patrick.net

anonymous says

Couldn't have anything to do with the news media could it ?

This is a good point.

anonymous says

The same people who complain about Trump for example getting free publicity via the media (recent New Yorker article) but have no problem doing 24 x 7 details on the perpetrators but hardly a mention of the victims.

I'm not sure why you think that. I don't care for all of the news coverage of Trump, but dislike the nature of our entertainment news. It's hard to argue that 24/7 news is anything but entertainment. It would be nice for news shows to avoid providing attention to the killers.

The scared ? Really?

Who is it that's scared of guns?

dodgerfanjohn says

The scared ? Really?

Who is it that's scared of guns?

"Loving" guns doesn't equate to being brave, just as being pro-gun regulation doesn't make you "scared of guns".

I will say though, I don't think gun sales spike after mass shootings/attacks because people suddenly have found a new inner source of courage. The amount of fear based fire arms purchases are pretty significant. (Scared of ze-bad-guys, scared the goberment is gonna ban guns/collect 'em/melt them into a statue of Jesus, scared the zombies/end of the world is coming, etc. etc.)

I have a strong inclination that in the US, the main driver of gun sales, isn't target practice and hunting.

dodgerfanjohn says

Who is it that's scared of guns?

Maybe 100 people have been killed in terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Yet, >60% of the population thinks we are in imminent danger. Trump received a big bump in the polls, indicating people (at this point) would change their vote based on this threat. People seem happy to agree with Trump that we should use religion as a litmus test to get into the country for some undetermined time.

About 450,000 people have been killed by guns in the US since 9/11. This is approaching civil war death numbers here. Democrats want to introduce legislation that would make it harder to get guns in response to a threat. This is a much more reasoned and focused response to a threat that is 5000 times as large as the terrorist threat. You could argue that gun control would not work as intended, but the argument that Democrats are scared into gun control, while Trump supporters are acting rationally is silly.

YesYNot says

You could argue that gun control would not work as intended, but the argument that Democrats are scared into gun control, while Trump supporters are acting rationally is silly.

Though I think it is greatly flawed "logic", the gun debate, and many on P.net, have explicitly made ridiculous comparisons and challenges to the gun debate based on death rates alone. This same group now seems quite comfortable asking for all sorts of government regulation and expenditures to prevent a terror attack, but wants nothing done in relation to gun control.

I wonder if they will see the irony in that?
"More likely to die of accidental suffocation than Islamic radicals. Ban the import of pillows into the US now!"

;)

:)

The damage potentially inflicted by terrorists is huge. Like blowing up a city huge, particularly since terrorist supporting nations like Iran are now able to have nukes(thanks Obama).

So despite the lack of terrorist attacks in the US thus far, the potential for large scale damage remains overwhelming.

And forgive me if I don't believe that someone who holds your point of view is a particularly good judge of ones courage or fear levels.

dodgerfanjohn says

The damage potentially inflicted by terrorists is huge. Like blowing up a city huge, particularly since terrorist supporting nations like Iran are now able to have nukes(thanks Obama).

So despite the lack of terrorist attacks in the US thus far, the potential for large scale damage remains overwhelming.

Paris was shut down by 8 terrorists.
US was shut down for 3 days after 911.
The cost to us in security costs, wars and lost production was in the trillions.

Strategist says

The cost to us in security costs, wars and lost production was in the trillions.

The security costs (TSA bullshit) and war costs are the big ones, and those are not directly attributable to the terrorists. Those costs are directly due to our own (over)reactions. There are some costs that were necessary, like those associated with spying and changing our military focus, but that's the cost of keeping up with changing threats.

YesYNot says

More than half the population is constantly thinking that there is going to be one in the next 3 months? At that rate, there would be 4 a year.

Of all the lies and misleading statements from YesYNot, this OP is among the most obvious. We have officials from the FBI to the rest of the Homeland Security team saying they have thwarted countless attacks, and we have arrests and convictions e.g. Portland, etc., but YesYNot doesn't count any of those. Here are at least 60 reported examples since 9/11, proving the accuracy of the forecast that YesYNot chooses to disbelieve. The OP implies that if an attack is thwarted, then it doesn't count and wasn't likely. The blind faith in the FBI to intercept every future attack, despite obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. San Bernardino), and the consequent implied endorsement of government spying on everyone in order to thwart terrorists, is very sad. Ordinarily, I don't bother responding to YesYNot's dishonesty, but I do occasionally make exceptions.

anonymous says

Ironman says

Plus, I'm more concerned on the knee-jerk, emotional responses by the idiots in Washington to a terror attack

How about the knee-jerk response in creating the TSA let alone emotional responses?

Tell that to YesYNot, who seems to welcome it, even saying that hundreds killed are "nothing." Also mention it to Rew and marcus, who seem equally sanguine in their struggle to spread Islam around the world, including here.

dodgerfanjohn says

The damage potentially inflicted by terrorists is huge. Like blowing up a city huge ...

That is no less or more than the risk domestic radicals have. Additionally, IS seems to like the "couple people with guns at soft target" method of terror. That is pretty equivocal with a mass shooting in the US, with non-Islamic radical view points, and as is shown above there are whole heaps more of those.

It's scarier when it's 'foreign' though, right? Psh.

dodgerfanjohn says

And forgive me if I don't believe that someone who holds your point of view is a particularly good judge of ones courage or fear levels.

Oh? Why is that? I'm not the one recently crying to turn away refugees and blasting Muslims in general.

Ironman says

Plus, I'm more concerned on the knee-jerk, emotional responses by the idiots in Washington to a terror attack

Ironman is saying this ... bahahahaha. I'm sure he is for bringing in Syrian refugees then. :) Ha. That will be the day. I'm sure he means: "it's not over reaction to survey mosques and ban entry to all Muslims, but it is over reaction to taking away the right to gun ownership from people on the no-fly list." (Mumble mumble ... "something something" about showing facts to libs/cons ... "something/something".)

This is priceless. :)

curious2 says

Tell that to YesYNot, who seems to welcome it, even saying that hundreds killed are "nothing."

I'll happily take your stance, but, I would assume you would be very Pro-gun regulation ... since the current numbers are about 50 deaths by terrorist attack in 13 years, vs over 900 deaths by mass shootings (4 or more deaths) in 7 years.

(insert line about regulating swimming pools vs "terrorist control")

Or would you like to retract your disingenuous portrayal of YesYNot's statements? (The context is that the threat to loss of life, with the existing measures already in place, doesn't equate to nearly a fraction of the risks domestically due to other non-terrorist attack threats. That is to highlight : a group of people seem very willing to go to extremes to prevent a smaller threat, and do little to nothing about a larger one. You are in that number I assume?)

curious2 says

Of all the lies and misleading statements from YesYNot, this OP is among the most obvious.

I've been politely ignoring your douche baggery without putting you on ignore, b/c you sometimes have interesting things to say. I'm interpreting the question of 'Is a terrorist attack likely?' to mean, 'Is a terrorist attack likely to be carried out.' Through your comment, it is clear that you think I should be interpreting it as 'Is a terrorist attack likely to be planned, but not carried out' Then, you call me out for being a liar based on this. Are you serious? Are you hoping no one notices how silly that is?

curious2 says

Tell that to YesYNot, who seems to welcome it, even saying that hundreds killed are "nothing."

You know that I meant that 100 people was statistically nothing, but you keep pasting that quote out of context. The impact of terrorism is through the reaction and fear, not through the number killed. Your logic is questionable.

YesYNot says

Are you serious?

Yes. Go back and read my comment, where I've now added a link to where I caught you lying. You'll have to click twice, but that's faster than typing. I know what you said, not what you pretend to have meant, and it was contemptible, as are your other comments in the same vein.

curious2 says

Tell that to YesYNot, who seems to welcome it, even saying that hundreds killed are "nothing." Also mention it to Rew and marcus, who seem equally sanguine in their quest to spread Islam around the world, including here.

Right on. It is literally bizarre that those on the left are so devoted to protecting ultrareactionary religious freaks.

Again, I can only say what I've said before: They scream about some dimwit who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple as if the Apocalypse is nigh; they blithely dismiss terror attacks that kill dozens, sometimes more than a hundred people. Indeed, they fall all over themselves to express 'solidarity' with Muslims. They accept claims of Islamophobia made by extremist sympathizing Saudi/Paki funded Islamic groups like ICNA or CAIR or Hizb ul Tahrir against ex-Muslims or reformist Muslims like Maryam Namazie or Maajid Nawaz.

The Guardian put up a film and frothed over it today, which allowed ultraconservative Islamic Groups to name reformers and ex-Muslims as "Islamophobes". It's also funny how quickly they turn off CiF when the comments, as usual, run the opposite of the editor's preferences.

How come former Evangelicals or Catholics or others critical of Christianity aren't pilloried as "Christianophobes" by the Identitarian Left?

thunderlips11 says

It is literally bizarre that those on the left are so devoted to protecting ultrareactionary religious freaks... How come former Evangelicals or Catholics or others critical of Christianity aren't pilloried as "Christianophobes" by the Identitarian Left?

I think the Identitarian Left (brilliant phrase, btw) feel virtuous about rooting for the underdog, without analyzing whether the dog happens to be rabid. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." I respect their willingness to help people, but I cannot respect their refusal to think through the consequences and ask cui bono.

BTW, I've criticized Romnesia's moronic cult many times, so maybe he'll call me a Moronophobe.

Another interesting thing not considered with Muslim immigration is Honor Killings, a culture of Smuggling and Tax Evasion, etc. that is not counted as Terror.

Hundreds of Honor Killings have also happened in the West over the past decade. And many more were committed by Western-dwelling Muslims in the MENA on the excuse "Come Daughter, let us visit Grandma in Islamabad." "Ha, you whore, chatting with infidel males on the internet instead of marrying your cousin as your father and I demand. You are a great shame to the Al-Takfiri clan. Son, slice her throat! Insha'allah!"

Don't discount the viewing of Rachel Maddow as the sole source of news either.

curious2 says

BTW, I've criticized Romnesia's moronic cult

I could not give a fuck if you criticize any religion / cult, including Christianity. curious2 says

Yes. Go back and read my comment,

No, I'm not going back to sift through your crappy comments. I have no interest in it, and I doubt anyone else does either. No one wants to read a petty pissing contest, especially when one of the participants (you) clearly doesn't use logic to form their thoughts.