Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[GostHacked]

60+ years and counting with no moves yet...As Argus said, that's preposterous, gibbering, idiocy.

Al-Queda/ISIS are not 60+ years old. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia would be defended via the US in some fashion. The US helped crush rebellions on Bahrain and Qatar during the Arab Spring, but helped the rebels flourish in other parts of the Middle East, while pitting ISIS against them. But we can ignore that. None of that makes sense to me.

No, it could be said that there are people within Saudi Arabia and Jordan that are friendly to them. Saying Saudi Arabia is friendly to ISIS when they're actually at war with them is moronic. If you consider Saudi Arabia to be friendly with ISIS because they may be getting funding and recruits from among its people, you probably consider the United States friendly to them as well for the same reason.

The US IS friendly towards ISIS/Al-Queda. They are the ones really responsible for all of this in conjunction with Saudi Arabia. The US did not give a crap back in January (and before) when this really started up. Only six months later did the US react because of the attacks on US interests in Iraq. Other than that, it was an Iraq problem. What makes it the US's problem all of a sudden? It's a reaction to the problem they created in the first place, all while blaming someone else for it all.

[Moonbox]

I believe it was a singular event. You won't see something like that happen in the USA again. Run more of a risk of something escaping these centers that study viruses and things like anthrax and other chemical/biological agents.

Your beliefs are noted, but foolish. It was a rhetorical question and there was only one right answer. 9-11 was not a singular event. We've seen similarly-motivated attacks, attempted attacks and threats of attacks all over the world.

Police or military? LRAD was tested in Iraq. Now used at home. Why?

because it's non-lethal. It's also been used only a handful of times in North America and its effects can be mitigated by plugging your ears.

How many times can 'blowback' be understated? Every action has a reaction, or so I am told. The reaction was the 9/11 attacks, what was the action that triggered it? You think there is no reason other than they hate us for our freedoms? Freedoms that our government is slowly and systematically trying to erode through various pieces of legislation?

There we are. Now we have your angle. 9-11 was deserved then. That's what you're saying, right? I think we're done here.

Libya was a great place before the UK helped bring down Gaddafi.

Obviously you have zero understanding of history. Libya was a terrible place and it was mostly because of Gaddafi. He was a raving lunatic and the uprising was a result of that, not of UK meddling.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Al-Queda/ISIS are not 60+ years old.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is, which is what was being discussed.

The US IS friendly towards ISIS/Al-Queda. They are the ones really responsible for all of this in conjunction with Saudi Arabia. The US did not give a crap back in January (and before) when this really started up.

That's completely deranged. I'm not even going to comment on how idiotic that statement is. Such juvenile, broken logic can't even be reasonably argued against. Just wow.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[GostHacked]

Your beliefs are noted, but foolish. It was a rhetorical question and there was only one right answer. 9-11 was not a singular event. We've seen similarly-motivated attacks all over the world. There have also been plenty of attempted attacks foiled by western security and very public threats of attack and encouragements to attack. You're living in fantasy-world.

It was a singular event in terms of the USA. Yes terrorism is global. And yes there have been plently of thwarted attacks. In the case of the Toronto group that was stopped, showing the current laws/methods work. Any legislation (like C-30) only work against the privacy of Canadian citizens and really do not help in the combating of terrorism.

because it's non-lethal. It's also been used only a handful of times in North America and its effects can be mitigated by plugging your ears.

This is exactly what I am referring to with police militarization. MRAPS, APCs, and other military kits are now in the hands of many police departments all over the globe really. The police LOOK more and more like the military every day.

That's a ridiculous red-herring and ignores the whole point, which is to prevent future and potentially large-scale attacks. The statistical likelihood of being attacked based on past attacks is a foolish line of thinking.

Why is it foolish? Even if you consider the recent attack in Ottawa, the person who did the attack was deliberate in targeting military and government. Similar to the person in Quebec who ran down those soldiers.

IN your daily life, what is the biggest concern you have? I will bet it's not terrorism.

...but not here or in the US, nor is there any credible threat of that changing. The minute a cartel shoots up an American school is when you'll see US military, security and intelligence services curb-stomping those organizations. Until then, it's largely a Mexican problem.

Fast and Furious was the DHS's gun running to drug cartels in Mexico. Hoping to trace the movement of them in order to catch some of those people. Some of those arms have made it back to the USA and used in crimes there.

There we are. Now we have your angle. 9-11 was deserved then. That's what you're saying, right? I think we're done here.

It was not deserved. My real stance is that it was an inside job from rogue elements within the government and intelligence agencies. Howver in order to relate to many of you here, I have to stay in this charade that it was 17 guys with boxcutters from caves in Afghanistan. The same group the US helped fund/train to fight off the Soviets. That's not even contested by people like Hillary Clinton and others. If there was a real focus of going after those who are funding global terrorism, the USA would (and in fact DOES) have very dirty hands.

Explanations of events are not apologetic. They are explanations, they provide real context that most here are missing.

Don't take MY words. Take it from the people who are doing it in the first place.

Hillary Clinton.

Obviously you have zero understanding of history. Libya was a terrible place and it was mostly because of Gaddafi. He was a raving lunatic and the uprising was a result of that, not of UK meddling.

How is Libya now? If I don't understand history, neither does Hillary Clinton. But you would take her word over mine, right?

[GostHacked]

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is, which is what was being discussed.

And it's kind of off topic. It was injected into this thread by a select few who have a beef with Israel. The title of this thread is really about the USA, but someone posted it in the Canadian section of the forums. Not sure why.

That's completely deranged. I'm not even going to comment on how idiotic that statement is. Such juvenile, broken logic can't even be reasonably argued against. Just wow.

What is broken logic is that the government needs to take your rights and freedoms away to protect you against terrorism. Terrorism that our own governments are helping to perpetuate. Our government is more of a threat to us than terrorism. I really think Dre has summed that up quite nicely.

[eyeball]

So none then. Good to know.

The cartels caused tens of millions of casualties in Canada and the US? Please explain. This is like going to see the carnival oddities.

Addicts, OD deaths, inner city ghettos, family and social breakdown...all of these have been blamed on drugs and the people who supply them. The effort to combat this is even referred to as a war.

You're completely unaware of what I'm talking about - this is all news to you? That's really odd.

Edited December 18, 2014 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

Addicts, OD deaths, inner city ghettos, family and social breakdown...all of these have been blamed on drugs and the people who supply them. The effort to combat this is even referred to as a war.

You're completely unaware of what I'm talking about - this is all news to you? That's really odd.

No, I was fully expecting you to bring up these examples. Your logic is as bad as it is predictable. Counting drug-related deaths in the US/Canada as victims of the direct or indirect victims of the cartels supposes that if the cartels were dismantled, there would be no drug abuse. As even you would probably agree, that's not the case.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[GostHacked]

No, I was fully expecting you to bring up these examples. Your logic is as bad as it is predictable. Counting drug-related deaths in the US/Canada as victims of the direct or indirect victims of the cartels supposes that if the cartels were dismantled, there would be no drug abuse. As even you would probably agree, that's not the case.

I think you are eluding to the war on drugs being a total failure now that it has permeated all of society.

[Moonbox]

I think you are eluding to the war on drugs being a total failure now that it has permeated all of society.

I think you have English vocabulary problems exacerbating your poor reasoning skills and your nut-job theories.

IN your daily life, what is the biggest concern you have? I will bet it's not terrorism.

It's not brain-tumors either, but I still support efforts to prevent and treat them.

It was not deserved. My real stance is that it was an inside job from rogue elements within the government and intelligence agencies.

and this is all of the evidence we need to confirm you're not a rational or reasonable human being.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[GostHacked]

I think you have English vocabulary problems exacerbating your poor reasoning skills and your nut-job theories.

Aside from my theory about 9/11, everything else discussed is on the record and not even contested by US government officials. So when I quote Clinton, it becomes my nut-job theory?

and this is all of the evidence we need to confirm you're not a rational or reasonable human being.

I've been called worse.

Edited December 18, 2014 by GostHacked

[Argus]

Al-Queda/ISIS are not 60+ years old.

The point is that sixty years of hostility directed at Israel is based on religion. If the Israelis had not been Jews, there'd be no issue about setting up a country there, any more than there was over setting up Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

[Moonbox]

Aside from my theory about 9/11, everything else discussed is on the record and not even contested by US government officials.

Except not at all. You take small truths and stretch them out to mean far more than they actually do.

So when I quote Clinton, it becomes my nut-job theory?

No, your nut-job theories are nutty all on their own. Hillary Clinton never said that the USA or the Saudis are friends of ISIS/Al Qaeda, nor did she say anything about rogue-US intelligence masterminding the 9-11 attacks. You said those things. Quoting a youtube video that's splicing video and then spinning clips of Hillary Clinton speaking, unfortunately for you, does not erase those hair-brained statements.

I've been called worse.

Oh I have no doubt of that, none at all.

[Bob Macadoo]

It's not brain-tumors either, but I still support efforts to prevent and treat them.

Wow...a few billion/trillion to beat back brain tumours....you're generous.

[eyeball]

No, I was fully expecting you to bring up these examples. Your logic is as bad as it is predictable. Counting drug-related deaths in the US/Canada as victims of the direct or indirect victims of the cartels supposes that if the cartels were dismantled, there would be no drug abuse. As even you would probably agree, that's not the case.

My logic? It was the US administration that cobbled up this illlogic to galvanize the public into waging the war on drugs.

You're right I don't buy it at all. Of course nothing will change if you take out the cartels - doing so utterly misses the point.

And that's why the effort to combat terrorism is likewise doomed. It's why it's referred to as whack-a-mole. It's every bit as deluded except in this case you've taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

Edited December 19, 2014 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

And that's why the effort to combat terrorism is likewise doomed. It's why it's referred to as whack-a-mole. It's every bit as deluded except in this case you've taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

Except, as I said, the cartels don't blow up World Trade Centres, subways, air planes, theatres etc, nor do they threaten to murder anyone who doesn't follow their ideology. Your vague and half-baked idea that the cartels have caused even more damage is, quite frankly, totally ridiculous (like most of the stuff you say).

[eyeball]

Yes I know exactly what you didn't say. You're probably the most transparently facetious debater this forum has ever seen. Mealy mouthed BS and a flippant attitude only underscore that.

If you want to make a complete fool out of yourself by trying to float the idea the US government didn't cast the narco-states and cartels as being amongst America's worst enemies be my guest.

With people like you stumping for the cause the way you do, the US can probably count on having lots more enemies in the future.

Edited December 19, 2014 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

Except, as I said, the cartels don't blow up World Trade Centres, subways, air planes, theatres etc, nor do they threaten to murder anyone who doesn't follow their ideology. Your vague and half-baked idea that the cartels have caused even more damage is, quite frankly, totally ridiculous (like most of the stuff you say).

Remember the Iran-Contra affair? It's stuff like that that puts the US in more jeopardy.

[Moonbox]

Remember the Iran-Contra affair? It's stuff like that that puts the US in more jeopardy.

Oh hey I'd never argue that the US doesn't have generally terrible foreign policy, and that in some cases it has worsened the problem. I just disagree entirely that it's the cause for the majority of fundamentalist extremism. There's simply too many hundreds of years of religious violence to go back on (state-sponsored or not) to suggest otherwise.

The US is not responsible for hard-line Wahhabi-style ideology. You could make a case if the extremists were simply trying to overthrow their governments and take charge of their own secular destinies (sans Western interference), but we can see that their goals go much further than this. When they're tossing acid in young women's faces for trying to get an education and generally murdering anyone who refuses to submit to their authority and/or beliefs, no argument can reasonably suggest that this is the result of US foreign policy.

[Moonbox]

Yes I know exactly what you didn't say. You're probably the most transparently facetious debater this forum has ever seen. Mealy mouthed BS and a flippant attitude only underscore that.

Good job with the thesaurus. That's an impressive display of redundant adjectives.

If you want to make a complete fool out of yourself by trying to float the idea the US government didn't cast the narco-states and cartels as being amongst America's worst enemies be my guest.

I didn't argue that in any way whatsoever. I very clearly mocked the idea that the cartels pose any significant danger to the average Canadian or American, which is what another poster was suggesting. You're just getting mixed up and confused like you usually do.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Moonbox

[GostHacked]

Oh hey I'd never argue that the US doesn't have generally terrible foreign policy, and that in some cases it has worsened the problem. I just disagree entirely that it's the cause for the majority of fundamentalist extremism. There's simply too many hundreds of years of religious violence to go back on (state-sponsored or not) to suggest otherwise.

