Brussels Terrorist Attack

[SpaceCoastVol]

Would banning all Muslims make a suicide bombing less likely? Maybe, just like sleeping on the floor would reduce the risk of people falling out of beds, and never going outside would reduce the risk of being struck by lightning or hit by a falling coconut. God forbid anyone gets in a car.

Are you likely to advocate for people sleeping on the floor and never leaving their house? No, because while it may reduce risk, it comes with a whole bunch of other issues. People need to calm the hell down about things that have a .00000001% chance of happening to them

Good lord.

 

[Big Gucci Sosa]

opcorn:

 

[n_huffhines]

Radical Islam is a threat to our existence. It's a huge threat in Europe. And ISIS has certainly declared war on the United States.

Dude, first of all, you cannot compare radical Islam to the Axis powers in terms of threats, even if you consider Islam to be a legitimate threat to our existence.

Second, how can they be considered a threat to our existence? You are more likely to be killed by furniture than a terrorist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/

 

[2ez2dv8]

They both have the net result of killing innocent civilians.

Would you be accepting of the target if suicide bombers started targeting American military men on American soil?

Smaller % of collateral damage due to errant drone or military strike greatest % due to ISIS and militant using innocent as human shields

 

[crusse10]

Of course that comes down against us. Because they have zero collateral damage. Every dead infidel is a plus. If one of their own dies, he goes to paradise. And non "radical" mooslims are a plus as well. They always win.

whoooooooooosh

 

[n_huffhines]

you are arguing that 58% of us support the use of a firearm in self defense knowing that it MIGHT hit a innocent by-stander. and saying that is the same as 8% believing it is ok to just start shooting innocents.

you may argue it doesn't matter to the dead but us living have made plenty of distinctions when it comes to killing someone in a premeditated manor vs an accident.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What are you talking about?

 

[2ez2dv8]

It's a lot different because we were at war (declared on us and we declared, too) with a government who was a legitimate threat to our existence.

Militant Islam had declared a holy war on the world

 

[Aesius]

To be fair, the poll (which doesn't establish how many people were polled, thus putting the findings in question right off the bat) lumped suicide bombings with "other forms of violence against civilian targets." I wouldn't be shocked if at least 8% of white Americans believe civilian deaths as collateral damage from a wayward drone strike in the Middle East would be at least "sometimes justified"

Being "okay" with civilian deaths as collateral damage for killing extremist leaders who wish to do our country harm

is not comparable to

Actively supporting the act of murdering innocent civilians

Your argument might hold weight if ISIS was specifically targeting military leaders in Europe and the United States whose countries are involved in the Middle East, and innocent lives were lost in the crossfire. But they're not. They're killing innocent civilians for no reason other than to create a state of panic and terror. We're not doing that, and I highly doubt 8 percent of Americans would support such an operation.

 

[NashVol11]

Being "okay" with civilian deaths as collateral damage for killing extremist leaders who wish to do our country harm

is not comparable to

Actively supporting the act of murdering innocent civilians

Your argument might hold weight if ISIS was specifically targeting military leaders in Europe and the United States whose countries are involved in the Middle East, and innocent lives were lost in the crossfire. But they're not. They're killing innocent civilians for no reason other than to create a state of panic and terror. We're not doing that, and I highly doubt 8 percent of Americans would support such an operation.

The question was,

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

You've twisted it just a little bit

 

[LouderVol]

I am at a much higher risk than you, so forgive my reluctance to forgive so easily. My profession is a high level target of those peace lovers. And there are many things that can be done to prevent it. The question is whether political correctness will stand in the way. My bet is that it absolutely ****ing will.

bit of a tangent and not really part of this argument.

I am not advocating the targeting of civilians or terrorist families at all.

but it used to be you debated AFTER the war was done how it should be fought and you punished those who went beyond the acceptable means at the time of the war. Now we don't have that. we are constantly on the hunt for the "perfect manner of war" during a war. It doesn't surprise me that we aren't going to see results when we have a constantly moving goal post of what is acceptable. Its way worse than if you had to change the computer software you used on a project every week, to put it in somewhat relate-able terms. we aren't going to be successful doing it and in the end we are doing more damage that what might be done otherwise. A quick rip of the bandaid vs the slow pull we have going now.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

bit of a tangent and not really part of this argument.

I am not advocating the targeting of civilians or terrorist families at all.

but it used to be you debated AFTER the war was done how it should be fought and you punished those who went beyond the acceptable means at the time of the war. Now we don't have that. we are constantly on the hunt for the "perfect manner of war" during a war. It doesn't surprise me that we aren't going to see results when we have a constantly moving goal post of what is acceptable. Its way worse than if you had to change the computer software you used on a project every week, to put it in somewhat relate-able terms. we aren't going to be successful doing it and in the end we are doing more damage that what might be done otherwise. A quick rip of the bandaid vs the slow pull we have going now.

I do not disagree with that.

 

[Aesius]

Dude, first of all, you cannot compare radical Islam to the Axis powers in terms of threats, even if you consider Islam to be a legitimate threat to our existence.

Second, how can they be considered a threat to our existence? You are more likely to be killed by furniture than a terrorist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/

The Nazi Party also had very limited resources in the late 1920s/early 1930s. They weren't a threat to Europe or the rest of the world whatsoever at that point in time.

As for threat to our (Western World's) existence:

"For us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition. Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all." — Viktor Orbán, President of Hungary.

Again, the problem isn't imminent in America--yet. Hopefully the migrant crisis in Europe will make sure of the fact that we never allow such a deluge of unchecked Middle Eastern immigration into our borders.

 

[crusse10]

Being "okay" with civilian deaths as collateral damage for killing extremist leaders who wish to do our country harm

is not comparable to

Actively supporting the act of murdering innocent civilians

Your argument might hold weight if ISIS was specifically targeting military leaders in Europe and the United States whose countries are involved in the Middle East, and innocent lives were lost in the crossfire. But they're not. They're killing innocent civilians for no reason other than to create a state of panic and terror. We're not doing that, and I highly doubt 8 percent of Americans would support such an operation.

With the way Twitter lights up and with how some people on this board talk, I'd say there's at least a small minority of white Americans who are ok with the death of any Muslims at the hand of Americans. Most of those people are ones that consider every Muslim to be evil. I'd bet some of them are in this thread right now.

So maybe not 8%, but maybe 1%? And 1% of white Americans is much larger amount of people than 8% of all American Muslims.

 

[Aesius]

The question was,


You've twisted it just a little bit

Kinda like you trying to paint that 58 percent number as Americans who support the use of drone strikes to kill or injure innocent civilians (when in fact, only 20 percent are "unconcerned" about civilians being injured as collateral damage--not as primary targets).

I'm living in a country where 58% of people are okay with the murder of innocent civilians who look just like me.

 

[NashVol11]

With the way Twitter lights up and with how some people on this board talk, I'd say there's at least a small minority of white Americans who are ok with the death of any Muslims at the hand of Americans. Most of those people are ones that consider every Muslim to be evil. I'd bet some of them are in this thread right now.

So maybe not 8%, but maybe 1%? And 1% of white Americans is much larger amount of people than 8% of all American Muslims.

I think you'll find that this point is lost on him. I tried.

 

[davethevol]

With the way Twitter lights up and with how some people on this board talk, I'd say there's at least a small minority of white Americans who are ok with the death of any Muslims at the hand of Americans. Most of those people are ones that consider every Muslim to be evil. I'd bet some of them are in this thread right now.

So maybe not 8%, but maybe 1%? And 1% of white Americans is much larger amount of people than 8% of all American Muslims.

There it is. It's not Islam that's the problem, it's White America.

 

[NashVol11]

Kinda like you trying to paint that 58 percent number as Americans who support the use of drone strikes to kill or injure innocent civilians (when in fact, only 20 percent are "unconcerned" about civilians being injured as collateral damage--not as primary targets).

Lol, even if it's 20%, that's of all Americans. That's 60+ million people. But keep fretting about your 200K

 

[n_huffhines]

Militant Islam had declared a holy war on the world

OK, but that's still a far different problem than a government declaring war on us. It's not comparable.

 

[Aesius]

With the way Twitter lights up and with how some people on this board talk, I'd say there's at least a small minority of white Americans who are ok with the death of any Muslims at the hand of Americans. Most of those people are ones that consider every Muslim to be evil. I'd bet some of them are in this thread right now.

So maybe not 8%, but maybe 1%? And 1% of white Americans is much larger amount of people than 8% of all American Muslims.

I think you'll find that this point is lost on him. I tried.

So it was 10 percent, then it was 8 percent, and now it's 1 percent.

Yeah, great point guys. Keep pulling numbers out your asses based on scientific studies...like seeing the ramblings of a few lunatics on Twitter.

 

[Aesius]

Lol, even if it's 20%, that's of all Americans. That's 60+ million people. But keep fretting about your 200K

Americans aren't immigrating to the Middle East and blowing up Muslims. They also don't implicitly support the killing of innocent civilians. "Unconcerned with collateral damage while seeking out and killing extremist fighters/leaders" does not equal supporting the targeted killing of civilians. How hard is that to understand?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

OK, but that's still a far different problem than a government declaring war on us. It's not comparable.

Certainly is convenient for the liberal argument.

 

[crusse10]

There it is. It's not Islam that's the problem, it's White America.

Not at all what I said. Just showing that poll results can be manipulated to bolster an argument. If you word a question slightly ambiguously, you can then add up the numbers you want to add up and make an argument stronger.

Acting like only Muslim people believe that, if they're defending something they feel must be defended, whether it's religion or country or liberty or whatever, civilian casualty (not even required fatality) COULD be considered justified seems like absolute BS.

 

[Aesius]

OK, but that's still a far different problem than a government declaring war on us. It's not comparable.

Okay, so we need to wait until ISIS gets a seat at the UN before their declarations of war are legitimate?

You guys are unbelievable.

 

[2ez2dv8]

OK, but that's still a far different problem than a government declaring war on us. It's not comparable.

Far different? Not Comparable? Absolutely, it's a whole new dynamic. They've no sovereign country or territory to invade. Like rats or roaches that appear from wherever inflict damage and casualties and then just as quickly disappear back into the woodwork of society

 

[n_huffhines]

Certainly is convenient for the liberal argument.

How so?