Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 San Bernardino

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 4:25 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Yeah well, I'm pretty sure that the discussion was about what's happening now, not about something that happened almost 15 years ago...

   



The discussion concerned statistics going all the way back to 2002.
Are you suggesting that going back just one more year, to the 911 attacks, is somehow off-limits?
Is this a case of when one doesn't wish to acknowledge an uncomfortable fact, that fact is scoffed at and dismissed as being 'ancient history?
It seems that you, and a lot of others, have a real problem with including the 911 attacks in the roster of acts of Islamic terrorism on American soil.
Why is that?
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 4:42 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Yeah well, I'm pretty sure that the discussion was about what's happening now, not about something that happened almost 15 years ago...

   



The discussion concerned statistics going all the way back to 2002.
Are you suggesting that going back just one more year, to the 911 attacks, is somehow off-limits?
Is this a case of when one doesn't wish to acknowledge an uncomfortable fact, that fact is scoffed at and dismissed as being 'ancient history?
It seems that you, and a lot of others, have a real problem with including the 911 attacks in the roster of acts of Islamic terrorism on American soil.
Why is that?

Personally, I have no problem with it at all. I never said that 911 was "off limits." I was simply trying to help get the discussion back on track. Apparently there is a disagreement between you and Heretic over exactly what constitutes "domestic terrorism" vs. "attacks on American soil."

I'll let you sort that out with Heretic. I probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place...
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 4:49 pm

Scorpion wrote:
   Apparently there is a disagreement between you and Heretic over exactly what constitutes "domestic terrorism" vs. "attacks on American soil."  



No, there is no disagreement. It was a poor choice of words on my part, which I promptly rectified here:

happy jack wrote:
   
Yes, I was referring to acts of terrorism that took place on American soil, but mistakenly labeled those acts ‘domestic terrorism’.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 5:38 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   Apparently there is a disagreement between you and Heretic over exactly what constitutes "domestic terrorism" vs. "attacks on American soil."  



No, there is no disagreement. It was a poor choice of words on my part, which I promptly rectified here:

happy jack wrote:
   
Yes, I was referring to acts of terrorism that took place on American soil, but mistakenly labeled those acts ‘domestic terrorism’.

Yeah, well unless I'm mistaken, and I suppose that is possible, Heretic is talking about "domestic terrorism."  I certainly wouldn't characterize 911 as an act of "domestic terrorism."  It is certainly true that it took place on American soil, but it definitely was not "domestic terrorism."

Again, perhaps I am wrong about the point that Heretic is making... but we'll probably find out the next time he posts on this topic.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 5:43 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   Apparently there is a disagreement between you and Heretic over exactly what constitutes "domestic terrorism" vs. "attacks on American soil."  



No, there is no disagreement. It was a poor choice of words on my part, which I promptly rectified here:

happy jack wrote:
   
Yes, I was referring to acts of terrorism that took place on American soil, but mistakenly labeled those acts ‘domestic terrorism’.

Yeah, well unless I'm mistaken, and I suppose that is possible, Heretic is talking about "domestic terrorism."  I certainly wouldn't characterize 911 as an act of "domestic terrorism."  It is certainly true that it took place on American soil, but it definitely was not "domestic terrorism."

Again, perhaps I am wrong about the point that Heretic is making... but we'll probably find out the next time he posts on this topic.



Let's try this one more time:

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   Apparently there is a disagreement between you and Heretic over exactly what constitutes "domestic terrorism" vs. "attacks on American soil."  



No, there is no disagreement. It was a poor choice of words on my part, which I promptly rectified here:

happy jack wrote:
   
Yes, I was referring to acts of terrorism that took place on American soil, but mistakenly labeled those acts ‘domestic terrorism’.

You are correct - 911 shouldn't be considered an act of domestic terrorism, which is why I promptly corrected myself to reflect that.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 6:03 pm

Scorpion wrote:

I'll let you sort that out with Heretic.  I probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place...  
Scorpion,What is your opinion on the following premise?
Muslims strike 9 times since 9/11 and right wingers strike 17 times.

