Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About l3ubba

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Country
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,261 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. I think that is the least amount of cars I have ever seen on 19.
  3. 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.
  4. So if a middle eastern country invites us to set up a base in their country we should turn it down? You do realize that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and all the other middle eastern countries invite us to stay there. There is not a single country in the entire world that we occupy. Every country we have a military base in we are there because that country allows us to be there. All of these countries want US bases there because it benefits them in some way (economically, militarily, etc). There might be portions of the population in those countries that don't want us there but that is between them and their government, not us.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Actually the first Gulf War has little to do with it. I'm not going to go into a long history but it all stems from stuff that happened back in the 50s-60s and has been ongoing ever since. The most immediate reason Bin Laden had a problem with the U.S. is because he did not like that Saudia Arabia (his home country) was allowing the U.S. to station soldiers there. Like you said, this is a discussion for another thread. My point was that we didn't just start bombing them for no reason.
  8. Well if we want to go back to how this whole thing started, it is because they brought the war to us first (and by us I mean the United States). All throughout the mid-90s to 2000 we were not fighting any wars in the middle east. We had some soldiers stationed in some middle eastern countries but we were there because those countries allowed us to be there. There were some Muslims (like Bin Laden) who didn't think westerners should be in the middle east at all (even if those governments invited them to be there) and so they attacked us, most notably on 9/11. So if we want to point fingers lets remember that we didn't start this, we wouldn't be bombing their countries if they hadn't flown a couple of planes into our buildings and killed thousands of Americans.
  9. 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.
  10. In the context of my argument it does matter how they took the aircraft down. The whole point of my argument was that ISIS, so far, cannot accomplish some of the large scale attacks that Al-Qaeda could meaning they are not as powerful as Al-Qaeda was. I'm not saying that Al-Qaeda is dead and is not a threat anymore. ISIS is likely a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda but they are still not as powerful as 2001 Al-Qaeda. Yes ISIS has done a lot more to take advantage of social media but they have to rely on these lone wolf actors to carry out attacks. While lone wolf attacks are harder to prevent due to their low profile they are also less effective than larger more planned out attacks, it shows that ISIS isn't strong enough to carry out those attacks themselves. Al-Qaeda had the resources to send a group of guys from the middle east all the way to the US, get them pilots training, get them on a plane, and carry out a major attack. ISIS, on the other hand, can't even send their own guys into Europe and rely on people that are already in those countries to carry out attacks in their name without providing any material support. Not saying ISIS isn't a threat or shouldn't be taken seriously, just saying they are not nearly as powerful as 2001 Al-Qaeda.
  11. They only managed to take down that plane because they were able to pay a guy who worked on the airplane to smuggle a bomb in. They couldn't have done it if they didn't know one of the airport employees. It wasn't a super sophisticated plan, you can't give them that much credit. Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous now because we spent 10+ years pulling the roots out of their primary safe haven. My point is that ISIS has not risen to the level Al-Qaeda reached 15 years ago and I have a very hard time seeing them ever reach that level of success. ISIS is more dangerous than present day Al-Qaeda? Yeah, I think that is probably a fair statement. But that wasn't my point, my point is that ISIS is still relatively weak compared to previous terrorist organizations. Ok...I agree with what you are saying but I'm not sure how that had anything to do with what you quoted me on. And bigotry? I'm not saying the majority of Muslims commit attacks because of religion (or whatever you are accusing me of), I'm saying that out of the 11 attacks he listed only 8 of them were actual terrorist attacks linked to Islamic extremist. I'm saying the number is lower than what he is presenting it as. I have no idea how that makes me a bigot.
  12. If you look at those attacks linked to ISIS a lot are listed in Iraq, Syria, and other countries that aren't very stable and places where ISIS has "troops on the ground". ISIS has not reached the level Al-Qaeda reached. Al-Qaeda was able to pull off the 9/11 attacks; that requires an enormous amount of planning resources which is something ISIS cannot do, they are not strong enough. ISIS resorts to convincing others to carry out lone wolf attacks without any support from ISIS because that is all ISIS can afford. They can't devote their resources to attacks in Europe and most certainly not in North America. ISIS is busy getting their assholes pounded in Iraq and Syria and as long as it stays that way they will not likely be able to get to the level of Al-Qaeda.
  13. Ok first, the attacks in Paris which you have listed as two separate events were part of one large attack. Second, the police ruled out any religious motive in the attack in Graz the fact that he was a Muslim might as well be a coincidence. Third, you have severely skewed the Macedonian shooting, that was part of an ethinic Albanian uprising and had nothing to do with Islam. And lastly, I can't find anything that says the police woman who was killed after the Charlie Hebdo attack was linked to terrorism but I'll let you have that one. So out of the 11 you listed only 8 of them are actually linked to Islamic terrorism. You also failed to list the attempted bombings that happened in London two weeks after the first bombings. Luckily the bombers were stopped before they could detonate their bombs but it was still a very close call. 2005 vs 2015 might have more attacks but I am referring to the mid-2000s in general, not just one specific year. Something else to take into consideration is the number of casualties these attacks have caused. In 2004 an attack on the Madrid train system killed a 192 people and injured over 2,000. Even all the attacks you listed combined don't amount to that number. This is a sign that ISIS doesn't have as much influence as people think outside of the middle east. They can't do nearly as much damage as Al-Qaeda did at the height of their power.
  14. Hmmmm, I wonder what has happened in the past 2-3 years that would possibly be a cause to this? When you have an extremist group such as ISIS make huge gains and increase their global influence you are going to have an increase in attacks. The same thing happened in the mid-2000s when things were heating up in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were several large attacks in the UK and Spain. However, I wouldn't say that attacks have "spiked", there have been an increase in big attacks but 5 or so major attacks over the span of a couple years doesn't really feel like a spike. That all being said, ISIS does not actually plan or carry out these attacks. They do not have the resources or manpower to do so. What ISIS does is create propaganda to try and convince people who are already in other countries to carry out attacks in their hometowns because ISIS cannot afford to send people from Syria or Iraq to carry out these attacks. They convince other people to carry out lone wolf attacks and then those attacks happen they take credit for them even though they provided no planning, funding, or other resources to the attacks.
  15. As someone who is currently living in Europe I can assure you it is not a "regular thing". Yes, there have been attacks but I can still walk around downtown and I am not worried about getting shot or stabbed. No, technically it is a group of countries. The open borders within the EU is actually a great thing and there are several economic benefits to having open borders. Obviously you have to decide what the balance is between these economic benefits and the security of your borders. Despite what the news is showing I still think these open border policies are good things.