patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Nope. We bombed Cambodia and Vietnam in the 70s. No terror attacks in the 80s from those countries.

We bombed Serbia in the 90s. So far, no Serbian terror attacks.

A different time and place. And a different religion, with different tactics. Also the bombings did not go on for decades.

And the main reason this insanity persists is they are perpetuated by those who prosper from war, on both sides of the isle
.

thunderlips11 says

I keep bringing up these points but the Apologists don't answer them.

I'm not an apologist, you on the other hand are ignoring the whole picture.

The point is that Lincoln caused the civil war, Wilson caused WW1, FDR caused WW2, LBJ caused the Vietnam war, Bush caused the Iraq war.

Do you see a pattern?

indigenous says

And a different religion,

You nailed the primary reason!

Ideas and Beliefs have consequences. We in the West are so post modern and materialistic, we think ideas are mostly confined to choice of T-shirts or Brand Names with few major consequences.

Almost nobody in the West believes in death for leaving a religion. In the most moderate Muslim country, 1 in 5 do. The Koran endorses it explicitly.

thunderlips11 says

You nailed the primary reason!

Yes I did where I stated:

indigenous says

the main reason this insanity persists is they are perpetuated by those who prosper from war, on both sides of the isle

Things don't "happen", they are caused to happen, follow the money

as with:
.
.

indigenous says

Lincoln caused the civil war, Wilson caused WW1, FDR caused WW2, LBJ caused the Vietnam war, Bush caused the Iraq war.

Again, Western Intervention leaves us no choice but to stone adulterers and toss gays out high buildings.

thunderlips11 says

Also, wasn't Saddam an opponent of Fundamentalist Islam?

Hillary!!!!!

thunderlips11 says

bob2356 says

Actually that is exactly what happened. BIn Laden was opposed to stationing western aka american troops in Saudi Arabia. That was his basis for recruiting terrorists and attacking american targets.

Yep - not bombing Saudi Arabia, but rather defending it. Most of the world sent troops, including pretty much every member of the Arab League.

Apologists claim it's because we're bombing them.

Also, wasn't Saddam an opponent of Fundamentalist Islam?

Bin Laden specifically stated in his fatwas of 1996 and 1998 america should be attacked because they had military stationed in the holy land. What are you talking about? Only america stationed troops in saudi arabia, not most of the world. Many people disagreed with stationing us military in saudi arabia saying it would inflame the fundamentalists, which is exactly what it did.

There is no they. There is saudi wahhabism that has for the last 40 years been supporting terrorists, funding militant imans and founding/funding radical madrassas schools all over the world that are simply terrorist recruiting/training camps and there is the rest of the muslim world. The sooner people, including you, get their heads out of their asses and start concentrating on the source of world muslim terrorism instead of wasting huge amounts of time and energy talking about "they" the sooner people can start to be safer.

Unfortunately the people in charge of making the world safer are also the same people that have been sucking saudi dick for the big bucks for the last 40 years. So instead making things safer there will be huge amounts of money spent (mostly contributing to the bottom line of corporations that have been spending huge amounts on campaign contributions to same said dick sucking politicos) on an expanded war on terror (as well as an expanded war on civil rights) with no better results than there has been so far. It's all theatre of the absurd.

bob2356 says

There is no they. There is saudi wahhabism that has for the last 40 years been supporting terrorists, funding militant imans and founding/funding radical madrassas schools all over the world that are simply terrorist recruiting/training camps and there is the rest of the muslim world. The sooner people, including you, get their heads out of their asses and start concentrating on the source of world muslim terrorism instead of wasting huge amounts of time and energy talking about "they" the sooner people can start to be safer.

I can't think of any other person on this forum has been more militant about stopping the KSA, from total embargoes to sanctions, than myself.

There is every indication right now that Malik, the wife, was radicalized at the Red Mosque, and betcha bottom dollar funding goes back to Riyadh.

bob2356 says

Unfortunately the people in charge of making the world safer are also the same people that have been sucking saudi dick for the big bucks for the last 40 years. So instead making things safer there will be huge amounts of money spent (mostly contributing to the bottom line of corporations that have been spending huge amounts on campaign contributions to same said dick sucking politicos) on an expanded war on terror (as well as an expanded war on civil rights) with no better results than there has been so far. It's all theatre of the absurd.

And which of all the Candidates is the person who has taken the most donations of all from Saudi Arabia? It's not Trump or Carson or Bernie.

It's the one who only muttered slightly when Bahrain destroyed 43 Mosques and the minority government killed countless members of the majority.
It's the one who pushed for the overthrow of Qaddafyi and replaced his secular dictatorship with a Civil War now into well into many years.

bob2356 says

Bin Laden specifically stated in his fatwas of 1996 and 1998 america should be attacked because they had military stationed in the holy land. What are you talking about? Only america stationed troops in saudi arabia, not most of the world. Many people disagreed with stationing us military in saudi arabia saying it would inflame the fundamentalists, which is exactly what it did.