If you are unfortunate and you find yourself in a terrorism situation in the future,which group is more likely behind it?
Muslims or Right-wingers?

Thanks
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/17/2015, 6:44 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
 
Muslims strike 9 times since 9/11 and right wingers strike 17 times.

If you are unfortunate and you find yourself in a terrorism situation in the future,which group is more likely behind it?
Muslims or Right-wingers?




Assuming that those are the only two groups with the ability to implement terrorist acts, then one of them is no more likely to be behind it than the other.
Past occurrences do not affect future probabilities.
(And there you go again with the since 911 bullshit.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?)
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/18/2015, 6:14 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

I'll let you sort that out with Heretic.  I probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place...  
Scorpion,What is your opinion on the following premise?
Muslims strike 9 times since 9/11 and right wingers strike 17 times.

If you are unfortunate and you find yourself in a terrorism situation in the future,which group is more likely behind it?
Muslims or Right-wingers?

Thanks

IMHO, there's not a big enough sample size to form an opinion one way or another.  Jack was correct when he indicated that past occurrences do not affect future probabilities. If we had more data to look at (and I'm sure as hell glad that we don't) then perhaps we could say something more meaningful about who is more likely to engage in an attack... but that's about all we would be able to say.  

happy jack wrote:
(And there you go again with the since 911 bullshit.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?)

I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/18/2015, 8:42 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

I'll let you sort that out with Heretic.  I probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place...  
Scorpion,What is your opinion on the following premise?
Muslims strike 9 times since 9/11 and right wingers strike 17 times.

If you are unfortunate and you find yourself in a terrorism situation in the future,which group is more likely behind it?
Muslims or Right-wingers?

Thanks

IMHO, there's not a big enough sample size to form an opinion one way or another.  Jack was correct when he indicated that past occurrences do not affect future probabilities. If we had more data to look at (and I'm sure as hell glad that we don't) then perhaps we could say something more meaningful about who is more likely to engage in an attack... but that's about all we would be able to say.
"past occurrences do not affect future probabilities" ...that's true in an independent trial such as flipping a coin or trying to determine what number will come up on a roulette table,but in human behavior that is certainly not the case. While I agree the sample size is small,the length of time these attacks took place isn't.

For instance if we took 2 people of the same age,one of whom was never arrested vs a guy who had been arrested numerous times it's a pretty good bet that the one who had been previously arrested would be arrested again before the non-arrested one.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/18/2015, 9:35 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
   
For instance if we took 2 people of the same age,one of whom was never arrested vs a guy who had been arrested numerous times it's a pretty good bet that the one who had been previously arrested would be arrested again before the non-arrested one.



For one thing, that’s not necessarily true, but the main thing wrong with your statement is that it is falsely equivalent to the comparison between Islamic terrorists and right-wing terrorists.
In your scenario, you are comparing someone who had never been arrested to someone who had previously been arrested. But when you start talking Islamic terrorists vs. right-wing terrorists, you are comparing two entities who have both committed acts of terrorism, so neither one is any more likely than the other to resort to terrorism again.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/18/2015, 9:40 pm

Scorpion wrote:
   
I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.



My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil. So no, there is no confusion on my part, only a mistake, which, as I already explained to you, I rectified ASAP.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 12:02 am

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.



My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil. So no, there is no confusion on my part, only a mistake, which, as I already explained to you, I rectified ASAP.

Yeah. Well I'm pretty sure that was not Heretic's intention.  Because there's really nothing to discuss in that case, because... 9/11.  


Artie wrote:
"past occurrences do not affect future probabilities" ...that's true in an independent trial such as flipping a coin or trying to determine what number will come up on a roulette table,but in human behavior that is certainly not the case. While I agree the sample size is small,the length of time these attacks took place isn't.

Yeah, well I'm uncomfortable just focusing on deaths, in any case.  If there is going to be any kind of meaningful comparison, you would have to consider not only the number of attacks and deaths, but also the number of victims that were seriously hurt, as well.  For example, there were many people who weren't killed that were very seriously maimed by the Boston Marathon bombers.  

I don't if that kind of data is readily available for all of these attacks. But it's an important statistic.  I do know that well over 200 people were injured in Boston.

