Europe submits voluntarily

[Trausti]

Democracy also means that when dickwads are a majority, they can take over. And that is happening, unless something radically changes.

Yes, that is a concern.

But if you think Islam is the problem in this regard, you should take a look at who is in the Oval Office.

Xenophobic dickwads are very clearly more of a danger to the OECD nations than Islamic dickwads are.

 

[bilby]

Yes, that is a concern.

But if you think Islam is the problem in this regard, you should take a look at who is in the Oval Office.

Xenophobic dickwads are very clearly more of a danger to the OECD nations than Islamic dickwads are.

Yes, thank you for the further demonstration, but I had already noticed that stupid people like to use pictures rather than words when they have nothing to offer but an emotional response to facts they dislike, so that really wasn't necessary. Derec's excessive use of memes and pictures in this thread had already made that abundantly clear.

I presume from these pictures that you are trying to express disagreement with my post; but exactly what you disagree with is very unclear - presumably because it is an emotional response you are unable to articulate.

Perhaps you could try again in words? Or perhaps you already tried, and that was the best you could manage?

 

[angelo]

Democracy also means that when dickwads are a majority, they can take over. And that is happening, unless something radically changes.

Yes, that is a concern.

But if you think Islam is the problem in this regard, you should take a look at who is in the Oval Office.

Xenophobic dickwads are very clearly more of a danger to the OECD nations than Islamic dickwads are.

All i can say to that is one word. Turkey!

 

[angelo]

Yes, thank you for the further demonstration, but I had already noticed that stupid people like to use pictures rather than words when they have nothing to offer but an emotional response to facts they dislike, so that really wasn't necessary. Derec's excessive use of memes and pictures in this thread had already made that abundantly clear.

I presume from these pictures that you are trying to express disagreement with my post; but exactly what you disagree with is very unclear - presumably because it is an emotional response you are unable to articulate.

Perhaps you could try again in words? Or perhaps you already tried, and that was the best you could manage?

One picture says a thousand words.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, thank you for the further demonstration, but I had already noticed that stupid people like to use pictures rather than words when they have nothing to offer but an emotional response to facts they dislike, so that really wasn't necessary. Derec's excessive use of memes and pictures in this thread had already made that abundantly clear.

I presume from these pictures that you are trying to express disagreement with my post; but exactly what you disagree with is very unclear - presumably because it is an emotional response you are unable to articulate.

Perhaps you could try again in words? Or perhaps you already tried, and that was the best you could manage?

One picture says a thousand words.

No, it doesn't. How the fuck is "terrorism risk" calculated? There's zero information on this. For all we know that inforgraphic has been produced by a neonazi. Sources matter. And also what counts as terrorism. Is attacks on gays terrorism? I'm guessing that didn't make it on that list, because western Europe is a hell of a lot more gay friendly than the east.

The only thing that infographic shows is that the person posting it is just being overly emotional in their argumentation.

 

[angelo]

Meanwhile, up to 5000 muzzies in England alone are under "observation " by the authorities as terrorist threats!

 

[LordKiran]

Meanwhile, up to 5000 muzzies in England alone are under "observation " by the authorities as terrorist threats!

1. How do you know this? Source please. If you have a source, provide it and proceed to point two.

2. Why is it a problem for them to be "Under observation" and how does this support the idea that "Europe has submitted voluntarily?"

3. How does this compare to the total number of people under observation and why did you feel the need to leave this contextual information (That might have lended weight to your argument if you had bothered to include it) out? The only conclusions I can come to are either you didn't bother to even look, or you did look and found that this would have undercut your position and decided not to include it for that reason.

 

[LordKiran]

One picture says a thousand words.

No, it doesn't. How the fuck is "terrorism risk" calculated? There's zero information on this. For all we know that inforgraphic has been produced by a neonazi. Sources matter. And also what counts as terrorism. Is attacks on gays terrorism? I'm guessing that didn't make it on that list, because western Europe is a hell of a lot more gay friendly than the east.

The only thing that infographic shows is that the person posting it is just being overly emotional in their argumentation.

The funny thing is there's no source attatched to that 'infographic' so for all we know, Angelo just spun it up himself in like ten minutes.

 

[angelo]

Meanwhile, up to 5000 muzzies in England alone are under "observation " by the authorities as terrorist threats!

1. How do you know this? Source please. If you have a source, provide it and proceed to point two.

2. Why is it a problem for them to be "Under observation" and how does this support the idea that "Europe has submitted voluntarily?"

3. How does this compare to the total number of people under observation and why did you feel the need to leave this contextual information (That might have lended weight to your argument if you had bothered to include it) out? The only conclusions I can come to are either you didn't bother to even look, or you did look and found that this would have undercut your position and decided not to include it for that reason.

You are either more deluded than a fundamentalist of any religion or are wearing very restricted blinkers!

 

[angelo]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...evealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

 

[LordKiran]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...evealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

From the article:

About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorized as posing a "residual risk".

So right off the bat we've gone from 5000 to 3000. Weak.

I couldn't read the rest because I don't want to 'subscribe to their website' so you'll have to find another source to continue which shouldn't be too hard if what you're saying is true!

 

[angelo]

From the article:

About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorized as posing a "residual risk".

So right off the bat we've gone from 5000 to 3000. Weak.

I couldn't read the rest because I don't want to 'subscribe to their website' so you'll have to find another source to continue which shouldn't be too hard if what you're saying is true!

You don't even bat an eyelid at the 20.000 that have featured in previous enquiry! That figures!

 

[DrZoidberg]

From the article:



So right off the bat we've gone from 5000 to 3000. Weak.

I couldn't read the rest because I don't want to 'subscribe to their website' so you'll have to find another source to continue which shouldn't be too hard if what you're saying is true!

You don't even bat an eyelid at the 20.000 that have featured in previous enquiry! That figures!

23 000 is an incredibly high number. I'd like to see the rest of the article. Because I'm guessing there's a qualifier here. I suspect it's more like this. Based on profiling earlier Islamic terrorist attackers they've identified a set of traits they all have in common. Based on this profiling they've managed to narrow the number of potential Islamic terrorists in Britain down to 23 000. And 3000 of them fit the profile exactly. But a potential terrorist is also known as, not a terrorist. Keep in mind that the police are notoriously lousy at keeping track of terrorists, or anticipating terror attacks.

I think this quoted number by the British secret police is security theater. It's intended as a way to scare terrorists into thinking they have an eye on them, and to convince the British public they're taking threats seriously. I don't think they have a clue what they're doing.

 

[angelo]

You don't even bat an eyelid at the 20.000 that have featured in previous enquiry! That figures!

23 000 is an incredibly high number. I'd like to see the rest of the article. Because I'm guessing there's a qualifier here. I suspect it's more like this. Based on profiling earlier Islamic terrorist attackers they've identified a set of traits they all have in common. Based on this profiling they've managed to narrow the number of potential Islamic terrorists in Britain down to 23 000. And 3000 of them fit the profile exactly. But a potential terrorist is also known as, not a terrorist. Keep in mind that the police are notoriously lousy at keeping track of terrorists, or anticipating terror attacks.

I think this quoted number by the British secret police is security theater. It's intended as a way to scare terrorists into thinking they have an eye on them, and to convince the British public they're taking threats seriously. I don't think they have a clue what they're doing.

I've posted the link in post no 6010

 

[DrZoidberg]

23 000 is an incredibly high number. I'd like to see the rest of the article. Because I'm guessing there's a qualifier here. I suspect it's more like this. Based on profiling earlier Islamic terrorist attackers they've identified a set of traits they all have in common. Based on this profiling they've managed to narrow the number of potential Islamic terrorists in Britain down to 23 000. And 3000 of them fit the profile exactly. But a potential terrorist is also known as, not a terrorist. Keep in mind that the police are notoriously lousy at keeping track of terrorists, or anticipating terror attacks.

I think this quoted number by the British secret police is security theater. It's intended as a way to scare terrorists into thinking they have an eye on them, and to convince the British public they're taking threats seriously. I don't think they have a clue what they're doing.

I've posted the link in post no 6010

It's behind a paywall. I can only read the beginning of the article. Ie, the bit where they don't explain the numbers.

I'd ask you to summarize the rest of the article (I presume you have read). But you've proven not to be a reliable reader. So I won't.

 

[LordKiran]

You don't even bat an eyelid at the 20.000 that have featured in previous enquiry! That figures!

23 000 is an incredibly high number. I'd like to see the rest of the article. Because I'm guessing there's a qualifier here. I suspect it's more like this. Based on profiling earlier Islamic terrorist attackers they've identified a set of traits they all have in common. Based on this profiling they've managed to narrow the number of potential Islamic terrorists in Britain down to 23 000. And 3000 of them fit the profile exactly. But a potential terrorist is also known as, not a terrorist. Keep in mind that the police are notoriously lousy at keeping track of terrorists, or anticipating terror attacks.

I think this quoted number by the British secret police is security theater. It's intended as a way to scare terrorists into thinking they have an eye on them, and to convince the British public they're taking threats seriously. I don't think they have a clue what they're doing.

The 20,000 are considered 'Residual Threats" So wtf does that mean? Residual threat? Is that the Muslim equivalent of "Potential Rapist?" Angelo expects me to think that's a big deal when I'm willing to bet you anything he couldn't explain to me what constitutes a "Residual threat"

Its like he doesn't even know what a qualifier is. He just sees 20000 and goes "That's a big number! Scary!"

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41784827

Here's a British guy caught in Irak fighting for ISIS and the authorities are still struggling to prove that he did. He claims he was fighting against ISIS. It should be pretty open and shut case. But it's not. The judicial system is only about what you can prove. War zones are low on evidence to pin on specific people.

Banning ISIS fighters to return is a legal nightmare. I hope this article is enough of an indicator that we should perhaps focus on reducing the likelihood of future terror attacks rather than get hung up about justice. These ISIS fighters are hardly going to have to face justice. It's silly to demand something we're not able to get

 

[angelo]

I've posted the link in post no 6010

It's behind a paywall. I can only read the beginning of the article. Ie, the bit where they don't explain the numbers.

I'd ask you to summarize the rest of the article (I presume you have read). But you've proven not to be a reliable reader. So I won't.

Believe me those numbers are black & white. Only an apologist of the followers of the pedophile would question them,

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's behind a paywall. I can only read the beginning of the article. Ie, the bit where they don't explain the numbers.

I'd ask you to summarize the rest of the article (I presume you have read). But you've proven not to be a reliable reader. So I won't.

Believe me those numbers are black & white. Only an apologist of the followers of the pedophile would question them,

Busted. No, statistics work out of context. They always need to be explained. I'd say that's firm evidence that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

 

[angelo]

One day your descendants will blame people like you and with your attitude for allowing Europe to become islamic.