or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 77

post #1141 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I love watching people rationalize things.

ditto

Also I'd love to see that arguement made for gun control, "well guns kill 10k people a year but hearth diseases 300k so let's not worry about gun violence we can live with it" or maybe unjustified police killings of blacks.. how many of them are a year 10?

But these are same great minds that are more concerned with the rise of Alt-right (well rise... increase in posting of mean memes and pictures of Haramabe on twitter) than global jihadism that kills tens/hundred of thousands of people per year. Again how many people were killed by alt-right hmm?
Edited by wojt - 9/19/16 at 12:51pm
post #1142 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scelerat View Post

Quite. In any case, far far more people die in motor accidents, or being stabbed or shot by a fellow countryman, or by a family member.

The statistic evidence says something else though.

The danish stats for '14.
1:220 people convicted for violent crimes
1:30,898 died in road accidents
post #1143 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Do you fear me?

I will not fear Pio as long as white, non-muslim men from Canada continue to be far less of a security risk than a military-aged male from Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


Of course he doesn't. You're white. 

I figure more refugees' lives have been saved by immigration than taken by terrorism from immigrants so I'm okay with it. 

Now we're getting somewhere. I wish more liberals would admit this. The U.S. government has no obligation to save the life of someone living in Somalia. It has an explicit obligation to protect the lives of its own citizens. And in fact, any government official importing refugees under the twisted logic that 1,000 dead in a terrorist attack < 100,000 imported refugees should be hung.

Liberals are tripping over themselves and the bodies of people killed by terrorism in a race to prove how non-racist and enlightened they've become. The ones most vocal about how virtuous they are don't have to live with the consequences of their ambitions - they have armed security, send their kids to private schools, fly privately and live behind walls and gates (the non-racist kind of wall).

Apparently the suspect responsible for these bombings hated gay people which, if you haven't noticed, is sort of a big thing among Muslims in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the LGBT community, in the hierarchy of political correctness Muslim trumps gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


I'll bet there is no change.  Here's what will happen.

1. Trump will try to make a big deal out of it.
2. Hillary will change her policy and twist her words so that it sounds like she never would have let said attackers into the country.
3. 2 months from now when people are voting, they won't remember any of it.


If this had been a 9/11 like attack, maybe that would change the electoral outcome, but not these incidents.

I doubt it, and if she tries it's going to be a tough sell considering she's campaigned against that this entire time, and Obama has governed against any such common sense for 8 years. A more gifted politician might be able to do it under different circumstances. Too many people don't trust her and she sucks at public speaking.
post #1144 of 1314
yes the most vocal liberals are rich enough to fly in private jets or chartered flights; the rest of the mere millionaire liberals don't have any personal reason to fear terrorism either. terrorists only strike solid, jesus-loving republican places like lower manhattan and gay nightclubs in orlando.
post #1145 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The U.S. government has no obligation to save the life of someone living in Somalia. It has an explicit obligation to protect the lives of its own citizens.

Absofuckinlutely.
post #1146 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

1,000 dead in a terrorist attack < 100,000 imported refugees should be hung.

 

There have been less than 80 people killed since 1995 in terrorist attacks by 1st or 2nd generation Americans. 

 

The deadliest terror attack by a resident of the US since 1995 was carried out by a white man.

 

Since 1980 we have invited 1.8 million refugees to live in our country.

 

Seems like a fine ratio to me. 


Edited by ethanm - 9/19/16 at 6:12pm
post #1147 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


The deadliest terror attack since 1995 was carried out by a white man.


Just so I'm clear, the World Trade Center either was either not a terrorist attack, or less people died than in the OK City bombing? Or it was done by a white man?
post #1148 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Just so I'm clear, the World Trade Center either was either not a terrorist attack, or less people died than in the OK City bombing? Or it was done by a white man?


I meant by an American citizen/resident. 

post #1149 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


I meant by an American citizen/resident. 

Well, if one puts enough caveats on things, one gets the narrative one wants.
post #1150 of 1314
Ethan you whack, bro.
post #1151 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Now we're getting somewhere. I wish more liberals would admit this. The U.S. government has no obligation to save the life of someone living in Somalia. It has an explicit obligation to protect the lives of its own citizens.

If liberals are admitting that, conservatives should admit that the U.S. actually does have an explicit obligation to protect the lives of people from Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. who are asylum seekers and refugees. The U.S. is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is a treaty requiring the U.S. to accept valid claims from asylum. Those obligations were further expanded by the Refugee Act of 1980. It's not just some liberal Obama policy. It's the law and has been for some time.

So, the U.S. has an explicit legal obligation to accept many of these people. Now, anbody is entitled to oppose these laws, to work to overturn them, and to argue for new policies. It seems like you may have some good arguments to make. However, you're completely counter-productive, if you aren't able to admit (or understand) for yourself the obligations the U.S., in fact, does have.
post #1152 of 1314
Thread Starter 
...
Edited by Piobaire - 9/19/16 at 7:04pm
post #1153 of 1314
post #1154 of 1314
Edit: You removed your post, so I suppose my post responding to your post is kinda pointless.
post #1155 of 1314
Thread Starter 
It's not really pointless, at least in my estimation, as the legislation needs to be read. Somehow I'm willing to bet there's limits, definitions of qualification for the categories, etc. It's basically not as simple as implying the US has an obligation to take anyone that wants to come here as we both know that's not the case.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread