ISIS attack in Bangladesh

[WakeandBake]

Not to mention the other issues in America that eclipse the threat of Radical Islam terms of danger/threat and expense that the trillions of dollars we spend playing whack a mole could be better spent on.

 

[WakeandBake]

The Islamic terror attacks have something in common, too, and that is the element of every single one of them being intentional. I don't think everyone is ready for gun ownership (sidenote: kudos for checking the requisite "Listen, I have guns, I still think..." box) and there is much worse left to do to reduce gun deaths...but it's hard to hear the outrage at the right turning a deaf ear to the gun problem with the left doing the same thing to radical Islam. They're both a problem.

But the problem of Islam gets trillions of dollars and dead American soldiers, and the domestic gun problem gets dick. In fact, it gets promotion and legions of legislators propping it up.

You can't see the disproportionate responses to these problems?

 

[PhDeac]

But the problem of Islam gets trillions of dollars and dead American soldiers, and the domestic gun problem gets dick. In fact, it gets promotion and legions of legislators propping it up.

You can't see the disproportionate responses to these problems?

We are sending Americans to other countries to die to somehow prevent people from other countries coming to America to kill Americans. Yet people don't question that logic at all.

You should add that the domestic gun problems gets billions of dollars and dead American cops. Weirdly cops are silent about how to address guns aside from vague "keep guns off the street" rhetoric. It's safe to argue they'd benefit the most from sensible gun restrictions.

 

[knowell]

The Amish toddlers do not want to take over the world. Radical Islam would like to kill all those unwilling to convert. If left unopposed they would succeed.

They are currently facing many billions of dollars and millions of individuals from the US alone (and much more world wide). Much of what we are doing is inefficient and some of it is counterproductive, but if you want to assess level of threat, you have to include the level of response as well.

If ISIS had nuclear weapons would they use them? If they had access to an incurable virus, would they intentionally spread it? The only thing that contains their potential to kill is their relative lack of power.
For these reasons alone, they are the the most dangerous threat at this time. It is important that they do not increase their potential for harm.

At this point in time, there is no question that they are increasing their potential to cause harm to the world.

 

[PhDeac]

Do you think ISIS is a threat to take over the world?

 

[knowell]

Do you think ISIS is a threat to take over the world?

I think they want to. If left unopposed they would.

Of course, they are opposed, by the civilized world, so no, I do not think they are a threat to take over the world.

They are a threat to do a lot of harm if they are allowed to continue to grow in power and influence.

 

[jhmd2000]

I think they want to. If left unopposed they would.

Of course, they are opposed, by the civilized world, so no, I do not think they are a threat to take over the world.

They are a threat to do a lot of harm if they are allowed to continue to grow in power and influence.

You've got to remember that Ph doesn't think the lives they threaten #matter, though.

 

[Wrangor]

Do you think ISIS is a threat to take over the world?

Take over? No....

Destroy? Absolutely. Allow them to acquire the correct weapons and they could completely destroy the Western Way of living. They could never sustain anything, but they you don't have to sustain in order to destroy something.

 

[WakeandBake]

And there you have it. Seemingly intelligent and educated Americans who actually believe that these guys could destroy the world. Blowing things up with nuclear weapons is a monumental undertaking that nations with an actual apparatus for doing so often can't achieve (see DPRK).

But I see how it resonates with Americans. It fills the need for a foreign adversary hell bent on destroying the west. We grew up with it until the wall came down, then it was the Middle East.

Trillions of dollars and surges and green zones and propped up puppet regimes and boots on the ground and tonnages of bombs dropped and drones and no fly lists and you guys are still shitting your Dockers every day while while Rome burns.

 

[knowell]

And there you have it. Seemingly intelligent and educated Americans who actually believe that these guys could destroy the world. Blowing things up with nuclear weapons is a monumental undertaking that nations with an actual apparatus for doing so often can't achieve (see DPRK).

But I see how it resonates with Americans. It fills the need for a foreign adversary hell bent on destroying the west. We grew up with it until the wall came down, then it was the Middle East.

Trillions of dollars and surges and green zones and propped up puppet regimes and boots on the ground and tonnages of bombs dropped and drones and no fly lists and you guys are still shitting your Dockers every day while while Rome burns.

You think ISIS getting a hold of a nuclear bomb is impossible. For a while, they were bringing in over a million dollars per day. You assume that the tin pot dictator of N. Korea would be unwilling to sell such a weapon to ISIS? Maybe so. Would they be unwilling to sell one to Iran? Would Russia sell one to Iran? Would Iran, who currently sponsors Hezbollah be above giving that bomb to ISIS?
You still got to get the bomb to the US past our security. Is it doable? Maybe. If not here, then certainly hitting Europe or Israel is a possibility.

Maybe none of that is possible today. That does not make it impossible a few years in the future.

Who would have thought that Al-Queda could bring down the Twin Towers by taking over airplanes.

ISIS is only one concern of the many this country has, but to minimize it and put it on par with guns in the hands of toddlers is foolish.

 

[RJKarl]

ISIS did a suicide bombing today in Medinah near one of the holiest sites of Islam. Now. we'll see if the Saudis have any balls.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Al-Queda had free reign of a entire country for a decade and the best they could do was hijack 4 planes.

ISIS is a threat, but not to the American way of life. They are already losing control of the desert they "ruled".

 

[Wrangor]

And there you have it. Seemingly intelligent and educated Americans who actually believe that these guys could destroy the world. Blowing things up with nuclear weapons is a monumental undertaking that nations with an actual apparatus for doing so often can't achieve (see DPRK).

But I see how it resonates with Americans. It fills the need for a foreign adversary hell bent on destroying the west. We grew up with it until the wall came down, then it was the Middle East.

Trillions of dollars and surges and green zones and propped up puppet regimes and boots on the ground and tonnages of bombs dropped and drones and no fly lists and you guys are still shitting your Dockers every day while while Rome burns.

Wait a second. So you don't think Isis or whatever radical Islam equivalent exists in 2,5,10 years could crippled the world economy with properly times and located attacks? You always throw in some snide remark about republicans being fearful or living in fear. It isn't living in fear to recognize the reality of the world we live in. I don't wake up scared of Isis anymore than I wake up scared of a child molester taking one of my kids in a crowded place. But I am smart enough to evaluate situations as they exist rather than closing my eyes and pretending everyone loves each other.

Lay off the insults and just discuss an issue for once Shoo. Everyone here is a grown up. If anyone actually still wears Dockers I can pretty much assure you they aren't deficating in them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WakeandBake]

Wait a second. So you don't think Isis or whatever radical Islam equivalent exists in 2,5,10 years could crippled the world economy with properly times and located attacks? You always throw in some snide remark about republicans being fearful or living in fear. It isn't living in fear to recognize the reality of the world we live in. I don't wake up scared of Isis anymore than I wake up scared of a child molester taking one of my kids in a crowded place. But I am smart enough to evaluate situations as they exist rather than closing my eyes and pretending everyone loves each other.

Lay off the insults and just discuss an issue for once Shoo. Everyone here is a grown up. If anyone actually still wears Dockers I can pretty much assure you they aren't deficating in them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok what more do you want to do about Isis? Just have a president who says Islam is bad, is that the thing we are arguing? What does that do to deter the 10 years in the future ISIS that you aren't waking up afraid of? Is it more trillions? More dead servicemen? What exactly are you insisting?

And I post in my style, you post in yours.

 

[Tobacco Road]

Stats don't always refute a point. I feel like this should be self evident but I will illustrate. More people die each year from falling than gun deaths. So according to your 'refutation' we should first concern ourselves with people's balance. Stats can mean what you want them to mean. It is what I made my first point. Amazingly there are people (apparently you I guess) that consider gun wielding babies a larger threat than Radical Islam. I am not sure how to have a reasonable conversation with that. If that is not what you are representing with your 'information' then please clarify yourself because it sure seems that is the position you are taking.

Wringer, respectfully, I would say that isn't a good argument. We already invest a lot of resources to decrease morbidity and mortality related to falls. People invest in equipment for the their home, bath and stairs to prevent falls. Fall risk is a formal part of the Medicare Wellness exam that all seniors are encouraged to participate in yearly. A patient's fall risk is one of the few things that get space on banner at the top of the patient chart in our medical group. People with balance issues spend time and money with specialists doing physical and occupational therapy to improve function and reduce the risk of a fall. We invest in bone mineral density testing to see who is high risk for a fracture if they fall and use expensive medicines to address that done density if it is low. Yes, falls are a real issue affecting the health of people in the US (primarily elderly). Accordingly, we invest in determining who is at risk and also in minimizing their risk. Why would we not do the same for guns and invest in determining who is high risk to use a gun inappropriately and also in acting to minimize the risk that they do?

 

[RJKarl]

Any time you build a hotel, restaurant, shopping mall, store, movie theater, school or many other facilities, you have to show proper safety for those who might fall or are handicapped. But registering guns is too much to the NRA and apparently Wrangor.

We have many specifics to make people who might fall safer, why can't we make every transfer of ownership of a gun need a background check?

If someone uses your car and has an accident, you are liable. If you sell or give a gun to a criminal why aren't you as liable?

Why are people allowed to buy as many guns as they want and then re-sell them to anyone by simply saying they are "private sellers" and not gun dealers?

 

[Wrangor]

Any time you build a hotel, restaurant, shopping mall, store, movie theater, school or many other facilities, you have to show proper safety for those who might fall or are handicapped. But registering guns is too much to the NRA and apparently Wrangor.

We have many specifics to make people who might fall safer, why can't we make every transfer of ownership of a gun need a background check?

If someone uses your car and has an accident, you are liable. If you sell or give a gun to a criminal why aren't you as liable?

Why are people allowed to buy as many guns as they want and then re-sell them to anyone by simply saying they are "private sellers" and not gun dealers?

Please cite your sources. I have never made that argument, and have in fact made the opposite argument many times. You create your own argumentative opponents often RJ. I'm worried about you.

 

[Wrangor]

Wringer, respectfully, I would say that isn't a good argument. We already invest a lot of resources to decrease morbidity and mortality related to falls. People invest in equipment for the their home, bath and stairs to prevent falls. Fall risk is a formal part of the Medicare Wellness exam that all seniors are encouraged to participate in yearly. A patient's fall risk is one of the few things that get space on banner at the top of the patient chart in our medical group. People with balance issues spend time and money with specialists doing physical and occupational therapy to improve function and reduce the risk of a fall. We invest in bone mineral density testing to see who is high risk for a fracture if they fall and use expensive medicines to address that done density if it is low. Yes, falls are a real issue affecting the health of people in the US (primarily elderly). Accordingly, we invest in determining who is at risk and also in minimizing their risk. Why would we not do the same for guns and invest in determining who is high risk to use a gun inappropriately and also in acting to minimize the risk that they do?

Its not only not a good argument it is a TERRIBLE argument, which is exactly why I made it. Clearly gun control is a more important venture than preventing falls. In the same way managing a worldwide network of terrorists that are intent on the absolute destruction of your way of life is more important than a toddler that grabs his dad's gun because the idiot dad wasn't responsible. It doesn't mean that the dead toddler isn't important....he/she is extremely valuable to our society, but it pales in comparison to what multiple suicide bombers would mean if they were more successful in our country. I made that argument for the exact purpose of it being a terrible argument to prove that just because you can cite a stat, doesn't mean it is relevant to the discussion. So I agree with you.

 

[RJKarl]

Please cite your sources. I have never made that argument, and have in fact made the opposite argument many times. You create your own argumentative opponents often RJ. I'm worried about you.

If you are for registering all guns, then I was wrong about you, but not the NRA.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Its not only not a good argument it is a TERRIBLE argument, which is exactly why I made it. Clearly gun control is a more important venture than preventing falls. In the same way managing a worldwide network of terrorists that are intent on the absolute destruction of your way of life is more important than a toddler that grabs his dad's gun because the idiot dad wasn't responsible. It doesn't mean that the dead toddler isn't important....he/she is extremely valuable to our society, but it pales in comparison to what multiple suicide bombers would mean if they were more successful in our country. I made that argument for the exact purpose of it being a terrible argument to prove that just because you can cite a stat, doesn't mean it is relevant to the discussion. So I agree with you.

You have an arbitrary scale of importance (ISIS vs toddlers with guns) with no realistic context or tether to reality. That's the problem. We should focus more attention and resources on problems that we can solve, on deaths that we can prevent. Our current political setup is far more heavily weighted towards stopping ISIS than it is preventing gun deaths, and that is inexcusable.