On 7/25/2016 at 4:29 PM, l3ubba said:

I am not saying that any attacks are acceptable. When I say that "only 8 out of the 11" it is because I am saying he is exaggerating the number a bit. I don't know how that could be twisted into me saying there is an acceptable number of attacks. I am seriously confused on how you even got to that conclusion, I mean seriously, that is the most confusing response I have ever got to one of my posts.

Because using words like "only", especially with very large ratios like 8 out of 11 makes it sound like you're marginalizing this problem.

On 7/25/2016 at 5:37 AM, Sn0wf4ll said:

Of course there are muslims that behave nice and are integrated, but that's just the minority. The majority simply does NOT WANT to integrate and that's the core of all the problems around the world.

Especially in Europe we witness that on a daily basis.

It even starts with cartoons (you heard about that for sure), only they express it violently and then you wanna tell me it does not have anything to do with islam? You should watch that video of that Egyptian (famous) moderator, who is - of course - now in fear of his life.

If you want to be safe you go into the first country you are safe in, you do not travel through five secure countries to say "I need help, give me asylum". THEN you are a freaking economy refugee and no country wants that.

Especially not because they are mostly people that are not willing to adopt culture and integrate.

Why would they actually flee to the west where the devil lives than to go to their brothers in religion like Saudi Arabia? Guess what, they didn't want to take them.

Edit: Oh and, yesterday (I think) a muslim set off a bomb in Germany. 'Nuff said.

-You have provided absolutely no statistical proof that the majority of Muslim immigrants into Europe are violent terrorists. That kind of attitude is part of the problem because it does nothing to motivate ethnic Germans to clean up those neighborhoods, invest into police forces who will go there or attempt to construct community outreach programs to new families.

-At no point have I ever insinuated that these attacks are not occurring due to a religious motive; quite the opposite, actually, if you read any of my posts in threads regarding attacks conducted by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers. I've stated numerous times that all religions are dangerous generally speaking, but at this particular point in time, Islam is the only one causing the kind of havoc and misery across the globe on a large scale that we see on the news constantly. The Danish cartoonists, the French satirists, Salman Rushdie, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and countless others have all been either threatened with death or actually hurt/killed. It's not a coincidence, and it's fair to say that the version of the Qu'ran that Osama Bin Laden was teaching is not a radical one, it's a very paint by the numbers  interpretation of it.

-Not all countries have the same immigration laws, even within the EU. Some immigrants may be forced to move on after a certain amount of time, or there may be instances where some people can speak English as a 2nd language (as it is the most common 2nd language in the world), but not French, Italian Sweedish, German, etc, so it would make little sense to stay put when England used to be a hop, skip and a jump north east of those places.

-That's once again an opinion until you provide me with some kind of proof to back yourself up.

-Because Saudi Arabia is arguably one of the most strictly Shariah Law countries to live in and has a specific tribe of Muslims ruling over the majority of the country which may persecute or just simply kill people who are from the wrong tribe or don't live life they way the government wants it.

-You "think". Nice. Again, nobody is arguing that Islam is the major motivator behind these attacks, but you're just making things up when you say "nobody" wants to integrate. You haven't shown me any polls or surveys that suggest that. Only anecdotal references to things that may or may not have happened in the town in Germany you live in.

Edited July 30, 20169 yr by unr3al

Should we not have let in Jewish refugees during World War 2, because some of them could have been Nazi spies? For those against the refugee programs, are you against letting in all refugees or just the brown ones? Keeping it real.

9 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Should we not have let in Jewish refugees during World War 2, because some of them could have been Nazi spies? For those against the refugee programs, are you against letting in all refugees or just the brown ones? Keeping it real.

All refugees to answer your question first and foremost. I am a firm believer in helping your own people before you go on to help others, and let's be honest, both America and Canada and even Europe need a lot of self help for its own people before they simply throw a bunch more into the fray (regardless of color and nationality). 

As for your other comments, we're not in a world war firstly. We're in a situation where X organization firmly believes that their "cause" is at stake because of us western folk. That we're against the all powerful Allah. Again, it's striking a very similar resemblance to that of the Jihad wars way back when. Second, the Jews were being massacred by someone who deemed them unworthy to live. We're not massacring thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of Muslims just because they're there. In fact, it's the other way around, we're the ones being massacred because we don't believe what they do and that in their eyes threatens what they believe in. There were other reasons to the start of World War 2 other than just because of the Jews, but that is something in of itself and a whole different political avenue that doesn't need to be brought in. 

Third, and lastly, even if Jewish Nazi Spies did enter a country they sure as hell didn't strap themselves up in an explosive vest and detonate it in a mall or a crowd of people. It's two completely different scenario's and neither one or the other makes comparative sense. 

Fourth (I lied) but promise lastly, lastly -- As I said before too, the Middle East has had it's Medieval-like problems for the longest time now, it's still arguably in the Medieval period. Women are not equal to men, hell, women are pretty much lower on the totem pole underneath goats. Among other turmoils and problems that stretch far beyond the scope of what needs to be said, but I am sure many get the gist. Not all Middle Eastern countries are like that though, which again causes internal conflict and thus even more turmoil and problems than what was already there. 

4 hours ago, unr3al said:

Because using words like "only", especially with very large ratios like 8 out of 11 makes it sound like you're marginalizing this problem.

Nope, not what I was doing at all. I'm about to give up explaining that though because you seem to believe that is what I meant. You are the only person who interpreted my statement that way.

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

Nope, not what I was doing at all. I'm about to give up explaining that though because you seem to believe that is what I meant. You are the only person who interpreted my statement that way.

Just because I was the only one to call you out on it doesn't mean I'm the only one on the entire planet who'd look at it that way. Let's not pretend. Just understand my point of how it looks.

6 hours ago, Solidefiance said:

Second, the Jews were being massacred by someone who deemed them unworthy to live. We're not massacring thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of Muslims just because they're there. In fact, it's the other way around, we're the ones being massacred because we don't believe what they do and that in their eyes threatens what they believe in.

I think you should check how many civilians (and thus innocent) people are getting massacred by US and EU bombs in the middle-east right now, you'd be surprised. Just thought I'd let you know :)

45 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

I think you should check how many civilians (and thus innocent) people are getting massacred by US and EU bombs in the middle-east right now, you'd be surprised. Just thought I'd let you know :)

Let us know when the tally gets to 6.5 million from firing squads and gas chambers in an attempt to wipe an entire ethnic group from the face of the earth. Until then, apples and oranges.

11 hours ago, unr3al said:

-You have provided absolutely no statistical proof that the majority of Muslim immigrants into Europe are violent terrorists. That kind of attitude is part of the problem because it does nothing to motivate ethnic Germans to clean up those neighborhoods, invest into police forces who will go there or attempt to construct community outreach programs to new families.

-At no point have I ever insinuated that these attacks are not occurring due to a religious motive; quite the opposite, actually, if you read any of my posts in threads regarding attacks conducted by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers. I've stated numerous times that all religions are dangerous generally speaking, but at this particular point in time, Islam is the only one causing the kind of havoc and misery across the globe on a large scale that we see on the news constantly. The Danish cartoonists, the French stairists, Salman Rushdie, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and countless others have all been either threatened with death or actually hurt/killed. It's not a coincidence, and it's fair to say that the version of the Qu'ran that Osama Bin Laden was teaching is not a radical one, it's a very paint by the numbers  interpretation of it.

-Not all countries have the same immigration laws, even within the EU. Some immigrants may be forced to move on after a certain amount of time, or there may be instances where some people can speak English as a 2nd language (as it is the most common 2nd language in the world), but not French, Italian Sweedish, German, etc, so it would make little sense to stay put when England used to be a hop, skip and a jump north east of those places.

-That's once again an opinion until you provide me with some kind of proof to back yourself up.

-Because Saudi Arabia is arguably one of the most strictly Shariah Law countries to live in and has a specific tribe of Muslims ruling over the majority of the country which may persecute or just simply kill people who are from the wrong tribe or don't live life they way the government wants it.

-You "think". Nice. Again, nobody is arguing that Islam is the major motivator behind these attacks, but you're just making things up when you say "nobody" wants to integrate. You haven't shown me any polls or surveys that suggest that. Only anecdotal references to things that may or may not have happened in the town in Germany you live in.

I have not shown any "statistical proof" that this is true (though there are many) because I'm simply too lazy to google it for you. I'm not making things up, it's proven and just because I don't serve you that on a silver tablet doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or is not true at all.

Your second statement is just proving me right, one of the facts I've listed so why even argue?

Germany actually (even I guess two of the attackers, at least one) were denied their asylum application but were still tolerated to be here. How does that work eh? If they get their application denied, they should be deported but that didn't happen. Even the EU wanted to put consequences on Germany because of that kind of shit.

(http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-eu-kritisiert-deutsche-abschiebepraxis-a-1054927.html)

 

 

Sure, because Saudi Arabia aren't basically their "brothers" in religion eh? Rather not take their muslim believers and go to the devil west we've been hating for many years.

Oh and the Sharia isn't only in Saudi Arabia, it is in Iran, Pakistan etc. etc.

 

Did you hear about new years eve? Well, government actually already admitted that police was ordered to cover the entire story and even politicians knew about that and kept things back.

(http://www.businessinsider.de/nrw-innenminister-wirft-koelner-polizei-gravierende-fehler-vor-4681186)

(http://www.express.de/koeln/koelner-silvester-mob-neue-enthuellungen--polizei-loeschte-interne-telefondaten--24379910)

 

Yes, the articles are in German. That's because I'm not even sure if there's an English equivalent about it but at least you got your proof here.

Second of all: I am tired of arguing with those left wing people like you, keeping their eyes closed and (not necessarily you) insult anyone else who speaks the truth and their mind.

In Germany we have that way too often, I don't want to even start it here in that forum.

Think what you want to think, maybe one day you will realise the truth.

(http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article154174175/Berlins-Unterwelt-ist-verloren-an-die-arabischen-Clans.html)

 

 

Edit: Just realised there might be some mistakes in grammar etc. Just woke up and too lazy to fix it now.

I'll provide better details later on. :D

Edited July 27, 20169 yr by Sn0wf4ll

WTF is sky news?

11 minutes ago, bobdabiulder said:

WTF is sky news?

http://news.sky.com

9 hours ago, ScarletDraconis said:

I think you should check how many civilians (and thus innocent) people are getting massacred by US and EU bombs in the middle-east right now, you'd be surprised. Just thought I'd let you know :)

The difference is that we're not predominately trying to harm the civilians. Unfortunately in any strategic bombing, civilians will get harmed, it's a cruel reality and as I said, we're not specifically targeting unarmed people. The other factor, one that cannot go unnoticed either, especially if you want to bring that into the topic is that arguably our bombs touch nowhere near the amount of civilian casualties as that of X "terrorist" organization does by pure suicide bombings that purposely throw themselves at civilian settlements/markets/shopping center's, etc. There is numerous bombings that happen all to try and scare civilians into their cause, just because the civilians do not necessarily agree with X's organization ideas. It's a pretty good propaganda ploy, and in many cases it works as the civilians are stuck between a rock and a literal bomb.

13 hours ago, unr3al said:

Just because I was the only one to call you out on it doesn't mean I'm the only one on the entire planet who'd look at it that way. Let's not pretend. Just understand my point of how it looks.

Call me out on what!? Seriously, what exactly did I say that required you to call me out? If you say "Look at these 11 car crashes that were caused by old white guys" and I come back and say "Actually only 8 out of those 11 crashes were caused by old white guys and the others were unrelated" would you still interpret my message the same way you are now? All I was saying is that out of the 11 attacks he listed 8 of them were actually tied to Islamic extremist and the others were unrelated. What is so bad about fact checking someone's work? Why is it bad that I am saying the number of attacks is lower than what he said it was? This is the most ridiculous thing anyone has "called me out" on.

9 hours ago, l3ubba said:

Call me out on what!? Seriously, what exactly did I say that required you to call me out? If you say "Look at these 11 car crashes that were caused by old white guys" and I come back and say "Actually only 8 out of those 11 crashes were caused by old white guys and the others were unrelated" would you still interpret my message the same way you are now? All I was saying is that out of the 11 attacks he listed 8 of them were actually tied to Islamic extremist and the others were unrelated. What is so bad about fact checking someone's work? Why is it bad that I am saying the number of attacks is lower than what he said it was? This is the most ridiculous thing anyone has "called me out" on.

It's your right to think I'm nitpicking. Yes I would absolutely feel the same way, but we're not talking about car crashes, we're talking about a religion that perpetuates mass killings which is why minimizing things (whether it was intentional or not) only serves to motivate others out there who might take a statistic like 8 out of 11 and put a positive spin on it. That's what it looks like. Car crashes will happen as a result of careless people and random acts of nature, not due to theology. If you don't see my point, that's fine. I said what I wanted to say.

 

 

18 hours ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

I have not shown any "statistical proof" that this is true (though there are many) because I'm simply too lazy to google it for you. I'm not making things up, it's proven and just because I don't serve you that on a silver tablet doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or is not true at all.

Your second statement is just proving me right, one of the facts I've listed so why even argue?

(http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-eu-kritisiert-deutsche-abschiebepraxis-a-1054927.html)

(http://www.businessinsider.de/nrw-innenminister-wirft-koelner-polizei-gravierende-fehler-vor-4681186)

(http://www.express.de/koeln/koelner-silvester-mob-neue-enthuellungen--polizei-loeschte-interne-telefondaten--24379910)

(http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article154174175/Berlins-Unterwelt-ist-verloren-an-die-arabischen-Clans.html)

 

A few of those websites aren't what I'd call credible news sources. Especially when they use terms like "there are allegations that...", "police officers are accused...", and "it's difficult to shed light with any detail". This is like when Americans who are either hardcore Republicans or hardcore Democrats subscribe to their favorite website that feature articles that specifically reinforce their political agenda and pander to people who already believe what's going to be written. Those aren't news outlets. Those are tabloids. And any credible information that is taken from sources like Reuters will only be given in bits and pieces to help construct the story the author wants to write. I can't stop you from falling for that kind of crap, but I can at least point it out.

I find it odd that you're supposedly too lazy to find me statistical proof but you're happy to copy and paste links to German tabloids or rubbish news sites that offer opinions on what might have happened rather than what actually did. If you're too lazy to make a point you can't defend, then you shouldn't be making it.

I don't classify myself as a liberal, I'm registered as an independent voter; but I'm certainly not from the party that advocates ideas like "legitimate rape", "don't ask don't tell", "don't retreat, reload", "Mexicans are criminals and rapists" and "ban all Muslim immigration". I'm heavily critical of religion, especially Islam considering the events that have happened during my lifetime, but I support the right to be able to be critical of something publicly. So if believing in values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality for women, equality for minorities and LGBT people makes me a liberal, and not just a human being with compassion for other people who don't fit my mold, then sure, call me a liberal if you want. But every American ought to believe in those things since those are principles this country was supposed to be founded on, regardless of what party you vote for.

1 hour ago, unr3al said:

It's your right to think I'm nitpicking. Yes I would absolutely feel the same way, but we're not talking about car crashes, we're talking about a religion that perpetuates mass killings which is why minimizing things (whether it was intentional or not) only serves to motivate others out there who might take a statistic like 8 out of 11 and put a positive spin on it. That's what it looks like. Car crashes will happen as a result of careless people and random acts of nature, not due to theology. If you don't see my point, that's fine. I said what I wanted to say.

What?! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Frankly I don't care about if someone would put a "positive spin" on it. I care about facts and the fact is that out of the 11 attacks he listed 8 of them were linked to Islamic terrorist. Put whatever spin on that you want but that is what the truth is. This has to be the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever argued with me about. I don't think anyone has ever "called me out" for telling someone what the correct statistic is.

I can't figure out who's on what side in this thread's debate....

14 hours ago, unr3al said:

It's your right to think I'm nitpicking. Yes I would absolutely feel the same way, but we're not talking about car crashes, we're talking about a religion that perpetuates mass killings which is why minimizing things (whether it was intentional or not) only serves to motivate others out there who might take a statistic like 8 out of 11 and put a positive spin on it. That's what it looks like. Car crashes will happen as a result of careless people and random acts of nature, not due to theology. If you don't see my point, that's fine. I said what I wanted to say.

 

 

 

A few of those websites aren't what I'd call credible news sources. Especially when they use terms like "there are allegations that...", "police officers are accused...", and "it's difficult to shed light with any detail". This is like when Americans who are either hardcore Republicans or hardcore Democrats subscribe to their favorite website that feature articles that specifically reinforce their political agenda and pander to people who already believe what's going to be written. Those aren't news outlets. Those are tabloids. And any credible information that is taken from sources like Reuters will only be given in bits and pieces to help construct the story the author wants to write. I can't stop you from falling for that kind of crap, but I can at least point it out.

I find it odd that you're supposedly too lazy to find me statistical proof but you're happy to copy and paste links to German tabloids or rubbish news sites that offer opinions on what might have happened rather than what actually did. If you're too lazy to make a point you can't defend, then you shouldn't be making it.