Were they all "seriously" injured?  I don't really know...and why does that even matter... when the intent was to kill or maim as many people as possible?

To be honest, I find this entire discussion kind of repulsive, and at this point I wish that I had never weighed in at all.  I hate terrorists of all stripes, and I'm sure that all of you do too.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 10:34 am

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.



My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil. So no, there is no confusion on my part, only a mistake, which, as I already explained to you, I rectified ASAP.

Yeah. Well I'm pretty sure that was not Heretic's intention.  Because there's really nothing to discuss in that case, because... 9/11.  



I have no way of knowing what Heretic’s intention was.
Moreover, I don’t care what Heretic’s intention was; I can only tell you what my intention was, which I have done, repeatedly.
But for some reason, it just doesn’t seem to be sinking in.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 11:14 am

Artie60438 wrote:
Proving my point that based on these statistics you are almost twice as likely to die at the hands of a right-winger as you are a Muslim Jihadist.

The tables below show the lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11.
Deadly Jihadist Attacks
Total number of people killed:
45
Plot name Persons killed
2015 San Bernardino Shooting 14
2015 Chattanooga, TN Military Shooting 5
2014 Washington and New Jersey Killing Spree 4
2014 Oklahoma Beheading 1
2013 Boston Marathon Bombing 4
2009 Little Rock Shooting 1
2009 Fort Hood Shooting 13
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting 1
2002 Los Angeles Airport Shooting 2

Deadly Right Wing Attacks
Total number of people killed:
48
Plot name Persons killed
2015 Colorado Planned Parenthood Shooting 3
2015 Charleston Church Shooting 9
2014 Las Vegas Police Ambush 3
2014 Kansas Jewish Center Shooting 3
2014 Blooming Grove Police Shooting 1
2012 Tri-State Killing Spree 4
2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush 2
2012 Sikh Temple Shooting 6
2011 FEAR Militia 3
2010 Carlisle, PA Murder 1
2010 Austin, TX Plane Attack 1
2009 Pittsburgh Police Shootings 3
2009 Holocaust Museum Shooting 1
2009 George Tiller Assassination 1
2009 Flores Murders, Pima County, AZ 2
2009 Brockton, MA Murders 2
2008 Knoxville, TN Church Shooting 2
2004 Tulsa OK, Bank Robbery 1
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html



Hey, Artie, you forgot something.
What list of Religion of Peacers would be complete without these cuddly little Islamists?
JV team 55, right-wingers 48.
(Oh, yeah, plus the deaths on 911. You do remember that one, don't you?}





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks


The Beltway sniper attacks were a series of coordinated shootings that took place over three weeks in October 2002 in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Ten people were killed and three other victims were critically injured in several locations throughout the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia. The rampage was perpetrated by John Allen Muhammad (then aged 42) and Lee Boyd Malvo(then 17), driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice sedan. Their crime spree began in February 2002 withmurders and robberies in the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Washington, which resulted in seven deaths and seven injuries, bringing the ten month shooting spree total to 17 deaths and 10 injuries.[1]

………

A series of trial exhibits suggested Malvo and Muhammad were motivated by an affinity for Islamist Jihad.[38]
• Exhibit 65-006: A self-portrait of Malvo in the cross hairs of a gun scope shouting, "ALLAH AKBAR!" The word "SALAAM" scrawled vertically. A lyric from Bob Marley's Natural Mystic "Many more will have to suffer. Many more will have to die. Don't ask me why."
• Exhibit 65-016: A portrait of Saddam Hussein with the words "INSHALLAH" and "The Protector," surrounded by rockets labeled "chem" and "nuk".
• Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. "We will kill them all. Jihad."
• Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait, with his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
• Exhibit 65-067: A suicide bomber labeled "Hamas" walking into a McDonald's restaurant. Another drawing of the Twin Towers burning captioned: "85 percent chance Zionists did this." More scrawls: "ALLAH AKBAR," "JIHAD," and "Islam will explode."
• Exhibit 65-103: A lion accompanies chapter and verse from the Quran (Sura 2:190): "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them."
• Exhibit 65-109: Portrait of Osama bin Laden, captioned "Servant of Allah."
• Exhibit 65-117: The White House drawn in crosshairs, surrounded by missiles, with a warning: "Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you" and "you will bleed to death little by little."
• Exhibit 65-101: Malvo's thought for the day: "Islam the only true guidance, the way of peace."

Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 11:37 am

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.



My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil. So no, there is no confusion on my part, only a mistake, which, as I already explained to you, I rectified ASAP.

Yeah. Well I'm pretty sure that was not Heretic's intention.  Because there's really nothing to discuss in that case, because... 9/11.  



I have no way of knowing what Heretic’s intention was.
Moreover, I don’t care what Heretic’s intention was; I can only tell you what my intention was, which I have done, repeatedly.
But for some reason, it just doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

That's because your "intention" is assinine. It's like asserting that "the ocean is wet... let's discuss."
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 11:51 am

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.



My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil. So no, there is no confusion on my part, only a mistake, which, as I already explained to you, I rectified ASAP.

Yeah. Well I'm pretty sure that was not Heretic's intention.  Because there's really nothing to discuss in that case, because... 9/11.  



I have no way of knowing what Heretic’s intention was.
Moreover, I don’t care what Heretic’s intention was; I can only tell you what my intention was, which I have done, repeatedly.
But for some reason, it just doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

That's because your "intention" is assinine.  It's like asserting that "the ocean is wet... let's discuss."



That is a very, very curious statement.
Including the victims of 911 in a list of victims of Islamic terrorism is asinine?
Should I tell that to their families, or will you?
And I'm well aware that the ocean is wet.
I'm just puzzled as to why everyone else is hell-bent on whitewashing that precious little nugget of information.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 12:30 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
I suspect the reason that you're confused is because 911 was not an act domestic terrorism.  You've already admitted that it wasn't. I'm pretty certain that was what the discussion with Heretic was all about... domestic terrorism.



My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil. So no, there is no confusion on my part, only a mistake, which, as I already explained to you, I rectified ASAP.

Yeah. Well I'm pretty sure that was not Heretic's intention.  Because there's really nothing to discuss in that case, because... 9/11.  



I have no way of knowing what Heretic’s intention was.
Moreover, I don’t care what Heretic’s intention was; I can only tell you what my intention was, which I have done, repeatedly.
But for some reason, it just doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

That's because your "intention" is assinine.  It's like asserting that "the ocean is wet... let's discuss."



Including the victims of 911 in a list of victims of Islamic terrorism is asinine?
Should I tell that to their families, or will you?
And I'm well aware that the ocean is wet.
I'm just curious as to why everyone else is hell-bent on whitewashing that precious little nugget of information.

No. What's asinine is thinking that anyone would intentionally "minimize" or "whitewash" the spectacularly horrific events of 911 in any way.  I knew people that died in the attacks, jack.  So Fuck you.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 12:54 pm

Scorpion wrote:
   

No. What's asinine is thinking that anyone would intentionally "minimize" or "whitewash" the spectacularly horrific events of 911 in any way.  I knew people that died in the attacks, jack.  


Sorry.
But then I think that you, especially, would want to include those people in the roster of victims of Islamic terrorism rather than have them remain in anonymity.




Scorpion wrote:
   

So Fuck you.

And a Merry Christmas to you!!!!
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 2:31 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   

No. What's asinine is thinking that anyone would intentionally "minimize" or "whitewash" the spectacularly horrific events of 911 in any way.  I knew people that died in the attacks, jack.  


Sorry.
But then I think that you, especially, would want to include those people in the roster of victims of Islamic terrorism rather than have them remain in anonymity.

Man - you really are a spectacularly insensitive asshole.  I really don't give a shit about who "you think that I would want to include" in your sick "roster." They are not "anonymous" to me.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/19/2015, 6:30 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   

No. What's asinine is thinking that anyone would intentionally "minimize" or "whitewash" the spectacularly horrific events of 911 in any way.  I knew people that died in the attacks, jack.  


Sorry.
But then I think that you, especially, would want to include those people in the roster of victims of Islamic terrorism rather than have them remain in anonymity.

Man - you really are a spectacularly insensitive asshole.  I really don't give a shit about who "you think that I would want to include" in your sick "roster." They are not "anonymous" to me.    

 



I'm not sure why it is insensitive for me to merely point out facts.
Yes, it is a sick roster, but it's not my sick roster, and it is not the sick roster of right-wingers.
You can thank the Islamists, and only the Islamists, for that one.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/20/2015, 2:03 am

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   

No. What's asinine is thinking that anyone would intentionally "minimize" or "whitewash" the spectacularly horrific events of 911 in any way.  I knew people that died in the attacks, jack.  


Sorry.
But then I think that you, especially, would want to include those people in the roster of victims of Islamic terrorism rather than have them remain in anonymity.

Man - you really are a spectacularly insensitive asshole.  I really don't give a shit about who "you think that I would want to include" in your sick "roster." They are not "anonymous" to me.    

 

I'm not sure why it is insensitive for me to merely point out facts.
Yes, it is a sick roster, but it's not my sick roster, and it is not the sick roster of right-wingers.
You can thank the Islamists, and only the Islamists, for that one.

Wow - How illuminating!  I can't thank you enough for reminding me who was responsible for 9/11.  

BTW - "insensitive" was the wrong word.  I should have used "ignorant" or "clueless" instead.

Like I said to Artie a few posts back...

Scorpion wrote:
To be honest, I find this entire discussion kind of repulsive, and at this point I wish that I had never weighed in at all.  I hate terrorists of all stripes, and I'm sure that all of you do too.

What part of that quote don't you understand?

"Now go... I say go away boy, ya bother me!"
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/20/2015, 9:56 pm

happy jack wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:


"Now go... I say go away boy, ya bother me!"


As you wish, Foghorn.
And sincerely- Merry Christmas.
Probably won't be posting in the next few days.
Houseful of relatives, some wanted, some not.
2 gallons of gin, two cases of Stella Artois, two fifths of fine bourbon, prime rib roast, and various side dishes.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/21/2015, 4:20 pm

Well, goddamn... that was some Sith-level trolling.  

I wrote:
Resorting to the usual obfuscation and repetition in an attempt to dodge my more relevant questions?  Wasn't expecting that to happen so soon.

Two pages and insulting the dead of 9/11.  Yep, there's no level of douchebaggery too low for happy to reach.  Kudos.  It's a shame that what constitutes "saving face" to a conservative like happy is Trump level nonsense and not simply completing a sentence or making a coherent point...  but what can you do?  And was anyone surprised that happy's ivory tower leaves him immune from both gun violence and terrorism too?  Magical that he fancies himself an expert on both.  

But I digress. It's hard to choose where to begin, but let me give it a try.

happy wrote:
So you are placing your faith in the capabilities of the crystal ball of the agencies who failed to predict the San Bernardino terrorist attack, the Fort Hood terrorist attack, the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack, and so on and so on ....?

As you dictated I should, remember?

you wrote:
If you could establish that a group of persons is in fact abona fide domestic ISIL terrorist cell, then I think you’d have a pretty good legal case for keeping ammo and weapons out of their hands.

I was the one making the point that our national security apparatus is unfortunately fallible, and unable to identify terrorists prior to the act.  That's what I specifically wanted to discuss. However, you only offered empty platitudes then.  Why the switch?  Or back on topic, how can we prevent attacks from terrorist cells we cannot identify prior to the act?

And I do find it quite interesting that, in your list of terrorist attacks, you neglect to mention any perpetrated by whites.  Like I said:

Quote :
As always, the only dead or injured Americans worth defending are those done so by Muslims.  They take absolute precedence. The rest simply fuck off.

It's fascinating how often you prove that to be true.

happy wrote:
I want to “dwell” on 911?

Yes.  It's clear to everyone here.  At least in regards to Islamic terrorism. The rest may as well not exist, for all you're concerned.  In a discussion on domestic terrorism and prevention, you refuse to discuss anything else.  I've given you ample opportunity to further discussion, but you continually pussy out.

happy wrote:
When the topic is Islamist terrorism perpetrated in the United States, the 911 attacks are the first thing to come into the mind of any sane and honest person. . .

