Not far, but your 'inherently non-violent' argument doesn't hold water, the US is the same as everywhere else.
Fuck Israel
And most people in the developed world aren't violent. I don't see Swedes or Brits planning terrorist attacks either (unless they are Muslim).Dilbert_X wrote:
Not far, but your 'inherently non-violent' argument doesn't hold water, the US is the same as everywhere else.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
GB must be full of poor peopleJohnG@lt wrote:
Sure. Rich people < middle class people < poor people.oug wrote:
Out of curiosity... could you make a list of say the most tame to the most violent peoples?JohnG@lt wrote:
We're not. Compare the number of drunken brawls that take place here and compare it elsewhere in the world. Murder stats may seem high, but they're almost exclusive to our minorities.
India the wealthiest nation in the world lol
ƒ³
inner cityDilbert_X wrote:
Well, I lived in GB for a while and never observed an assault.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_a … per-capita
Seems the US is #6, right behind Zimbabwe.
Well, the Irish perpetrated an awful lot of terrorist attacks when they were aggrieved, Mexican drug militia are perpetrating a lot of terrorist attacks for their own reasons, American revolutionaries carried out a good deal of treacherous attacks when it suited them, Islamic extremists are planning attacks as they are currently aggrieved.JohnG@lt wrote:
And most people in the developed world aren't violent. I don't see Swedes or Brits planning terrorist attacks either (unless they are Muslim).Dilbert_X wrote:
Not far, but your 'inherently non-violent' argument doesn't hold water, the US is the same as everywhere else.
People with short memories shouldn't throw stones.
Fuck Israel
Short memories? Umm... how far back in history do you want to pull from? I don't give a shit about the past. Today, here in America, it's pretty damn safe to walk down the street at night unless you're in the ghetto. Violent crime outside of the ghetto is rare enough that it is still news when it occurs. Outside of Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta Olympic bomber (one death) and the Unabomber (and for all his publicity, he only killed three people), we don't have a history of committing terroristic acts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, the Irish perpetrated an awful lot of terrorist attacks when they were aggrieved, Mexican drug militia are perpetrating a lot of terrorist attacks for their own reasons, American revolutionaries carried out a good deal of treacherous attacks when it suited them, Islamic extremists are planning attacks as they are currently aggrieved.JohnG@lt wrote:
And most people in the developed world aren't violent. I don't see Swedes or Brits planning terrorist attacks either (unless they are Muslim).Dilbert_X wrote:
Not far, but your 'inherently non-violent' argument doesn't hold water, the US is the same as everywhere else.
People with short memories shouldn't throw stones.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Correct, the US has a history of using its military and cash-funded proxies to commit terrorist acts.
The Islamic radicals don't have the advantage of multi-billion dollar budgets so tend to go down the DIY route.
But as you pointed out, the US has a few of those too - you forgot the Weathermen, Black Panthers etc though.
Plus the IRA was almost exclusively funded by US civilian donations, so really the US civiliation population does have a history of terrorism.
The Islamic radicals don't have the advantage of multi-billion dollar budgets so tend to go down the DIY route.
But as you pointed out, the US has a few of those too - you forgot the Weathermen, Black Panthers etc though.
Plus the IRA was almost exclusively funded by US civilian donations, so really the US civiliation population does have a history of terrorism.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-28 20:43:39)
Fuck Israel
Those groups disbanded decades before my birth. They are irrelevant.Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, the US has a history of using its military and cash-funded proxies to commit terrorist acts.
The Islamic radicals don't have the advantage of multi-billion dollar budgets so tend to go down the DIY route.
But as you pointed out, the US has a few of those too - you forgot the Weathermen, Black Panthers etc though.
As for the rest... I'm not going down this road again with you, sorry. When can we expect your conversion and pilgrimage to Mecca? You sure do seem to love everything Islam; you defend it and instigate e-arguments on its behalf daily.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
McVeigh was in your lifetime wasn't he? The Unambomber? The Atlanta Bomber? Various lone and paired nutballs who've gone on shooting rampages over issues which have aggrieved them?
Seems the non-muslim US civilian population does have some recent history of terrorism and violence which you can't discount, and the IRA are still active today.
Confusing muslims with Islamic extremists isn't clever either.
Seems the non-muslim US civilian population does have some recent history of terrorism and violence which you can't discount, and the IRA are still active today.