I don't classify myself as a liberal, I'm registered as an independent voter; but I'm certainly not from the party that advocates ideas like "legitimate rape", "don't ask don't tell", "don't retreat, reload", "Mexicans are criminals and rapists" and "ban all Muslim immigration". I'm heavily critical of religion, especially Islam considering the events that have happened during my lifetime, but I support the right to be able to be critical of something publicly. So if believing in values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality for women, equality for minorities and LGBT people makes me a liberal, and not just a human being with compassion for other people who don't fit my mold, then sure, call me a liberal if you want. But every American ought to believe in those things since those are principles this country was supposed to be founded on, regardless of what party you vote for.

Those are German news and they are good news, credible enough to provide true informations. Those were actually articles from the past that I had still in my history so it was easy to copy and paste them in here, also early in the morning and sorry that I didn't want to google things in English about those stories (I wasn't even sure if there was something in English about that). Not tabloids at all and you seriously do not want to compare the most German news with Americans, do you?

I don't know what you read and what you understood, but none of those were only speculations and in reality something else happened.

You either walk arounds with blinds or an alu hat.

Also, I do not believ everything what news write and I know some of their shit is total bullshit, but I know what's going on and when news point it out more specifically or just tell how it works when I know it's true, I approve.

 

Additionally: As you might read (or not) it is true that politicans and police officials knew about what happened and were told to cover up the story. Not it got revealed and yes, some of those people admitted it. There happens a lot of bullshit and German government officials stated officially in tv on a press conference that they don't have the control over what has been happening here and told that number x of people are suddenly missing (something that everyone who said this way of politics is dangerous and deadly), you can guess if you don't wear the blinds that politicans made those little numbers a lot nicer to not cause panic and/or look even more idiotic as they already are.

 

Many, so many politicians and ex politicians admitted it so do not even try to tell me I'm wrong or I'm believing what tabloids write.

It's the truth, it happened, deal with it.

 

 

On 7/28/2016 at 2:36 PM, Sn0wf4ll said:

Many, so many politicians and ex politicians admitted it so do not even try to tell me I'm wrong or I'm believing what tabloids write.

It's the truth, it happened, deal with it.

I just did. I did so because the German to English translation gave me exactly what I told you they said. If you think you can translate it better than Google can, go ahead. You can't claim something is the truth or that it happened if you can't back it up with anything. I could sit here and tell you I'm the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard; that doesn't make it true, no matter how many times I say it. I'd have to provide some sort of proof. There are things in the world called facts; and they're measurable, usually with numbers. Start over with those, and then we can continue to talk.

On 7/28/2016 at 0:50 AM, l3ubba said:

What?! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Frankly I don't care about if someone would put a "positive spin" on it.

That's evident, and that's a problem. 

On 7/28/2016 at 0:50 AM, l3ubba said:

Put whatever spin on that you want but that is what the truth is. This has to be the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever argued with me about. I don't think anyone has ever "called me out" for telling someone what the correct statistic is.

I'm telling you that you put a spin on it by using a word like 'only'. I'm not putting words in your mouth or paraphrasing, I'm only pointing out what you said and telling you why I resent how you said it. It's obvious at this point we're not going anywhere with this, so why don't we quit while we're behind?

Edited July 30, 20169 yr by unr3al

5 hours ago, unr3al said:

I just did. I did so because the German to English translation gave me exactly what I told you they said. If you think you can translate it better than Google can, go ahead. You can't claim something is the truth or that it happened if you can't back it up with anything. I could sit here and tell you I'm the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard; that doesn't make it true, no matter how many times I say it. I'd have to provide some sort of proof. There are things in the world called facts; and they're measurable, usually with numbers. Start over with those, and then we can continue to talk.

That's evident, and that's a problem. 

I'm telling you that you put a spin on it by using a word like 'only'. I'm not putting words in your mouth or paraphrasing, I'm only pointing out what you said and telling you why I resent how you said it. It's obvious at this point we're not going anywhere with this, so why don't we quit while we're behind?

As I said above before, there are facts. I just do not serve them for you on a silver tablet.

14 hours ago, unr3al said:

I'm telling you that you put a spin on it by using a word like 'only'. I'm not putting words in your mouth or paraphrasing, I'm only pointing out what you said and telling you why I resent how you said it. It's obvious at this point we're not going anywhere with this, so why don't we quit while we're behind?

So you resent that I pointed out the truth? I am truly at a loss for words, I point out the truth and I get called out for it. I don't even know how to respond anymore, out of all the debates I have been in this is the most astonishing one I have ever seen. Yes, it is clear that this is going nowhere. Next time when someone spits out an inflated statistic I will restrain myself from correcting them.