I get emotional watching JFK.  Any Trump speech.  Or Star Wars.  Or the Iron Giant.  Knee jerk reactions aren't always based in reality.  They tend to be far more emotional and irrational, as you've continued to demonstrate. In a discussion on domestic terrorism, you went straight to "9/11! 9/11! 9/11! MUSLIMSARESCARY! MUSLIMSARESCARY! MUSLIMSARESCARY!" as if it's some unknown revelation.  No one has actually denied who was responsible for 9/11; we merely recognize that the reality is a bit more complicated than your grade school threat assessments.  That, for whatever reason, is something you apparently cannot abide.

Such an assessment is also completely useless to the discussion.  They never go further than how sooper dooper scared you are, and therefore say nothing about how to prevent such attacks in the future.  The only prevention that I can imagine (and you seem in favor of) to such a reductive assessment is a Trump-style burning of the Constitution, which just isn't likely, legal (or effective).  But that's yet another of your laughable contradictions in this discussion: The Constitution is sacrosanct when it comes to the Second Amendment, but completely optional when it comes to the civil liberties of American Muslims.  Because 9/11 or some such.  There's no legal justification for such, you're just sooper dooper scared, and you're sure to never let us forget it.

Plus, there's the fact that San Bernardino was domestic terrorism.  It's a small but measurable difference from 9/11, in both impact and prevention, ultimately changing the discussion from your usual "Muslims are scary" goto that you're obsessed with. But as usual, you're not interested in that discussion.

happy wrote:
What the fuck is this fascination lately with fanatical Islamist attacks carried out since 911?

It's only a fascination to you, since you don't recognize what it is.  Your focus is like of creationists obsessing over disproving the fossil record.  The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are, unfortunately for you, a statistical outlier that skews the actual trend. Your clinging to it as some game changer is no different than global warming deniers clinging to 1997 temperature data as a "starting point" to "prove" we're cooling.  It's a reductive argument that ignores the rest of the data set relevant to the discussion.  It would be like Japan fearing another nuclear bomb attack in the following year or 10 years after Hiroshima.  Sure, the number of death via the bomb are still statistically relevant in that time frame, once you factor in the actual war in which they were launched, probability drops to zero.  Here. you're trying to define the threat of terrorism to a single data set, in your case the number of dead of a single terrorist attack, the same way AGW denilaists are, in their case a particularly warm year thanks to an above average El Nino.  The entirety of the data doesn't support your conclusion, which is why everyone who actually does it for a living disagrees with such a myopic assessment.

This isn't too much of a surprise, since that's pretty much every conversation we've ever had: abortion, global warming, hate crimes, racism, law, national security, war, torture, gun control, trans fats, health care, religious freedom, voter fraud and IDs, etc.  Lord know I'm still forgetting quite a few.  If I can cite objective, independently verified, peer reviewed research on a subject, you're sure as shit against it.  Because reasons.  Seekrit reasons you rarely want to elaborate or justify, but reasons nonetheless.

happy wrote:
There is no “more likely” about it – it’s an indisputable given. My assertion is based upon fact, while yours is based upon nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking.

No it isn't. Not at all. I've explained it to you numerous times.  Threat assessments are not solely determined by the number of dead.  Remember that assessment you dismissed in your childish "Obama insults the the troops" thread? Or Denialism blog's warnings about tapping into the racist underbelly of the GOP?  And now we're onto current research, confirming what was predicted years ago.  This goes directly into why you're next statement is complete bullshit:

you wrote:
Assuming that those are the only two groups with the ability to implement terrorist acts, then one of them is no more likely to be behind it than the other.
Past occurrences do not affect future probabilities.

The first statement is false.  The second is true but irrelevant, because human behavior isn't a completely random event like spinning a ball in roulette wheel.  Clearly, your continual focus on 9/11 proves you don't really believe this line of reasoning either.  Yet another contradiction in your endless stream of mental diarrhea.

you wrote:
My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil.

My intention, from the beginning (and clear as day), was to discuss domestic terrorism in all its forms.  As always, your focus is only on Muslims.

you wrote:
I have no way of knowing what Heretic’s intention was.

