somalis settling in?

Gang Violence, Extremism, Record Rapes, Random Assaults on Joggers, and now the Government is working overtime to deport the worst of them.

www.startribune.com/feds-step-up-deportation-of-somalis-in-trouble-in-minnesota/224729142/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/30/seven-somali-men-attack-two-joggers-in-minneapolis-for-no-reason-whatsoever/

Oh, and Sex Trafficking and Grooming, another Third World Gift.
http://www.standard.net/topics/prostitution/2010/11/09/29-accused-using-somali-girls-human-trafficking-ring

What was promised when they came in? Give me your poor, huddled masses, great boon for the services industry, Scandinavian-German Whites are Lazy who won't work their asses for rock bottom shit wages I want to pay them, soon they'll be educated and help America with the high tech jobs of the future, etc. etc.

Saint Cloud - not Minneapolis - is where the Somali Ghetto is. It's one of a tiny handful of Minnesota Cities that experienced a rise in violent crime since the early 90s.

BTW, lavish amounts of money and careful government-religious action to assimilate and help them, too.

It's all the fault of White America, though.
http://www.voanews.com/content/congressman-ellison-militant-recruitment-somali-american-youth-halted/1638722.html

bgamall4 says

That was part of Zionist regime change. Right?

I'm sure Marty Silverman enjoys spending thousands on extra-reinforced locks and CCTV for his Electronics Store, whereas 20 years ago he didn't have to.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

that 75,000 number isn't 250,000,

It's also not 10,000..

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That article states the refugee quota for the US is 75,000 from ALL countries. 10,000 is the figure for Syrian refugees. Why not just quit your trolling and grow up?

Ironman says

Ironman says

Syrian refugees would be allocated out of a U.S. quota of 75,000

Yes....., and what do you think that means the number for Syrian refugees will be out of the total of 75,000 for ALL refugees?

Ironman says

Bigsby says

What was the number I posted again?

The wrong one.

Oh, you mean the number that your own government stated is wrong? Rather than the 250,000 figure which clearly has nothing to do with what the US is going to take in? I see.