Confusing muslims with Islamic extremists isn't clever either.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-28 20:52:37)
Fuck Israel
The scale of which is paltry compared to attacks such as the London and Madrid bombings, the 9/11 attacks, the Fort Hood massacre etc. I know this is your preferred trolling subject material... but the scale is incomparable.Dilbert_X wrote:
McVeigh was in your lifetime wasn't he? The Unambomber? The Atlanta Bomber? Various lone and paired nutballs who've gone on shooting rampages over issues which have aggrieved them?
Seems the non-muslim US civilian population does have some recent history of terrorism and violence which you can't discount, and the IRA are still active today.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Compared with the various US sponsored deaths in the ME, before and after 9/11, the terrorist attacks are barely fleabites.
But back on topic, there are just as many terrorist attacks on the US, they just aren't in the US.
If the US ever withdraws from the ME then the attacks may resume to draw them back in.
'muzlums r evul lolololol' is trolling too.
But back on topic, there are just as many terrorist attacks on the US, they just aren't in the US.
If the US ever withdraws from the ME then the attacks may resume to draw them back in.
'muzlums r evul lolololol' is trolling too.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-29 00:07:57)
Fuck Israel
OK City was pretty big dude.JohnG@lt wrote:
The scale of which is paltry compared to attacks such as the London and Madrid bombings, the 9/11 attacks, the Fort Hood massacre etc. I know this is your preferred trolling subject material... but the scale is incomparable.Dilbert_X wrote:
McVeigh was in your lifetime wasn't he? The Unambomber? The Atlanta Bomber? Various lone and paired nutballs who've gone on shooting rampages over issues which have aggrieved them?
Seems the non-muslim US civilian population does have some recent history of terrorism and violence which you can't discount, and the IRA are still active today.
There is something very flawed with this study. Brazil isn't even ranked... I'm guessing they got their numbers from the local police of each country, that would explain it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, I lived in GB for a while and never observed an assault.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_a … per-capita
Seems the US is #6, right behind Zimbabwe.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Uh... No. India has a ton of ethnic strife both within their own country and with their neighbor Pakistan.oug wrote:
GB must be full of poor peopleJohnG@lt wrote:
Sure. Rich people < middle class people < poor people.oug wrote:
Out of curiosity... could you make a list of say the most tame to the most violent peoples?
India the wealthiest nation in the world lol
Here's the problem with crime statistics. It makes sense to assume that crimes are more often reported to the authorities in highly developed countries because the people can generally trust them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, I lived in GB for a while and never observed an assault.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_a … per-capita
Seems the US is #6, right behind Zimbabwe.
If you live in a country where you can't really trust the authorities, crime is more likely to be less reported -- so this means that the gap between actual crime and reported crime becomes more significant.
Considering how corrupt South Africa is while it still tops the chart, the actual crime rate there must be absurd.
there is a shit ton wrong with that link...you are correctEVieira wrote:
There is something very flawed with this study. Brazil isn't even ranked... I'm guessing they got their numbers from the local police of each country, that would explain it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, I lived in GB for a while and never observed an assault.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_a … per-capita
Seems the US is #6, right behind Zimbabwe.
On a national level, yes. On a personal level, Indians must be the most passive people in the world. (John mentioned drunken brawls - that's what I was referring to before this became yet another muslims r buuud thread).Turquoise wrote:
Uh... No. India has a ton of ethnic strife both within their own country and with their neighbor Pakistan.oug wrote:
GB must be full of poor peopleJohnG@lt wrote:
Sure. Rich people < middle class people < poor people.
India the wealthiest nation in the world lol
ƒ³
I've known a number of Indians that have moved here. Several have told me that domestic abuse is pretty bad over there. America has its own issues with this, but given what these people have told me, it sounds much worse over there.oug wrote:
On a national level, yes. On a personal level, Indians must be the most passive people in the world. (John mentioned drunken brawls - that's what I was referring to before this became yet another muslims r buuud thread).Turquoise wrote:
Uh... No. India has a ton of ethnic strife both within their own country and with their neighbor Pakistan.oug wrote:
GB must be full of poor people
India the wealthiest nation in the world lol
I used to live in an apartment complex that was FILLED with Indians (very popular with the immigrants, for whatever reason), and having seen how a lot of the Indian men treated the women, I'm not surprised at all.Turquoise wrote:
I've known a number of Indians that have moved here. Several have told me that domestic abuse is pretty bad over there. America has its own issues with this, but given what these people have told me, it sounds much worse over there.
There are a lot of Indians at my complex too. I've never heard them fighting, but I gotta say... for some reason, Indians really stomp around when they walk. Some of them lived above me at one point, and even though they were much smaller than me in height, you could hear them stomping through the ceiling. It's weird. They actually seem to have a unique way of walking.SenorToenails wrote:
I used to live in an apartment complex that was FILLED with Indians (very popular with the immigrants, for whatever reason), and having seen how a lot of the Indian men treated the women, I'm not surprised at all.Turquoise wrote:
I've known a number of Indians that have moved here. Several have told me that domestic abuse is pretty bad over there. America has its own issues with this, but given what these people have told me, it sounds much worse over there.
Oh, I had a couple that lived below me and I'm pretty sure he used to knock his wife around.Turquoise wrote:
There are a lot of Indians at my complex too. I've never heard them fighting, but I gotta say... for some reason, Indians really stomp around when they walk. Some of them lived above me at one point, and even though they were much smaller than me in height, you could hear them stomping through the ceiling. It's weird. They actually seem to have a unique way of walking.SenorToenails wrote:
I used to live in an apartment complex that was FILLED with Indians (very popular with the immigrants, for whatever reason), and having seen how a lot of the Indian men treated the women, I'm not surprised at all.Turquoise wrote:
I've known a number of Indians that have moved here. Several have told me that domestic abuse is pretty bad over there. America has its own issues with this, but given what these people have told me, it sounds much worse over there.
The few domestic disputes I've seen in the places I've lived actually tended to involve black couples.SenorToenails wrote:
Oh, I had a couple that lived below me and I'm pretty sure he used to knock his wife around.Turquoise wrote:
There are a lot of Indians at my complex too. I've never heard them fighting, but I gotta say... for some reason, Indians really stomp around when they walk. Some of them lived above me at one point, and even though they were much smaller than me in height, you could hear them stomping through the ceiling. It's weird. They actually seem to have a unique way of walking.SenorToenails wrote:
I used to live in an apartment complex that was FILLED with Indians (very popular with the immigrants, for whatever reason), and having seen how a lot of the Indian men treated the women, I'm not surprised at all.
americans are not inherently violent?JohnG@lt wrote:
Because Americans themselves are not inherently violent. They catch the Islamic terrorists because they talk. Phone messages, internet postings, all are logged for certain key words. Want to plan a successful attack? Use pen and paper. It really would be trivially easy to bomb a subway system if silence were maintained in the lead up.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Now before y'all get the flamethrowers out, I'm not saying that there should be more attacks. I'm saying that I am quite surprised by the fact that there really have not been any attacks. Just the other day the FBI announced that they had arrested a guy who was planning to blow up stations in the DC Metrorail. I applaud the Bureau's efforts, but it made me realize that it would not be hard at all to bomb the Metro. Apparently they do have systems to detect chemical, biological and radiological weapons but what is that gonna do? Most Metro stations are staffed by a single obese station manager, and I doubt any rider on the Metro would know how to take down a baddie. If someone wanted to bring the same explosives that Timothy McVeigh had and detonate them, there really wouldn't be anything stopping them.
So how is it that despite all these inherent weaknesses, there hasn't been any attack on the scale of 9/11 or Oklahoma City or anything like that? Is the threat of terror way too overstated?
R O F L
D&ST post of the week
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well, not to sound racist, but if you removed all black-on-black violence from our crime statistics, we'd have assault and murder rates comparable to our economic peers.Uzique wrote:
americans are not inherently violent?JohnG@lt wrote:
Because Americans themselves are not inherently violent. They catch the Islamic terrorists because they talk. Phone messages, internet postings, all are logged for certain key words. Want to plan a successful attack? Use pen and paper. It really would be trivially easy to bomb a subway system if silence were maintained in the lead up.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Now before y'all get the flamethrowers out, I'm not saying that there should be more attacks. I'm saying that I am quite surprised by the fact that there really have not been any attacks. Just the other day the FBI announced that they had arrested a guy who was planning to blow up stations in the DC Metrorail. I applaud the Bureau's efforts, but it made me realize that it would not be hard at all to bomb the Metro. Apparently they do have systems to detect chemical, biological and radiological weapons but what is that gonna do? Most Metro stations are staffed by a single obese station manager, and I doubt any rider on the Metro would know how to take down a baddie. If someone wanted to bring the same explosives that Timothy McVeigh had and detonate them, there really wouldn't be anything stopping them.
So how is it that despite all these inherent weaknesses, there hasn't been any attack on the scale of 9/11 or Oklahoma City or anything like that? Is the threat of terror way too overstated?
R O F L
D&ST post of the week
You know, I almost missed that reference to carnivore. lol
An easy way around the need for 'pen and paper' would be to use suitable encryption.
An easy way around the need for 'pen and paper' would be to use suitable encryption.