Yes, yes, yes... No psychics.  We remember why you would be so confused.  The rest of us would use context and reading comprehensions usually taught in grade school.  I'm still amazed you can function in our modern society at all.

happy jack wrote:
And a Merry Christmas to you!!!!

Happy Holidays.  Here's to hoping your family can tolerate another holiday with their crazy, racist, Republican uncle.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/21/2015, 10:05 pm

Heretic,Thanks for the early Christmas present. You rock!
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/22/2015, 7:24 am

Heretic wrote:
Well, goddamn... that was some Sith-level trolling.  

I wrote:
Resorting to the usual obfuscation and repetition in an attempt to dodge my more relevant questions?  Wasn't expecting that to happen so soon.

Two pages and insulting the dead of 9/11.  Yep, there's no level of douchebaggery too low for happy to reach.  Kudos.  It's a shame that what constitutes "saving face" to a conservative like happy is Trump level nonsense and not simply completing a sentence or making a coherent point...  but what can you do?  And was anyone surprised that happy's ivory tower leaves him immune from both gun violence and terrorism too?  Magical that he fancies himself an expert on both.  

But I digress.  It's hard to choose where to begin, but let me give it a try.

happy wrote:
So you are placing your faith in the capabilities of the crystal ball of the agencies who failed to predict the San Bernardino terrorist attack, the Fort Hood terrorist attack, the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack, and so on and so on ....?

As you dictated I should, remember?

you wrote:
If you could establish that a group of persons is in fact abona fide domestic ISIL terrorist cell, then I think you’d have a pretty good legal case for keeping ammo and weapons out of their hands.

I was the one making the point that our national security apparatus is unfortunately fallible, and unable to identify terrorists prior to the act.  That's what I specifically wanted to discuss. However, you only offered empty platitudes then.  Why the switch?  Or back on topic, how can we prevent attacks from terrorist cells we cannot identify prior to the act?

And I do find it quite interesting that, in your list of terrorist attacks, you neglect to mention any perpetrated by whites.  Like I said:

Quote :
As always, the only dead or injured Americans worth defending are those done so by Muslims.  They take absolute precedence. The rest simply fuck off.

It's fascinating how often you prove that to be true.

happy wrote:
I want to “dwell” on 911?

Yes.  It's clear to everyone here.  At least in regards to Islamic terrorism. The rest may as well not exist, for all you're concerned.  In a discussion on domestic terrorism and prevention, you refuse to discuss anything else.  I've given you ample opportunity to further discussion, but you continually pussy out.

happy wrote:
When the topic is Islamist terrorism perpetrated in the United States, the 911 attacks are the first thing to come into the mind of any sane and honest person. . .

I get emotional watching JFK.  Any Trump speech.  Or Star Wars.  Or the Iron Giant.  Knee jerk reactions aren't always based in reality.  They tend to be far more emotional and irrational, as you've continued to demonstrate. In a discussion on domestic terrorism, you went straight to "9/11! 9/11! 9/11! MUSLIMSARESCARY! MUSLIMSARESCARY! MUSLIMSARESCARY!" as if it's some unknown revelation.  No one has actually denied who was responsible for 9/11; we merely recognize that the reality is a bit more complicated than your grade school threat assessments.  That, for whatever reason, is something you apparently cannot abide.

Such an assessment is also completely useless to the discussion.  They never go further than how sooper dooper scared you are, and therefore say nothing about how to prevent such attacks in the future.  The only prevention that I can imagine (and you seem in favor of) to such a reductive assessment is a Trump-style burning of the Constitution, which just isn't likely, legal (or effective).  But that's yet another of your laughable contradictions in this discussion: The Constitution is sacrosanct when it comes to the Second Amendment, but completely optional when it comes to the civil liberties of American Muslims.  Because 9/11 or some such.  There's no legal justification for such, you're just sooper dooper scared, and you're sure to never let us forget it.

