Islamophobia.

[ecco]

No, i meant that there objective is to convert the world to Islam whether by peace or terror and violence. And you know that, right ?

I'll assume you mean "their objective".

Previously, patrick jane said: ↑

They are radical extremists and terrorists. They think the Koran tells them to use terror and fear to help convert the world to Islam. You do know that's their objective right ?
​

Had you written, ...

"You do know that's their objective, right?"​

... I would have understood that your were referring to their objectives. The way you worded it, you implied that converting the world to Islam was "their objective right". A position with which I disagreed.

 

[ecco]

Tried that and got remanded in copyright infringement.

It is not copyright infringement to post excerpts as long as they are reasonably short and properly attributed.

Also, it may be in another thread and I will get back to your request when I locate it. I will repost the quote above . thanks for heads up!

Please do.

Before closing one would ask though, how does Russia in three short months devastate ISIS as we have been there since 2010? We that claim the most superior army in the world? Just some thing to mull over as I search for the article.

One topic at a time.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's because of us that you don't speak German now. Say thank you.

Actually it was a concerted effort between the British, French, Russians and Americans. With the Europeans doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of casualties to their military and civilian populations. And I doubt you personally did anything to stop the Nazis so why should anyone thank you?

 

[ecco]

So? Is your point we shouldn't worry about the terrorists? Is your point we shouldn't do anything to preclude another terrorist attack?

Did you miss this part?
ecco previous post:

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the threat from religious fundamentalist organizations.​

What is your point, really? What is your point of bringing up gun violence and deaths as a result of a firearm and terrorism, terrorist attacks, potential terrorist attacks, abating terrorist attacks, precluding terrorist attacks, and worrying/fearful of another terrorist attack?

My point is to clearly show that we have been, and will continue to, focus on what is really killing Americans - antiquated gun laws.

At this moment, you do not have a fantastic point other than to quote statistics and compare them, which is edifying but doesn't do anything other than to inform us as to the data, the numbers.

Is your point to merely inform people of the data, the numbers, and their comparison? Just quote data for the sake of quoting data?

My point is to clearly show that we have been, and will continue to, focus on what is really killing Americans - antiquated gun laws.

It's sad you could not see that. Then again, perhaps you just didn't want to see it.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually it was a concerted effort between the British, French, Russians and Americans. With the Europeans doing Maui of the heavy lifting I terms of casualties to their military and civilian populations. And I doubt you personally did anything to stop the Nazis so why should anyone thank you?

Canadians helped too.

 

[Oafman]

With the Europeans doing Maui

That's a weird autocorrect. Have you breen Googling Hawaiian vacations?!

 

[Viren]

Thus ,now the past and recent actions by the U.S. under our names over here, over there, because in three short months Russia has plowed threw it like a hot knife through butter making us have to do the same in our 5 year stay in Syria reaping benefits of cheap oil. We cry foul now and seek negotiations (the same negotiations Russia wanted before they got involved) to stop Russia and its a no go now. Russia being a super power too we must join them or go nuclear. That being the worst demise we join them which means we no longer support ISIS as we did for 5 years thus now we start seeing reprisals and or a waking of sleeper cells. This will be mainstream concentration (The same mainstream that omits 5 years U.S. vs 3 months Russia) in fighting terror by terrorizing common Joe and Mary. Brain washing . There comes a time we must take this nation back. We can not trust our reps of foreign policy any longer to commit atrocities in our name. See the phobia? It's classic, as you see it too.

I like how you mention Russia. This war is much bigger than just a Syrian civil war and a bunch of radical jihadists. You have China, Russia, Iran and Syria teaming up and making deals including what's call the new silk road connecting European and Asia with a new currency that's backed by natural gas which Russian and Iran have a monopoly on. You have Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the west teaming up and Syria is the showdown place between the east and west.

 

[amanuensis63]

But a risk assessment focusing on the number of Americans killed by some entity or people in relation and comparison to another entity/people is an inaccurate, incomplete, and faulty risk assessment.

Not really. We are on the verge of turning our collective national back on people in need in order to fix a problem that is far less likely than other things which we seem to live with quite comfortably.

It's what we do with the information that matters.

Again, relying upon your reasoning, America had little to fear of Al Qaeda in 1997 when compared to Americans killing other Americans.

Still true. In terms of sheer number the 3000+ killed on 9/11 is tiny compared to the number of Americans killed by Americans shooting other Americans from 1997 to 2015.

That is not to say 9/11 wasn't horrific. But we seem, as a nation, to accept that we are more likely to be gunned down by a fellow American and we won't take extreme measures to stop it (measures I'm not saying I'm in defense of), but we are willing to take extreme measures to stop a less likely eventuality.

We are at risk of giving up numerous civil liberties to protect ourselves from a slight risk while actively refusing to give up something like the Second Amendment despite the fact that far more people will be killed because we have guns than by a terrorist.

It does not make sense to wait until planes fly into buildings and buildings begin to fall, thereby the death toll rises significantly, to be fearful of some entity or people belonging to the entity.

Interesting. We sadly know with an almost 99.9999% likelihood that within the next year there will be another mass shooting of innocent American people by an American gunman yet we do next to nothing to stop it. We don't know if there will be another 9/11 within the next 20 years on American soil.

Do we give up our privacy in service to the "security state"? We are more likely to do that than we would ever consider repealing the 2nd Amendment. And it is at least arguable that eliminating citizen ownership of guns outside of a militia will actually reduce the likelihood of a mass shooting.

 

[NotreDame]

Did you miss this part?
ecco previous post:

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the threat from religious fundamentalist organizations.​

My point is to clearly show that we have been, and will continue to, focus on what is really killing Americans - antiquated gun laws.



My point is to clearly show that we have been, and will continue to, focus on what is really killing Americans - antiquated gun laws.

It's sad you could not see that. Then again, perhaps you just didn't want to see it.

Okay, so you decided to interject with a point, firearm death data, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You could've just started a different thread and posted all the firearm data to your heart's content.

However, nothing you said illustrates "we" cannot also focus on Daesh as a threat of potentially killing Americans in the U.S.

 

[NotreDame]

Not really. We are on the verge of turning our collective national back on people in need in order to fix a problem that is far less likely than other things which we seem to live with quite comfortably.

It's what we do with the information that matters.



Still true. In terms of sheer number the 3000+ killed on 9/11 is tiny compared to the number of Americans killed by Americans shooting other Americans from 1997 to 2015.

That is not to say 9/11 wasn't horrific. But we seem, as a nation, to accept that we are more likely to be gunned down by a fellow American and we won't take extreme measures to stop it (measures I'm not saying I'm in defense of), but we are willing to take extreme measures to stop a less likely eventuality.

We are at risk of giving up numerous civil liberties to protect ourselves from a slight risk while actively refusing to give up something like the Second Amendment despite the fact that far more people will be killed because we have guns than by a terrorist.



Interesting. We sadly know with an almost 99.9999% likelihood that within the next year there will be another mass shooting of innocent American people by an American gunman yet we do next to nothing to stop it. We don't know if there will be another 9/11 within the next 20 years on American soil.

Do we give up our privacy in service to the "security state"? We are more likely to do that than we would ever consider repealing the 2nd Amendment. And it is at least arguable that eliminating citizen ownership of guns outside of a militia will actually reduce the likelihood of a mass shooting.

A lot of issues raised but I'm only interested in addressing one issue. Your post above doesn't refute or really address my prior comments about a lousy and incomplete risk assessment comparing mere numbers.

History has showed us, with Al Qaeda, the faultiness of such an approach. Your idea of a risk assessment in this context is antiquated, pre-9/11 thinking, that would result in buildings collapsing before we properly gaze our eyes upon a threat. Your approach, in this context, commits the errors of the past which deceived us into thinking Al Qaeda wasn't s threat. I would rather not commit the same error and learn from history, history at times being the best illustrator and educator of our errors.

Again, I'm not discussing anything other than how lousy a risk assessment is, in this context, of scrutinizing and comparing mere numbers of people killed. The other issues you raise above I venture no opinion.

I conclude with one final point. The gun data doesn't preclude us from also worrying about other potential threats to American lives, such as terrorist attacks. So the firearm data, while edifying, educational, and informative, is a tangent.

Such a focus is parallel to those objecting to helping Syrian refugees because America has its own citizens in need of assistance. True, some Americans are also hurting and need assistance, but this doesn't suggest we can't or shouldn't also focus upon Syrian refugees in need of help and providing then assistance.

 

[FanthatSpark]

ecco:

Do those links show that christians and muslims have been at war with each other for 1500 years?​

The link linked to a post of yours in another thread which had a link to:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/01/false-equivalencies-isis-and-assad/
False Equivalencies: ISIS and Assad​

I don't usually follow links that are posted with no excerpts. However, in your case I did.

I did fully agree with the contents of the article. However, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support "This missionary gets beheaded. Thus it is Christians killing Christians"




ecco:

We supported ISIS for 5 years?

​

Again, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support any of your arguments.


Perhaps I was looking at the wrong article.

This one describes time we have been there... http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/29/putin-makes-obama-an-offer-he-cant-refuse/ along with your own post of equivalencies.

However , I use 5 years as a round off number and it may have truth to it by now compared to the time of this article. Between trusting thread that article and this link below in all you need to know about Syria in 8 minutes as it details our war is illegal it does not take a rocket scientist to know we created ISIS (Called rebels 5 years ago in Syria) and because Russia now has joined we have pulled arming and started bombing oil too (Oil we bought for cheap that funds ISIS. That is money part coupled to 5 years vs 3 months Russia got involved. Why is that?) or risk nuclear with Russia.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-you-need-to-know-about-syria-in-8-minutes.7915317/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/28/examples-of-u-s-foreign-policy-dysfunction/
I believe if one reads the trusting threads "Articles" posted over time one gets the gist combined with these articles posted in various threads by FTS above . #1. This war is illegal. #2. Russia begged for negotiation with us and we refused. #3. We now beg for negotiation with Russia as they started bombing the money/oil fields, bridges to transport it and vehicles. Our policy of 5 years is being decimated in 3 very short months . Thus, we "now" grudgingly must bomb the money too with Russia.

The time table alone should make us say whuuut? How is Russia doing so well and we are not? Maybe some good ole fashion cheap oil? Owned by whoooo! ISIS, say it aint so....

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Canadians helped too.

Yes! I didn't mean to leave anyone out but if we really wanted to be detailed and list every country involved, it'd be easier to just list the countries that weren't in the war.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That's a weird autocorrect. Have you breen Googling Hawaiian vacations?!

That was a weird one! No, I haven't looked into anything Hawaii related anytime recently that I can remember.

I need to just turn autocorrect off!

 

[amanuensis63]

A lot of issues raised but I'm only interested in addressing one issue. Your post above doesn't refute or really address my prior comments about a lousy and incomplete risk assessment comparing mere numbers.

Actually my post does address your point. We are assessing relative risk between two methods by which our safety is endangered:

1. Foreign Terrorist Coming into the US and killing us
2. American with a gun killing us

In #1 we take extreme measures and are willing to give up civil liberties to secure against it. In #2 we are unwilling to make significant changes to our civil liberties to defend against it.

But we know from the past several decades that we are far more likely to be killed by another American getting a gun than a foreign terrorist coming into the US.

This is not to say either means of dying is "better" than another but the numbers show that we take the threat of terrorism sufficiently high that we are willing to give up privacy, suspend our values in so many ways just to defend against it.

[qutoe]
History has showed us, with Al Qaeda, the faultiness of such an approach.[/quote]

From 2001-2014 Al Qaeda has, on US soil killed 2% of the people killed by firearms here in the US.

Your idea of a risk assessment in this context is antiquated, pre-9/11 thinking

153,144 vs 3,046. The risk assessment is the same whether it's pre-9/11 or post 9/11.

The bigger question might be: has our willingness to give up more personal liberty actually kept the numbers low on terrorism? If it has then similar willingness should work on reducing gun violence. But we don't make that trade-off with respect to guns.

And it is arguable that terror in the US has actually been kept under control by our willingness to give up on our values.

I conclude with one final point. The gun data doesn't preclude us from also worrying about other potential threats to American lives, such as terrorist attacks. So the firearm data, while edifying, educational, and informative, is a tangent.

Well, yes and no. Obviously we can carry MANY worries simultaneously. But the fact of the matter is that we have two versions of risk which we do not act similarly in terms of our responses.

That's the point. Terrorism is horrible and I'm glad to take serious steps to protect ourselves from it...within reason. Meanwhile we see that we are not necessarily acting rationally with regards to how we deal with risk.

We have elevated one low-probability risk to a level where we take disproportionate action on while effectively ignoring another that is far more likely.

Such a focus is parallel to those objecting to helping Syrian refugees because America has its own citizens in need of assistance. True, some Americans are also hurting and need assistance, but this doesn't suggest we can't or shouldn't also focus upon Syrian refugees in need of help and providing then assistance.

I am afraid that in this case we will actually end up doing more harm to the Syrian refugees by turning our backs than we will increase our personal security.

We kind of help ISIS out when we do that. I think we run the possibility of hurting others in an attempt to protect ourselves with limited returns on the investment in our own security but guaranteed added pain for the refugees.

 

[FanthatSpark]

I like how you mention Russia. This war is much bigger than just a Syrian civil war and a bunch of radical jihadists. You have China, Russia, Iran and Syria teaming up and making deals including what's call the new silk road connecting European and Asia with a new currency that's backed by natural gas which Russian and Iran have a monopoly on. You have Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the west teaming up and Syria is the showdown place between the east and west.

Yes sir, been ranting for months now in that Trusting thread on the big picture. Theres N.Korea ,and Africa too ,however , another aspect that is prophetic in nature by the source I use is now we start loosing allies ... just sit back and watch. France will probably be first. No more cheap oil lets jump ship combined to we will close our borders to France . We would do it, why not them, as far as this dysfunctional and lawless foreign policy is.

 

[NotreDame]

Actually my post does address your point. We are assessing relative risk between two methods by which our safety is endangered:

1. Foreign Terrorist Coming into the US and killing us
2. American with a gun killing us

In #1 we take extreme measures and are willing to give up civil liberties to secure against it. In #2 we are unwilling to make significant changes to our civil liberties to defend against it.

But we know from the past several decades that we are far more likely to be killed by another American getting a gun than a foreign terrorist coming into the US.

This is not to say either means of dying is "better" than another but the numbers show that we take the threat of terrorism sufficiently high that we are willing to give up privacy, suspend our values in so many ways just to defend against it.

[qutoe]
History has showed us, with Al Qaeda, the faultiness of such an approach.

From 2001-2014 Al Qaeda has, on US soil killed 2% of the people killed by firearms here in the US.



153,144 vs 3,046. The risk assessment is the same whether it's pre-9/11 or post 9/11.

The bigger question might be: has our willingness to give up more personal liberty actually kept the numbers low on terrorism? If it has then similar willingness should work on reducing gun violence. But we don't make that trade-off with respect to guns.

And it is arguable that terror in the US has actually been kept under control by our willingness to give up on our values.




Well, yes and no. Obviously we can carry MANY worries simultaneously. But the fact of the matter is that we have two versions of risk which we do not act similarly in terms of our responses.

That's the point. Terrorism is horrible and I'm glad to take serious steps to protect ourselves from it...within reason. Meanwhile we see that we are not necessarily acting rationally with regards to how we deal with risk.

We have elevated one low-probability risk to a level where we take disproportionate action on while effectively ignoring another that is far more likely.



I am afraid that in this case we will actually end up doing more harm to the Syrian refugees by turning our backs than we will increase our personal security.

We kind of help ISIS out when we do that. I think we run the possibility of hurting others in an attempt to protect ourselves with limited returns on the investment in our own security but guaranteed added pain for the refugees.[/QUOTE]

Again, a lot of issues raised not germane to my point. I'm not addressing whether we should surrender liberty, or privacy.

The issue isn't assessing relative risks between methods for the sake of assessing those risks.

My only point, right now, is a risk assessment scrutinizing mere numbers and comparing those numbers is a lousy risk assessment. I am also stating there is nothing wrong in the U.S. focusing upon the threat of terrorism.

Now the propriety of how we specifically respond to this threat, such as sacrificing liberty and privacy, is a separate dialogue. I can say, however, I'm not convinced a comparative risk assessment is dispositive in answering the question whether liberties and privacy should be sacrificed or perhaps minimally infringed upon.

As I said previously, we shouldn't have to wait until planes crash into buildings, buildings fall, and thousands die to be proactive and I institute measures to prevent s terrorist attack. I disagree with your assessment "we" are not necessarily acting rationally to the risk. I'm not in that "we" as I'm not convinced we've acted irrationally to the risk. Maybe some specific instances of irrational reaction can be shown but generally, I am not so inclined to think at this moment the reaction and measures taken to the risk are irrational.

And I question whether gun deaths and gun violence compared to the risk of a terrorist attack and deaths by a terrorist attack is a proper comparison.

Terrorist attacks are by their very nature different from an accidental shooting, different from a homicide committed with a firearm. Both are heinous acts, but an act of terrorism is done with such magnitude, scope, extent, number of targets, in such a fantastic manner, for lack of s better word, as to place people in fear with the purpose of collectively scaring society and induce society and government to change its behavior. This quite simply is different from an accidental shooting, an accidental death by firearm, or s homicide by firearm.

 

[amanuensis63]

My only point, right now, is a risk assessment scrutinizing mere numbers and comparing those numbers is a lousy risk assessment.

That's really the only way to make risk assessments. That's what risk assessment is all about. It's always odds.

I am also stating there is nothing wrong in the U.S. focusing upon the threat of terrorism.

I think we all agree with that. It's just how we choose to act with regards to that threat.

Now the propriety of how we specifically respond to this threat, such as sacrificing liberty and privacy, is a separate dialogue.

If the argument is merely: should we be concerned with terrorism, then the answer is a resounding "yes". But the degree to which we are concerned is really the only interesting discussion point.

I can say, however, I'm not convinced a comparative risk assessment is dispositive in answering the question whether liberties and privacy should be sacrificed or perhaps minimally infringed upon.

In any assessment of risk the whole point of the discussion is to moderate the risk. That almost always means sacrificing something. Risk has no meaning if there is no "sacrifice" in moderating it.

If I fear flying due to the risk of me dying in a plane crash I automatically sacrifice the ease of movement over large distances that others enjoy who do not share my risk assessment.

BUT, in so doing I'm actually probably putting myself in greater danger because now I will DRIVE long distances and increase my likelihood of death on the highway. Already higher risk than flying, now I've sacrificed a potential benefit (quick long distance travel) and in no way reduced my chances of dying in getting from point A to point B.

As I said previously, we shouldn't have to wait until planes crash into buildings, buildings fall, and thousands die to be proactive and I institute measures to prevent s terrorist attack.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, but in the real world there is never a perfect risk abatement plan. We do not go to zero risk of this scenario without instituting such draconian measures that we effectively sacrifice any value to our existence.

I disagree with your assessment "we" are not necessarily acting rationally to the risk.

Actually it's pretty much by definition irrational to take extreme measures to abate a lower probability risk while taking no such measures to abate a higher probability risk.

I'm not in that "we" as I'm not convinced we've acted irrationally to the risk.

But that was my point in relation to gun violence within the US. Who is a bigger threat to my continued existence? An ISIS terrorist getting into the US or a fellow US citizen? The numbers seem to say "A fellow US citizen" is my more likely threat.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Lol .. I'm still not worried about "ISIS infiltrators" from thes syrian refugees. I am not a coward. Rememebr what happened last time ISIS tried something? two texans shot them dead. Unlike france our majority distrusts middle eastern people because of 9/11 and that gives us a better chance of them not being able to do anything to us compared to france.

As much as I hate to admit it, I guess being "The Gun Country" may have its plus side....

 

[fat wee robin]

You heard wrong. France has suddenly admitted that there was a huge intelligence failure two years ago regarding the apprehension of the same people who killed hundreds. Once there is a similar attack on Washington DC, the powers that be will finally wake up and stop talking about "no credible threats". Do they really believe that the Jihadists will advertise their plans, just like the West advertises its bombings and gives them a chance to go underground? The words naive and stupid come to mind.

Theres no doubt, it is very complicated indeed .It seems that the French police had virtually all of those who commited attacks there in the last two years on record ,but nothing was done . While being totally anti any group of people as large as the Moslem population , we do need to take seriously the danger and put those who are a danger beyond making touble . The present left government ,dépends a lot on their votes, and are considerably responsible for the lax attitudes , which allowed this to happen .

 

[GoldenBoy89]

A phobia is an irrational fear. I don't understand why someone would be 'proud' of being irrational.