Al,
You are an idiot.
That is all.
Come on Odeon, is there a threat or is there not. Is it a significant threat or is it not? Will gun laws change that threat or minimise radical Muslim extremists? You think that talk of falling furniture risk is somehow comparable to regular incidences of radicalised Muslim immigrant extremism?
How long ago was Orlando? 100 then, 100 now, and next time how many?
Is it minimal? Contained? Infrequent? Under control? Predictable? When exactly will the next one occur and how many people will it claim?
No, Odeon. IF ANYONE IS an idiot, it would have to be you. You for dismissing the incidences of radicalised Muslim terrorism. You for trying to intimate that gun control would help this. You for comparing the effect and risk of Radicalised Muslim extremism with falling furniture. You for thinking that anyone suggesting improving vetting systems to reduce these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming into their country is wrong to do so and thinking that freezing Muslim immigration whilst they improve their vetting system to prevent these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming in is bigoted.
You would also be a bigot for pretty much the same reason for saying I was a bigot for agreeing in principle with an idea along those lines and for those reasons.
You are an idiot, Al, an idiot and a bigot.
Oh yes, and a liar and intellectually dishonest and ...
...
Impress me Odeon, back yourself for once. Saying you are a bigot or you are an idiot doesn't. Make a point for God's sake. I suggest looking at the meaning of bigotry and starting there. You know Bigotry being the intolerance of a group.
If you say that I am intolerant to radical Muslim extremists, like the Nice and Paris attacks and like the Orlando and San Bernadino attacks...you know I am right with you. I AM intolerant to them. I do not think that is where you are going. So back yourself.
Stopping Muslims at the borders would have been ineffective in both cases, both Orlando and Nice (not Paris, though, but never mind, I'm sure they seem to be really close from where you are).
A fucking lot closer to the last Parisian terror attacks not so very long ago. Yes a LOT closer. The next attacks are going to be close to Nice too.
http://www.australianetworknews.com/isis-plans-attack-france-next-month-euro-2016/These attacks are a lot closer to Sweden than Australia too. Is THAT what you meant Odeon?
I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.
I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right?
Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.
What "still does" by the way? Is this false equivalence born out of your emotionality and inability to be rational, again?
For one thing, the perpetrators in both cases here were nationals so you could be stopping any number of Muslims and still look like the idiot and bigot you are when the murders happened.
"For one thing..." This is all you got isn't it Odeon. We don't have to build a fence across the property line to stop wolves devouring the flock because a couple of these wolves that attacked were already this side of the border, so what is the point?"
I don't have to break it down for you do I?
...Fuck it, may as well.
Radical Muslim extremism is an ideology. It is NOT Islam but it it cloaks itself within this group (as the aforementioned Westboro ideology cloaks itself with in Christianity). There IS some overlapping beliefs BUT there is distinct beliefs as well.
People with these beliefs are ABSOLUTELY a threat to any country that they are in. Any country accepting these radicalised Muslim extremists is letting potential murderers and rapists and enemies of the country in. People that would harm the country's citizens.
As well as a threat from without, is a threat from within. Radicalised Muslim extremists are often already IN the countries as a result of both poor border security, and radicalisation within the country.
There is precisely TWO courses of action that any RATIONAL person can see as the way of combating these two problems:
1. Reduce risk of them coming in
2. Get on to of the radical Muslim extremists within the country.
I will give you the tip on what is NOT rational. Calling people, supporting measures to address either of this, bigots.
Spouting claims of falling furniture, is probably at the least impractical and at worst idiotic.
In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.
Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?
Now as it is not my idea but one I support as a concept it would be idiotic to suggest that I may HAVE to lay ANYTHING out right?
If for example you said that due to the new Pokemon Go craze, you were going to organise dogwalking around your area and advertise for "Pokemon Go trainers needed - get paid to Pokemon Go". The thought being that you could get pet owners to have a ready supply of teenage kids to walk around your area for ages and you would spent a pittance in pokemon lures in a few areas around the city, to me that sounds like a decent idea.
If I then tell someone else and they demand details and finer workings of the plan, I am able to say "No idea", and there would be no expectation that I would need to know the supply, demand, cost, sustainability or anything of the sort.
In fact pressing me on details I could not be expected to know would be the height of idiocy. It would not mean that liking the idea in principle was bad or wrong or that I OUGHT to have availed myself of more information and inferring I ought to have would be moronic.
Which brings me around to....YOU
. For exactly the same reasons I do not need to have any more information. Not my idea. Not necessary I ought to have flesh this concept out further and it is idiotic to suggest/infer/imply that I ought to have. Which kind of begs the question...why do you keep asking?
You keep suggesting that I'm ignoring the dangers posed by radicalised Muslims. I am not, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Sure.
Every time I bring this up, you minimise the issue whether it be by inferring the reduced risk, and the risk of falling furniture presenting a bigger risk. You throw the term bigot around like it is confetti. You make a lot of switch and bait attempts to substitute positions I do not have or have not vouched for in hope the substituted positions will make a stronger case or you, You introduce superfluous facts to try to make a stronger case.
There is an argument about gun control in America. Obviously gun control in America has NOTHING to do with radical Muslim extremism. But you try to sell, it as something that need to be resolved in order to address this issue. It is actually pretty much irrelevant. Yet you tell me that it needs to be looked at. Not in terms or boundaries of this debate.
I suspect the reason you do this is that this is all you have to offer in respect to those two issues
There is precisely TWO courses of action that any RATIONAL person can see as the way of combating these two problems:
1. Reduce risk of them coming in
2. Get on to of the radical Muslim extremists within the country.
"Maybe if I make it all about guns and do not address point 1, then we can pretend I have a better alternative to a hateful ideology set to kill the ideological enemy by any means possible."
Truth is you have nothing and you are just shitting on someone who is going to places to address an issue that is difficult and uncomfortable. You call me a bigot not because I am intolerant but rather because I am open to more radical solutions that you are prepared to support and I can see the benefit of accepting imperfect concepts on their face and in principle without needing to be bound to anything more than the idea itself. It never made me a bigot and your inability to back yourself is proof of this.
What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.
I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic.
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.
I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why?
And yes, I have compared the danger of falling victim to a terrorist attack in the US with that of furniture-related deaths, with the latter being greater, but those are not my numbers. Do a quick Google search and you'll find out.
Nope, it is disingenuous. It is you simply trying to dismiss a threat. Is France at risk of another attack. How safe are the French from another attack like the last three beginning from Charlie Hebdo? Hundreds of citizens killed at short notice by Radical Muslim extremists. When will it happen again? How can they protect themselves? Where in the world will the next attack happen? As I say, IF it is in Sweden can I start throwing zingers about falling furniture around? No? You made no point.
The reason for the furniture comparison (and it's a valid one; the numbers do check out) was to try to put some sense into you and your moronic ideas.
It was never a clever idea Odeon, it was a stupid one. One that will be coming back to you again and again as more and more radicalised Muslim extremists commit more acts of brutality. It was weak and idiotic.
You want to handle what basically is a gun problem (not a Muslim immigration problem) with banning Muslims from entering the US, something that is not based in any sort of research or reality. There is NOTHING to suggest it would help anything, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
"Basically a gun problem". There you go again. What an idiotic thing to say. Why were the people in the gay nightclub targeted? Was it because Omar had a gun and randomly went crazy?
I mean that IS an option. Consider it. Reduce it down to the fact that he had access to a gun and gun control may have somehow made it illegal to get a gun.
IF it is basically a gun problem that may work....right?
OKay how did people die in the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. What about in London on July 7 2005? What about in Brussels on March 22, 2016? Take away legal access to guns, does it take away the ideology or the desire or intent? Does it reduce the damage that these extremists can do. What if they get a lorry instead of a gun and line up a crowd of people like has JUST bloody happened?
"Basically a gun problem". Bloody idiot.
It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.
I have blamed the religion for the actions of a few have I? Odeon why are you lying again? Care to show where I have said that I blame the entire religion for the actions of a few? I know you can't, just as you have. In fact I have gone out of my way to be absolutely crystal clear that I distinguish Moderate Muslims from radicalised Muslim extremists and have never blamed one for the other.
So you are down to straight out lying.
Why are you lying. Odeon? Why aren't you backing yourself instead?
You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.
Okay are you a liar?
Straight up. You just said that I stated "FBI are monitoring a thousand" That is YOUR words quoted above. That is what you said that I said.
Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......
Look at what is bolded above. DID I say the FBI is monitoring nearly 1000 US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases or that they are monitoring a thousand? Its one or the other.
Okay so how many exactly? Well Director Comey said 900 active US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases. So is 900 cases NEARLY 1000? YES. Is it ACTUALLY 1000? No.
So let's discuss why you just lied. Is your argument THAT weak you have to rely on lies and switch and bait attempts to give it legs? (Rhetorical question, obviously)
How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?
900? 1000?
And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."
This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.
Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already.
IF it is basically a gun problem that may work....right?
OKay how did people die in the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. What about in London on July 7 2005? What about in Brussels on March 22, 2016? Take away legal access to guns, does it take away the ideology or the desire or intent? Does it reduce the damage that these extremists can do. What if they get a lorry instead of a gun and line up a crowd of people like has JUST bloody happened?
"Basically a gun problem". Bloody idiot.
"try something that can actually make a difference" The guns laws you wish to get implemented will make a difference? How? How would "I" "try that or make a difference?" What the fuck are you talking about now? Am I American? DO I vote? Do I have a NRA membership to revoke or something?
Problem with emotional arguments Odeon, you say a lot of dumb shit.
At the end of the day though, it is simply a concept. Not mine. No more details than an idea. One that on its face looks fine. I do not have to flesh it out or denounce its impracticalities nor endorse anything that comes out of it or that may later be developed. Its simply saying "Here is a suggestion, on its merits, is it worth fleshing out and considering?". It is to me. Will it ultimately be able to be formulated into a strategic plan or policy or anything else of the sort? No idea and I do not much care if it does. Will I agree with it then? No idea. This is my investment.
Yes, the terrorists are getting to be more visible and yes, something needs to be done. Actually, a lot needs to be done, including the FBI improving its vetting procedures, but I would look at the numbers and take care of the obvious stuff first.
Better vetting system sounds like a wonderful suggestion. I too think that a lot needs to be done. I think NOT doing anything, or trying to upgrade a system whilst using the faulty system to do a faulty job is silly.
You do think that stopping using it whilst it is upgraded is problematic, and I don't.
This difference of opinion does not make me bigoted.
For all your attempts to bait and switch, drawing false equivalencies and lying, you still have not backed yourself. You called me a bigot and you need to back how I am a bigot. To which group am I intolerant and prejudice against? (If the group is Radicalised Muslim extremists I am on board but then so is every right thinking person. Who is it that you mean and can you back that yet?)