Plus, there's the fact that San Bernardino was domestic terrorism.  It's a small but measurable difference from 9/11, in both impact and prevention, ultimately changing the discussion from your usual "Muslims are scary" goto that you're obsessed with. But as usual, you're not interested in that discussion.

happy wrote:
What the fuck is this fascination lately with fanatical Islamist attacks carried out since 911?

It's only a fascination to you, since you don't recognize what it is.  Your focus is like of creationists obsessing over disproving the fossil record.  The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are, unfortunately for you, a statistical outlier that skews the actual trend. Your clinging to it as some game changer is no different than global warming deniers clinging to 1997 temperature data as a "starting point" to "prove" we're cooling.  It's a reductive argument that ignores the rest of the data set relevant to the discussion.  It would be like Japan fearing another nuclear bomb attack in the following year or 10 years after Hiroshima.  Sure, the number of death via the bomb are still statistically relevant in that time frame, once you factor in the actual war in which they were launched, probability drops to zero.  Here. you're trying to define the threat of terrorism to a single data set, in your case the number of dead of a single terrorist attack, the same way AGW denilaists are, in their case a particularly warm year thanks to an above average El Nino.  The entirety of the data doesn't support your conclusion, which is why everyone who actually does it for a living disagrees with such a myopic assessment.

This isn't too much of a surprise, since that's pretty much every conversation we've ever had: abortion, global warming, hate crimes, racism, law, national security, war, torture, gun control, trans fats, health care, religious freedom, voter fraud and IDs, etc.  Lord know I'm still forgetting quite a few.  If I can cite objective, independently verified, peer reviewed research on a subject, you're sure as shit against it.  Because reasons.  Seekrit reasons you rarely want to elaborate or justify, but reasons nonetheless.

happy wrote:
There is no “more likely” about it – it’s an indisputable given. My assertion is based upon fact, while yours is based upon nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking.

No it isn't. Not at all. I've explained it to you numerous times.  Threat assessments are not solely determined by the number of dead.  Remember that assessment you dismissed in your childish "Obama insults the the troops" thread? Or Denialism blog's warnings about tapping into the racist underbelly of the GOP?  And now we're onto current research, confirming what was predicted years ago.  This goes directly into why you're next statement is complete bullshit:

you wrote:
Assuming that those are the only two groups with the ability to implement terrorist acts, then one of them is no more likely to be behind it than the other.
Past occurrences do not affect future probabilities.

The first statement is false.  The second is true but irrelevant, because human behavior isn't a completely random event like spinning a ball in roulette wheel.  Clearly, your continual focus on 9/11 proves you don't really believe this line of reasoning either.  Yet another contradiction in your endless stream of mental diarrhea.

you wrote:
My intention all along had been to discuss all Islamist vs. non-Islamist attacks on American soil, not solely domestic Islamist attacks on American soil.

My intention, from the beginning (and clear as day), was to discuss domestic terrorism in all its forms.  As always, your focus is only on Muslims.

you wrote:
I have no way of knowing what Heretic’s intention was.

Yes, yes, yes... No psychics.  We remember why you would be so confused.  The rest of us would use context and reading comprehensions usually taught in grade school.  I'm still amazed you can function in our modern society at all.

happy jack wrote:
And a Merry Christmas to you!!!!

Happy Holidays.  Here's to hoping your family can tolerate another holiday with their crazy, racist, Republican uncle.



Insulting the dead of 911, gun violence, Muslims, dwelling on 911, inadequate national security, terrorism by whites,  JFK, Trump, Star Wars, the Iron Giant, Muslims, the 2nd Amendment, creationists, fossils, 1997 temperature data, Hiroshima, AGW denialism, Muslims, abortion, global warming, hate crimes, racism, law, war, torture, gun control, trans fats, health care, religious freedom, voter fraud and IDs, psychics, Republicans, and, of course, Muslims.
Oh, my.
That’s a lot of area to cover in just a single post.
I don’t even know where to begin.
So I won’t.
But, in the spirit of the holidays, I will offer you one valuable piece of advice: go out today or tomorrow and stock up, as it’s possible that the pharmacies will be closed on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.





When I can't stop my fiddlin'
I just takes me Ritalin
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   

Back to top Go down
 
San Bernardino
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: