Shootout and explosions in Paris...

[Lip]

They're made up.

You know this how?

 

[JCV]

You know this how?

So you're believing that 1 in every 10 to 1 in every 20 Muslims wants to strap a bomb to their chest, or are extremists?
ummmm our problems would be much bigger as there are 1.57 BILLION Muslims.
Going by the low end this would mean over 75 MILLION extremists, yeah definitely NOT accurate.......

 

[Lip]

Again prove your numbers.

 

[Bonesinium]

Yes, the 5 to 10% of the refugees who are "extremists" result in instant death when they decided to follow through with what they are being told is their religious duty. The m&m's will only make you sick because of biology and you can survive if you are lucky

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's the number I've seen reported by both sides as the average for the Muslim population.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

There is an estimated 6-12 million Muslims in the US already. I'll lowball it at 5. I'll also take your lower estimate of 5%. That's 250,000 Muslim extremists that "result in instant death when they decide to follow through". Of course 250,000 Muslims as a matter I fact aren't and haven't been murdering people. So not only is your claim provably ridiculous but another 500-1000 wouldn't really have an impact if true and we'd already have a much larger problem at hand to worry about.

You know this how?

It's not up to me to provide a source proving someone else's claim wrong. So go ahead, provide a source saying 5-10% of refugees are murderous extremists.

- - - Updated - - -

Again prove your numbers.

Irony.

 

[xtry51]

So you're believing that 1 in every 10 to 1 in every 20 Muslims wants to strap a bomb to their chest, or are extremists?
ummmm our problems would be much bigger as there are 1.57 BILLION Muslims.
Going by the low end this would mean over 75 MILLION extremists, yeah definitely NOT accurate.......

I believe the actual data was 15-25% supported violence to advance Islam. Meaning 200-300 MILLION. Derek posted a video with links.

That doesn't mean they'd all strap a vest on and go kaboom, but it does mean they cheer when other die.

 

[Bonesinium]

I believe the actual data was 15-25% supported violence to advance Islam. Meaning 200-300 MILLION. Derek posted a video with links.

That doesn't mean they'd all strap a vest on and go kaboom, but it does mean they cheer when other die.

I bet the percentage of people on this forum who support violence against Muslims is even larger than that. Hell we even have people here who straight up admitted to supporting genocide. So talk about hypocrisy.

 

[spcantwell]

I am on my phone right now so you do the research for you and find the percentage later. But you are falling into the liberal trap of assuming the term extremist equates to a suicide belt. If I remember correctly this was extremists who support the terrorists other activity or passively as opposed to the so-called moderate Muslims who do not support terrorists

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[spcantwell]

Lots of different sources here pick one that matches your outlook on life. Most of them quote numbers in the 5 to 10% range.
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UT...wser&q=what+percent+of+muslims+are+extremists

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Bonesinium]

I am on my phone right now so you do the research for you and find the percentage later. But you are falling into the liberal trap of assuming the term extremist equates to a suicide belt.

Dude, it was literally you who made that suggestion. I quoted you. Twice. You suggested that 5-10% of refugees would be willing to cause instant death to people. Your words. I fell into no such trap. I took you at your word. Here is what you said a third time.

Yes, the 5 to 10% of the refugees who are "extremists" result in instant death when they decided to follow through with what they are being told is their religious duty.

So either they are or they aren't. I've in fact be arguing AGAINST the notion 5-10% are murderous extremists. Not for it.

If I remember correctly this was extremists who support the terrorists other activity or passively as opposed to the so-called moderate Muslims who do not support terrorists

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

A bit different from what you said earlier, no?

 

[spcantwell]

As far as I am concerned anyone who is assisting a terrorist activity or passively helps "results" in the deaths. Or do you only count the people who actually pulled the trigger as being involved in an attack

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[jhblaze1]

I bet the percentage of people on this forum who support violence against Muslims is even larger than that. Hell we even have people here who straight up admitted to supporting genocide. So talk about hypocrisy.