If Islamic mentality is no different from anybody else, how come the South Koreans, British, etc. haven't had at least a few whackos who demanded America's head for defending them?

"Destroy those Americans whose forces defended Britain! Saint Paul's cathedral must be defended by Britain, not Infidel Americans! Tea-tea-tea-tea-tea!"

thunderlips11 says

I can't think of any other person on this forum has been more militant about stopping the KSA, from total embargoes to sanctions, than myself.

I can't think oft one person on this forum that has been more militant with the idea that the radical fundamentalist saudi wahhabism version islam somehow represents the values of the vast majority of muslims.

thunderlips11 says

If Islamic mentality is no different from anybody else, how come the South Koreans, British, etc. haven't had at least a few whackos who demanded America's head for defending them?

Defending the saudi people or defending saudi oil to make american oil companies and the house of saud even richer? There is no excuse for the terrorism, but comparing wwII or korea to the history of the middle east is simply absurd. Middle east history is more in line with the history of the british colonies where people most certainly did demand britains head for "defending" them in the interest of britain. Yes there were terrorist acts in the colonies.

bob2356 says

I can't think oft one person on this forum that has been more militant with the idea that the radical fundamentalist saudi wahhabism version islam somehow represents the values of the vast majority of muslims.

It's actually a tie between T-Lips and Patrick.

thunderlips11 says

Also, "we bombed them" doesn't explain Islamic Terror attacks in Thailand, Boko Haram in Nigeria, against Sikhs in Pakistan, Uigurs in China (China has never bombed the MENA), the Mumbai Bombings, etc. etc.

I keep bringing up these points but the Apologists don't answer them.

It's the most powerful point proving Islam is a violent religion.

bob2356 says

thunderlips11 says

I can't think of any other person on this forum has been more militant about stopping the KSA, from total embargoes to sanctions, than myself.

I can't think oft one person on this forum that has been more militant with the idea that the radical fundamentalist saudi wahhabism version islam somehow represents the values of the vast majority of muslims.

The rest of Islam is not far behind the Wahhabi's.

thunderlips11 says

WOW. 98% of the population commits the same number of terror attacks as less than 2% of the population. I'd say Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Wait just a minute. Where is the graph that counts mass shooting deaths perpetrated by non-muslim US citizens. You know, all those attacks that for whatever reason have not been classified as "terrorism"? The thread starter graph counts only "terrorism".

(can someone please find that sarcastic flowchart that was floating around this week, the one that explains how it is determined whether a mass shooting is a terrorist attack or not?).

Some food for thought. Graphs end at 2013, in particular they do not include the 17 deaths in San Bernadino.

Ironman says

When will you post the chart of all the deaths from OTHER accidents (cars, falls, drugs, etc) and OTHER items used for suicides as well as other items used for homicides?

If you have one, please post it. All perspectives based on true data are good in my book. Providing scale and perspective is always good.

bgamall4 says

Thunderlips, you are as perverse as Trump. You are a bigot and it is cemented in stone. You are also a Zionist, and have never denied it. That is the cabal/doctrine that rules the west and that cabal/doctrine is what angers God the most. You will be the footstool for the Christ in the end of time.

How come Thunder gets more compliments than me? It's so unfair. :(

thunderlips11 says

Also, "we bombed them" doesn't explain Islamic Terror attacks in Thailand, Boko Haram in Nigeria, against Sikhs in Pakistan, Uigurs in China (China has never bombed the MENA), the Mumbai Bombings, etc. etc.

But likewise, "they bombed us", does not explain US terror bombing/shelling/killing in Korea, Vietnam (1 million dead)/Laos/Cambodia, and drone terror attacks all over the middle east. The Soviet Union never bombed us. Communist China never bombed us. But we bombed those aligned with China and/or the Soviet Union into oblivion (*). And, those dead kids in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen never bombed us.

What was it that radicalized the US to go such extremes? Was it Christianism (semi-sarc)? Was it Capitalism (no sarc)? Was it Freedom-ism/Freedomism (semi-sarc)? Was it the irrational fear and hatred of a different ideology (communism) or religion (islam)?

Yes, it is truly remarkably that most Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and most Koreans do not hate us. It is also remarkable that more Latin Americans do not hate us, after all the murders, regime changes and domestic terror we sponsored in South America after WWII. Some muslims do hate us, but not all of them.

Come on guys. Terror by radical Muslims is a problem. It is a big problem. Yes, Muslim immigrants and visitors should be carefully screened. But let us not go off the deep end here. Let us keep some perspective.

(*) I am not advocating this, but by the standard of bombing Vietnam because of their communist ideology, we could equally well bomb Saudi Arabia because of the wahabi ideology and their support for ISIS and other terror organizations. But then again, consistency, logic or morality have never been the strong suit of US foreign policy.

Ironman says

You're more likely to die from that cheeseburger you ate last night than from a firearm.

Exactly. Or from a terror attack. But nobody seems to be condemning McDonalds ideology of fast and unhealthy food for terrorizing the US with their deadly products. Much less bombing their fast food chain with drone strikes.

Unrelated topic: The graph that Ironman posted lists as a category the deaths caused by "prescription drug non-compliance" (meaning: people that were deemed to have died because they refused to take the medication that the doctor prescribed). I think we might also need a category for "prescription drug compliance" (meaning: people that died because they actually took the medication that he doctor prescribed).

Ironman says

Exactly, why isn't Hillary or Bernie coming out and calling for a ban of McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's?? They kill tens of thousands MORE than guns do.

Fast food also kills massively more people than Muslim terrorists do. Perhaps something to worry about? Some free sarcastic advice to McDonalds: Do not start a Halal(*) line of fast food products. Or if you do , be careful to label it "kosher" instead. Or else, YOU MIGHT BE A TERRORIST (with a hat tip to that comedian, Jeff you-might-be-a-redneck).

(*) Halal refers to food that is approved for consumption by Muslims., Similar to "Kosher" for Jews.

Come on Ironman, what strawman is it you are arguing with now?

(Can we please have a button to hide comments that are low-information? I don't want to "ignore", I just want to reduce the clutter, case in point, gratuitous images of M&Ms or some point that has already been agreed upon).

The odds are much worse than the poison M&M's:

Robert Sproul says

The odds are much worse than the poison M&M's:

You are kidding me, right? Contrast your statement about odds with the following: A large percentage X of the US population expresses a favorable view of killing "Islamists". Does that mean that "Islamists" should be worried that any random American they encounter has a probability of X actually killing them?

Ironman says

Just don't eat the green ones, the color of Islam.

Robert Sproul says

The odds are much worse than the poison M&M's:

Thanks for posting. If the approval for ISIS the human beings to walk the earth is so high, imagine how high the approval for Jihad, Martyrdom, and sharia laws are.
I think we should just nuke the whole place and be done with it.

justme says

You are kidding me, right?

Not really.
1 in 5 Syrians supports Isis

That is 1 in 5 Syrians I want nothing the fuck to do with.

justme says

Fast food also kills massively more people than Muslim terrorists do. Perhaps something to worry about? Some free sarcastic advice to McDonalds: Do not start a Halal(*) line of fast food products. Or if you do , be careful to label it "kosher" instead. Or else, YOU MIGHT BE A TERRORIST (with a hat tip to that comedian, Jeff you-might-be-a-redneck).

Fast food is a choice. None of the San Ber employees or Boston Marathon participants or spectators chose to be killed.

New Datapoint for this Thread:

450 of 452 Suicide Bombers in 2015 were Islamic. Most happened in Islamic Countries. In fact, if you consider (thanks Strategist for pointing this out) the 2 that were Communist/Independence Movement suicide bombings, they were both Kurdish, which is a Sunni culture.

Here is another point:

Green shading over countries is Muslim %. Blue radii indicate terrorist attacks.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Green shading over countries is Muslim %. Blue radii indicate terrorist attacks.

It is true that the principal victims of Islam are other Muslims. But that's only because they live near Muslims! You'd think they'd know better.

And that map showing only 4% support for ISIS in Saudi Arabia is comically wrong. The true figure is about 92%:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/07/saudi-families-refuse-condolences-isis-position.html

Maybe they just "forgot" the 9 in their map.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism

And yet, where are the western demands for Qatar to stop funding international terrorism or being complicit in the rise of jihadi groups? Instead, Britain arms Qatar’s dictatorship, selling it millions of pounds worth of weaponry including “crowd-control ammunition” and missile parts. There are other reasons for Britain to keep stumm, too. Qatar owns lucrative chunks of Britain such as the Shard, a big portion of Sainsbury’s and a slice of the London Stock Exchange.

Sorry, didn't mean to leave out Qatar and similar places. They're just as bad as Saudi Arabia.

indigenous says

The point is that Lincoln caused the civil war, Wilson caused WW1, FDR caused WW2, LBJ caused the Vietnam war, Bush caused the Iraq war.

Do you see a pattern?

Idiot Democratic & Republican voters elect idiots. Seems like a pattern.

some guy up there had the negligence to post a gun death plot that includes suicide, then use the number to compare it to death caused by terrorism.

Left dummies, you guys have to stop and get control of yourselves.

I was surprised to see that only 1% of the US population is Muslim, I took a look at several references and it looks correct.

Just for reference, this was taken from the USembassy.gov site:

"According to a 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of the Muslim-American population are first-generation immigrants, and 61 percent of the foreign-born arrived in the 1990s or this decade."

AK47 type guns were made legal in 2005. So, the only thing that changed was Obama was president. Most of the mass murders were either fake, like Sandy Hook, or false flags. Had it been the legalization of AK47 type weapons, they mass murders would have gone up in 2005-6, not after 2009. Wake up.

rando says

Sorry, didn't mean to leave out Qatar and similar places. They're just as bad as Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis are Zionists, Patrick. Please get the racism out and think:

How many innocent men,women & children are killed in u.s. military interventions
where we have no right to be?
IT'S DEMOCRACY! NOT TERRORISM!
U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!