The US is not responsible for hard-line Wahhabi-style ideology. You could make a case if the extremists were simply trying to overthrow their governments and take charge of their own secular destinies (sans Western interference), but we can see that their goals go much further than this. When they're tossing acid in young women's faces for trying to get an education and generally murdering anyone who refuses to submit to their authority and/or beliefs, no argument can reasonably suggest that this is the result of US foreign policy.

I guess it is easier to believe that they hate us for our freedoms instead.

[Moonbox]

I guess it is easier to believe that they hate us for our freedoms instead.

Would you say that ISIL's persecution of Yazidis, Assyrians and Shia muslims happens because they hate our freedoms or because of western imperialism or whatever talking point you choose?!?

I guess it's easier to be completely oblivious and form your beliefs based on whatever you feel like.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

I guess it is easier to believe that they hate us for our freedoms instead.

Why do you suppose they hate Kurds? Why do you suppose they hate Shiites? Why do you suppose they hate the Christians there? Why do you suppose they hate the Yazidis? Why do you suppose they hate Jews?

Why is it beyond your ability to imagine people who are religious fanatics of the old school would hate and despise anyone who does not share their view of God?

[Argus]

Would you say that ISIL's persecution of Yazidis, Assyrians and Shia muslims happens because they hate our freedoms!?

Hadn't read this when I responded but it's interesting that people can accept that the crazy religious people over their hate each other, and have a particular rage on tiny minority groups (The Ahmadi's in Pakistan also come to mind, or the Druze in Lebanon). But when they hate US, these same people have to go and look for a REASON, like it's something we've done, something we must take blame for, something which, if we stopped doing it, these crazy assholes would stop wanting to kill us.

These people throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls because they don't want them to go to school. They shoot women who don't cover themselves in a black sheet. OF COURSE they hate us for the fact women have the freedom to be educated and to wear what they want! You don't think their brains would boil if they saw a beach full of girls in bikinis? They'd be grabbing for their suicide vests and Kalashnikov! You don't think they hate it that queers can stand on parade floats and flaunt their fagginess while tens of thousands of people cheer! OF COURSE they hate us for that! They'd be salivating at the prospect of slaughtering everyone anywhere near a pride parade! There are churches and temples here, all over the place, where people worship God in entirely different ways! And no one is killing them!? OF COURSE they are enraged and to want to kill us all!

WE are anathema to God in their eyes. Everything we do in our secular world is anathema, and these are old school religious types, unsophisticated, ignorant and with a certainty that anything which goes against what they see as God's will is Satanic and must be destroyed.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Argus

[dre]

The point is that sixty years of hostility directed at Israel is based on religion. If the Israelis had not been Jews, there'd be no issue about setting up a country there, any more than there was over setting up Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

No its not "based on religion". Even if Israelis were purple people from another planet the outcome would be the same. Two groups of people think they have the right to the same piece of land.... this is a garden variety cause of conflict. Theres nothing special or exotic about it at all.

[dre]

Except, as I said, the cartels don't blow up World Trade Centres, subways, air planes, theatres etc, nor do they threaten to murder anyone who doesn't follow their ideology. Your vague and half-baked idea that the cartels have caused even more damage is, quite frankly, totally ridiculous (like most of the stuff you say).

No its not ridiculous at all. Mexican narco terrorists pose a greater threat to the US than any islamic extremist group out there today. Not only are they more brutal and more depraved but they kill a whole lot of Americans. Nearly 6000 in the last few years (thats a double 911). They behead hundreds of people every year, and they cook Americans alive and eat them.

Much is made of the 1500 yadzi sex slaves kept by ISIL... But Narco-Terrorists have hundreds of thousands of women in sexual slavery being trafficked back and forth from the US to Mexico.

And the reality is... That if Mexican Narco terrorists were Muslims, you would be jumping up and down in rage about the "existential" threat they pose us. Sounds to me like you have the same dislike towards muslims has you accuse them of having towards us.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/isil-vs-mexican-drugcartelsunitedstatesislamophobia.html

Theres an article that gets into some of the numbers re: Cartels VS Jihadis.

They have also attacked US consulates in Mexico in Monterrey, Nuevo Laredo, and Ciudad Juarez.

U.S. officials as highly placed as the attorney general and the head of U.S. Southern Command have warned of a spillover of the violence, deeming the cartels a "national security threat."

Edited December 20, 2014 by dre