QFTMFT

People on here had good old time with the Mecca stampede and crane collapse not that long ago. Shitty people come in all colors, creeds, and cultures and there's a shit ton of them right here on the forums.

 

[spcantwell]

Again on a phone so limited searching abilities but I believe the numbers for the French Resistance was below 5% at least in the earlier years. There are many more examples of resistance / terrorists fighters throughout history you are a small percentage of the population and able to do a large amount of harm

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Lip]

There is an estimated 6-12 million Muslims in the US already. I'll lowball it at 5. I'll also take your lower estimate of 5%. That's 250,000 Muslim extremists that "result in instant death when they decide to follow through". Of course 250,000 Muslims as a matter I fact aren't and haven't been murdering people. So not only is your claim provably ridiculous but another 500-1000 wouldn't really have an impact if true and we'd already have a much larger problem at hand to worry about.





It's not up to me to provide a source proving someone else's claim wrong. So go ahead, provide a source saying 5-10% of refugees are murderous extremists.

- - - Updated - - -



Irony.

Are you daft? Or willingly obtuse?

 

[calsdad]

I've met and worked with a decent amount of Muslims and they were all nice people, however this is a valid point, especially when we don't know who is coming in with the refugees

Why import ANY of them here - even notwithstanding whether ANY of them are terrorists or not?

This video has been posted before - but here it is again - because the guy is making a huge point - You will not solve the problems of the third world by importing those people into first world countries.

So what is the point then - of letting ANY of them into the country?

 

[spcantwell]

Correction according to Wikipedia (which is worth its weight in gold) the French Resistance was only about 2%

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[calsdad]

The very POINT of bombing someone is to inflict as much death, pain and suffering as humanly possible. That's why the bombs explode. If they didn't blow up they'd just be big lumps of metal squashing whatever happened to be under it. It's a lot safer for *our* side. Admittedly a little rough on theirs. Then they shouldn't have attacked us (or France in this case) and they shouldn't aide those who did.

Some of you guys need to get busy and go start studying 4th generation warfare - and what happens when first world armies fight guerilla armies on their own home territory.

Long story short : They lose. The Germans learned this during WW2 in Yugoslavia.

We got taught a lesson in Vietnam - and didn't learn a damn thing apparently. Because we went to school again and took the same course in Iraq - and flunked the test again. At the same time we did that we decided to double book courses and take one in Afghanistan - and lost there too.

Judging by our pass rate - the student is a history ****tard.

 

[xtry51]

I bet the percentage of people on this forum who support violence against Muslims is even larger than that. Hell we even have people here who straight up admitted to supporting genocide. So talk about hypocrisy.

I'm not in the let's wipe them out camp, I'm just passing along facts man.

I'm for immigration if you're coming here to work and assimilate. Unfortunately our current system encourages people to come here for the opposite reasons.

So UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE US, my position is stop immigration to a trickle of the most talented people and keep the rest out.

If you want to talk about abolishing 99% of the government we have along with keeping all military on US soil or at sea in our immediate region for defense, then I'm willing to discuss "open borders" where you can fill out some info and enter the country that day with a visa.

But that's not going to happen, so the only option in the current situation is to stop the tide altogether. Yes it's a shitty option, but it's the only one left when your government prances around the world killing and occupying every country it wants to dig oil out of, export drugs from or put a pipeline through.

 

[Lip]

We've been dealing with islamists since the dawn of our nation. I just finished Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates by Brian Kilmeade and Dan Yeager. Things never really change.

 

[calsdad]

You people that think the bigger the bomb will end this war are in for a rude awakening. It's easy for you guy's to say blow this country up, but I'm sure if you and your loved one's were in their situation, you'd be begging to get out to escape the madness. How would you feel if other countries shut the doors on your ass trying to escape a war torn country?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

It's impossible for the US to solve all of the world's problems. Importing them here - just makes this a worse country.

Again - for emphasis - this guy demonstrates clearly that allowing people to emigrate here will NOT fix the problems - and forcing them to stay where they are - just might:

 

[calsdad]

I'm not in the let's wipe them out camp, I'm just passing along facts man.

I'm for immigration if you're coming here to work and assimilate. Unfortunately our current system encourages people to come here for the opposite reasons.

So UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE US, my position is stop immigration to a trickle of the most talented people and keep the rest out.

If you want to talk about abolishing 99% of the government we have along with keeping all military on US soil or at sea in our immediate region for defense, then I'm willing to discuss "open borders" where you can fill out some info and enter the country that day with a visa.

But that's not going to happen, so the only option in the current situation is to stop the tide altogether. Yes it's a shitty option, but it's the only one left when your government prances around the world killing and occupying every country it wants to dig oil out of, export drugs from or put a pipeline through.

Why is cutting it off (immigration) - such a shitty option?

I mean seriously: Look at this country. What is the population now - something like 320 million? What was the population during WW2? I don't know the numbuer - but it was surely a lot less. So it's not like we need manpower to staff up a huge army - we've already got that.

Is everybody in this country stupid? Why do we need to go to imports to get smart people? Maybe if people in this country are becoming retards we need to look at THAT problem and fix it - instead of just constantly avoiding the problem and bringing in immigrants.

It reminds me of a person who has worn out brakes on his car - so he just goes out and buys a new one. How about learning how to fix the brakes dummy?

Do we not have enough poor people to do all the crappy jobs? I think we do. We've got a MASSIVE amount of people living on public assistance. Instead of importing illegal immigrants by the millions - expecting them to live in the shadows and work all these crappy jobs - how about fixing the systemic issues that cause it to be unprofitable to employ people who are ALREADY HERE - and do it LEGALLY.

Birthrate (another excuse I hear for bringing in immigrants) - what so there is some systemic issue with white people where they can't reproduce any more? Is Children of Men become real? Is there a REAL fertility issue - or do white people have their heads so far up their asses that they think working themselves to death supporting a bunch of people of other ethnicities - while never having the time to have kids - or aborting the ones they have - is somehow a good idea in the end.

My feeling is that the current way of things (socialist/liberal welfare state) - is a historical dead end - because it's literally suicidal.

Maybe people ought to start looking at the ACTUAL problems - instead of constantly trying to ignore them and make them worse.

 

[Lip]

^^^^^this

 

[namedpipes]

Some of you guys need to get busy and go start studying 4th generation warfare - and what happens when first world armies fight guerilla armies on their own home territory.

Long story short : They lose. The Germans learned this during WW2 in Yugoslavia.

We got taught a lesson in Vietnam - and didn't learn a damn thing apparently. Because we went to school again and took the same course in Iraq - and flunked the test again. At the same time we did that we decided to double book courses and take one in Afghanistan - and lost there too.

Judging by our pass rate - the student is a history ****tard.

I did not advocate invading with troops as we did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I said the point of dropping a bomb is to kill people, which in the context of a war, is a desirable outcome. (to kill the enemy)

I make no claim nor have any intention of being / becoming an expert on warfare technology. My opinions are my own and based on extensive reading of Tom Clancy novels.

 

[xtry51]

Why is cutting it off (immigration) - such a shitty option?

I mean seriously: Look at this country. What is the population now - something like 320 million? What was the population during WW2? I don't know the numbuer - but it was surely a lot less. So it's not like we need manpower to staff up a huge army - we've already got that.

Is everybody in this country stupid? Why do we need to go to imports to get smart people? Maybe if people in this country are becoming retards we need to look at THAT problem and fix it - instead of just constantly avoiding the problem and bringing in immigrants.

It reminds me of a person who has worn out brakes on his car - so he just goes out and buys a new one. How about learning how to fix the brakes dummy?

Do we not have enough poor people to do all the crappy jobs? I think we do. We've got a MASSIVE amount of people living on public assistance. Instead of importing illegal immigrants by the millions - expecting them to live in the shadows and work all these crappy jobs - how about fixing the systemic issues that cause it to be unprofitable to employ people who are ALREADY HERE - and do it LEGALLY.

Birthrate (another excuse I hear for bringing in immigrants) - what so there is some systemic issue with white people where they can't reproduce any more? Is Children of Men become real? Is there a REAL fertility issue - or do white people have their heads so far up their asses that they think working themselves to death supporting a bunch of people of other ethnicities - while never having the time to have kids - or aborting the ones they have - is somehow a good idea in the end.

My feeling is that the current way of things (socialist/liberal welfare state) - is a historical dead end - because it's literally suicidal.

Maybe people ought to start looking at the ACTUAL problems - instead of constantly trying to ignore them and make them worse.

Hey, I'm for deporting immigrants here legally not contributing and those hereillegally. But that's a separate discussion than what was being addressed. Those problems get sorted out mainly by simply dismantling the entire welfare system. That's not going to happen without civil war or collapse.

 

[calsdad]

I did not advocate invading with troops as we did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I said the point of dropping a bomb is to kill people, which in the context of a war, is a desirable outcome. (to kill the enemy)

I make no claim nor have any intention of being / becoming an expert on warfare technology. My opinions are my own and based on extensive reading of Tom Clancy novels.

Bombing doesn't accomplish shit.

It didn't end the war in WW2. It didn't end the Korean War. It didn't end Vietnam - and it hasn't stopped anything in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only thing that really stops a war - is bringing in troops - and fighting it out in the dirt. Which we have been failing at.

I CONSTANTLY hear people say " let's drop some bombs " - seriously , do you guys have Alzheimers? It's not like this is some military lesson from the distant past that people can poo-poo and ignore. It JUST HAPPENED - and it DIDN'T WORK.

 

[calsdad]

Hey, I'm for deporting immigrants here legally not contributing and those hereillegally. But that's a separate discussion than what was being addressed. Those problems get sorted out mainly by simply dismantling the entire welfare system. That's not going to happen without civil war or collapse.

Collapse is on it's way - it's well advanced now already. The fact that we're importing so many immigrants who are hostile to the society they're coming into is just another symptom of that collapse

http://www.garynorth.com/public/14495.cfm

THREE STAGES

Warren Buffett is good with one-liners. He has described the descent of new economic ideas: first, the innovators; second, the imitators; third, the idiots. This applies just as well to politics.

We are well beyond the political innovation stage. It ended in 1952. The imitators went into retirement in 2000. The idiots are now in charge.

First, it was the New Deal/Fair Deal: centralization. That ended with Eisenhower's election. Then it was half a century of imitators, all claiming to be the spiritual heirs of Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan and Gingrich joined the chorus. But with Bush II and Obama, the idiots have come into their own. Our own. Yours and mine.

Republican voters have had enough.

"Had enough?" That magnificent slogan brought victory to the Republicans in the 1946 off-year Congressional election. They won back both houses of Congress. But the voters had not had enough. They re-elected Truman in 1948. Eisenhower consolidated the New Deal/Fair Deal.

Kennedy gave us another "new": the New Frontier. Then came Johnson's Great Society: the consolidation of the New Deal. After that . . . no more administration-defining bumper-sticker slogans. Reagan's ad man tried in 1984: "Morning in America." Morning ended with Irangate.

Nixon gave us Watergate. Ford gave us Nelson Rockefeller. Carter gave us G. William Miller as the head of the FED, who in turn gave us 12% price inflation and 20% T-bill rates. Reagan gave us deficits. Bush I gave us a promise: "no new taxes." Then he raised taxes. Clinton gave us Monica and a federal budget surplus, but he raided Social Security's surplus to get it.

This was the imitation stage. Then the idiots took over.

CAPITAL DEPLETION

The public does not perceive that this is a matter of capital depletion. We see it in the federal deficits. These deficits are relentless. But the voters shrug this off.

This is capital depletion on a massive scale. And, yes, it is also cultural. But it is far more obvious in Washington. The statistics are there for all to see. A $400 billion deficit is seen as tight budgeting -- the best we can expect.

What Noonan describes is the final stage of a process. It is the process of government bankruptcy. This is reflected in the federal budget -- the on-budget budget -- and especially the real budget: the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which are in the $200 trillion range (the present value of discounted future liabilities).

Bankruptcy comes in stages. In the early stages, it is barely visible. Income does not keep pace with expenditures. The spendthrift borrows. "No problem." This is seen as a temporary anomaly. Then the borrowing speeds up, but there is sufficient capital to justify the increased debt. The accountants warn of trouble ahead. The debtor responds: "So far, so good!" "There's more where that came from!" The process continues. Then the accountants say: "The future is now." The spendthrift responds: "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

The U.S. government can borrow 90-day money at less than two-tenths of a percent. In October, it could borrow for free: zero percent.

A recession will produce negative interest rates. We will pay the U.S. government to take our digital money and guarantee to give most of it back in 90 days.

Congress will spend this free money with abandon. The voters will shrug. "There's more where that came from!"

The public senses correctly that we have gone through the looking glass. We are getting farther and farther away from the mirror -- our point of entry and our way of escape.

And so we have Trump and Carson leading the pack. This was not summer madness. This is the real deal.

Noonan speculates. Is there an alternative? She comes up empty-handed.

Is it possible what we need right now isn't a nonpolitician but instead a brilliant and gifted politician to lead us through these times? (Yes, I know: Who? I don't know. The powers of the most successful pols tend to be clearest in retrospect.)

So, she returns to the trough of rhetoric, of which she is a master. This is salvation by rhetoric.

Is it conservative to say we have to cut back entitlement spending to cut our unsupportable deficits, or is it conservative to say a deal's a deal, generations paid into it and have a moral right to everything they were promised? Is it conservative to say there's plenty to be saved by cracking down on fraud and waste but in a time of economic stress the people will not accept benefit cuts and no serious party that lives in and respects reality should attempt it?

The key words: to say. Always, it is to say.

She neglects this ancient wisdom. "Actions speak louder than words." And this: "Talk is cheap." And this: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." And this: "But the emperor has no clothes."

 

[namedpipes]

Bombing doesn't accomplish shit.

It didn't end the war in WW2. It didn't end the Korean War. It didn't end Vietnam - and it hasn't stopped anything in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only thing that really stops a war - is bringing in troops - and fighting it out in the dirt. Which we have been failing at.

I CONSTANTLY hear people say " let's drop some bombs " - seriously , do you guys have Alzheimers? It's not like this is some military lesson from the distant past that people can poo-poo and ignore. It JUST HAPPENED - and it DIDN'T WORK.

Well which is it? We bombed the **** out of all those places and also went in on foot. So...

All I can tell from your post is you're upset. WHICH WAY will work?

(And it isn't old timers - it's mad cow)

 

[Mr Weebles]

Bombing doesn't accomplish shit.

It didn't end the war in WW2.

The Japanese might argue with you on that one.

 

[Lip]

Bombing doesn't accomplish shit.

It didn't end the war in WW2. It didn't end the Korean War. It didn't end Vietnam - and it hasn't stopped anything in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only thing that really stops a war - is bringing in troops - and fighting it out in the dirt. Which we have been failing at.

I CONSTANTLY hear people say " let's drop some bombs " - seriously , do you guys have Alzheimers? It's not like this is some military lesson from the distant past that people can poo-poo and ignore. It JUST HAPPENED - and it DIDN'T WORK.

Bombing did end ww2, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ring a bell?

 

[xtry51]

The Japanese might argue with you on that one.

Different kinds of bombing.

If you leveled Muslim countries like we leveled a lot of Japan, gave a warning about attacking or supporting attackers again and we'll be back, AND THEN JUST LEFT, shit *might* change.

 

[Billsail]

I think the 5% figure is conservative if you count all their supporters. France is back to kissing their asses. I guess they want to avoid angering them?? Can we even afford them?