I'd like to thank Harmor for creating the funniest OP in D&ST to date.
Really, really, really awful logic.
Farfetched is the best word I've heard to date. Stretching the imagination to find some way to blame socialized medicine for terrorism. Incredible.
Farfetched is the best word I've heard to date. Stretching the imagination to find some way to blame socialized medicine for terrorism. Incredible.
Yes.Harmor wrote:
Why do we allow foreign doctors from countries that harbor/support terrorists? What I'm saying is that if you stop visas from these countries that we would have alot less terrorism.sergeriver wrote:
Dude, I don't want to be rude, but you need to stop living in paranoia. There are terrorists around, that's true. But you can't live having suspicion on everyone coz of their origin. I agree that those doctors should be punished, but you can't punish all the doctors from Pakistan or anywhere else where terrorists are sponsored. You won't beat terrorism with prejudice and stereotyping, you can beat it using good information and attacking the well educated assholes who sponsor these terrorists.
Are all people from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan terrorists, no, but a much larger percentage of them are and until they moderate their religion and stamp out their extremism I don't think we should be importing their doctors.
Is that an idea that is too radical?
It's truly insane.
If you want to eliminate terrorism, you don't make it work by trying to isolate the countries which are used as terrorist breeding ground. That merely accentuates the problem.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
While I agree that Harmor's initial logic for this thread is way off, I have to agree with his immigration proposal.
The U.K. should be more restrictive about letting in Pakistanis and other people that come from "risky" countries.
Still, blaming socialized medicine for this is utterly ridiculous.
The U.K. should be more restrictive about letting in Pakistanis and other people that come from "risky" countries.
Still, blaming socialized medicine for this is utterly ridiculous.
Wow............this is just.................wow........................
Stopped taking you pills, Harmor?
Stopped taking you pills, Harmor?
Someone got photoshop?
I want a stamp, or a badge, or a medal which says 'MOST RIDICULOUS HYPOTHESIS IN DST'
I want a stamp, or a badge, or a medal which says 'MOST RIDICULOUS HYPOTHESIS IN DST'
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Just beautiful.ghettoperson wrote:
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8817 … al2cp7.jpg
So are you saying that because Britain is used to domestic terrorism, from the IRA, that they are indifferent with Muslim extremist terrorism? Is this the 'stiff upper lip' wear hear about you British or is this a just a defeatist attitude?Chaos_nation wrote:
Over the last 20 years, Britain was more at risk from bombs coming out of Ireland than from Muslim extremists. I have got to stop reading this thread. God am I offended by it.
I would hope its not. I believe we can do something about Muslim extremists killing innocent civilians.
Yes. A large portion of their population are Extremist Muslims that follow the Wahbi version of Islam that promotes the killing of innocent civilians. To add to that list, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Ymen, Iraq (yes Iraq, i.e. one of the doctors in the UK attacks was from Iraq - alot of Basque localists we still can't trust), and to a lesser extent Egypt and Jordon - pretty much the entire middle east except Kuwait and Afghanistan.Bertster7 wrote:
You consider Pakistan to be a terrorist harboring state?Harmor wrote:
I agree that these extremist Muslims have spoiled the bunch. I would rather punish everyone from these terrorist harboring/supporting states than have more innocent civilians killed.
Their government is supported, but their population is as I described above. We should not leave Iraq now that the surge fully in place. However, this window of opportunity we should definitely utilize our air force to strike these Taliban bases within the Pakistan - bring the B-52s.Bertster7 wrote:
Despite the fact they have fully cooperated with Western security services and been actively engaged in tracking down and arresting and great number of terror suspects? On top of the fact they have given their consent for Western forces to seek and destroy terrorist training camps within Pakistan? Something I believe a large number of the troops currently in Iraq should be redeployed to do - since it should be a top priority.
I beg to differ. Pakistan has parts of their country that they do not have control over. The North Westerns sections of their country with the border with Afghanistan they do not have control over. They have, to their credit, tried to destabilize and attack the Taliban in those parts, but have not been effective. And its their population, not the government, who is harboring them. Lets make that clear...the large population of extremist Muslims supports the Taliban, not the Pakistani government.Bertster7 wrote:
Harboring terrorists would be providing them with a safe haven, much like the Taliban did in the past in Afghanistan, Pakistan do not harbor terrorists.
I wouldn't think that the U.K. is indifferent to terror at this point, but I'd say it's probably very difficult to scare them. They haven't freaked out the same way we did after 9/11. I think that should be admired, because it seems like most of them have maintained cool heads about all this (the people who attacked the Muslim establishments recently notwithstanding).
I just hope that the retaliation in Scotland doesn't lead to an escalation of ethnic conflict. If it does, then the terrorists truly have won.
I just hope that the retaliation in Scotland doesn't lead to an escalation of ethnic conflict. If it does, then the terrorists truly have won.
I'm not sure if Wahhabism is that significant in Pakistan. I thought it was more prevalent in Saudi Arabia. I could be wrong though.Harmor wrote:
Yes. A large portion of their population are Extremist Muslims that follow the Wahbi version of Islam that promotes the killing of innocent civilians. To add to that list, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Ymen, Iraq (yes Iraq, i.e. one of the doctors in the UK attacks was from Iraq - alot of Basque localists we still can't trust), and to a lesser extent Egypt and Jordon - pretty much the entire middle east except Kuwait and Afghanistan.Bertster7 wrote:
You consider Pakistan to be a terrorist harboring state?Harmor wrote:
I agree that these extremist Muslims have spoiled the bunch. I would rather punish everyone from these terrorist harboring/supporting states than have more innocent civilians killed.
Nevertheless, Pakistan does have a major extremist problem in certain areas. The other states you mentioned do as well. Afghanistan does still have extremists too.
I would agree that the regions in Pakistan that are virtually immune to Musharraf's authority could be considered terrorist-harboring states.
I disagree with you here. Iraq is a lost cause. We should withdraw from it and focus all of our efforts in stabilizing Afghanistan and eliminating extremists in Pakistan. If we succeed in these things, we will have won a significant chapter in the War on Terror. Iraq be damned.Harmor wrote:
Their government is supported, but their population is as I described above. We should not leave Iraq now that the surge fully in place. However, this window of opportunity we should definitely utilize our air force to strike these Taliban bases within the Pakistan - bring the B-52s.Bertster7 wrote:
Despite the fact they have fully cooperated with Western security services and been actively engaged in tracking down and arresting and great number of terror suspects? On top of the fact they have given their consent for Western forces to seek and destroy terrorist training camps within Pakistan? Something I believe a large number of the troops currently in Iraq should be redeployed to do - since it should be a top priority.
I'll have to agree with you here as well, Harmor. Bertster, while the majority of the Pakistanis are not necessarily supporting terrorists, certain unstable regions in Pakistan rife with poverty and extremism effectively do. These people must be dealt with swiftly.Harmor wrote:
I beg to differ. Pakistan has parts of their country that they do not have control over. The North Westerns sections of their country with the border with Afghanistan they do not have control over. They have, to their credit, tried to destabilize and attack the Taliban in those parts, but have not been effective. And its their population, not the government, who is harboring them. Lets make that clear...the large population of extremist Muslims supports the Taliban, not the Pakistani government.Bertster7 wrote:
Harboring terrorists would be providing them with a safe haven, much like the Taliban did in the past in Afghanistan, Pakistan do not harbor terrorists.
,KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes, and the armed forces perpetuates soldier terrorists (Timothy McVeigh, John Allen Muhammad)
John Allen Muhammad, was he Muslim? Also the Virginia Tech asian who killed 33 people could be added to your list. You are right that those examples you gave perpetuated non-extremist Muslim to commit horrible terrorist acts, but we already discussed this. Not ALL terrorists are extremist Muslims, but most terrorists are extremist Muslims, especially in the near term.
Is there a chance that some white guy will go on a shooting spree in your mall for whatever itched his tic? Yes. But I think you'll have to agree that extremist Muslims are actively, in much larger numbers and much larger percentage of Muslims, are being supported, either by in-action or through monetary means (all the charity organizations/oil money/Iran).
I don't believe there was a network behind Timothy McVeigh, other than Terry Nicoles, who helped him commit the Oklahoma bombing? I would agree with you if there was a network of say veterans who were donating or helping Timothy McVeigh commit this horrific terrorist attack.
Same goes for the Eric Rudolph who was a anti-abortion and anti-gay extremist, I don't believe he had a network behind him supporting his bombings like extremist Muslims have. Granted there is a section of the church that may have been sympathetic of him, but no where near the percentages that Muslims support that type of behavior. Also how many anti-abortion an anti-gay extremist has their been since 1996 have their been? No where near the number of bombings that occur almost daily from extremist Muslims.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
going to church perpetuates religious terrorists (Eric Rudolph, James Kopp),
James Kopp killed 1 doctor who was performing abortions, which is 1 too many. Extremist Muslims have killed thousands of innocent civilians. He did, however, have a group sympathetic to him called the The Lambs of Christ, but they were so small compared to the deep pockets and numbers of extremist Muslims in some of these countries. If anything you could say it could be classified as a cell.
I would think that goth music perpetuates outcasts in general...people who are anti-social and depressed. This is a problem in our youth who get picked on in school and shunned by their peers that they do these types of acts. I wouldn't say goth music is a direct contributor of outcast terrorists, but it seems to be an lesser indicator unlike these that are worst: 1) playing violent video games; 2) building home made bombs; 3) killing animals; and 4) enthralled by violent acts.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
and listening to goth music perpetuates outcast terrorists (Columbine).
You mean: No shit, no shit, no shit?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dur dur dur...
If playing violent video games is an indicator, then I must be a serial killer waiting to strike.Harmor wrote:
I would think that goth music perpetuates outcasts in general...people who are anti-social and depressed. This is a problem in our youth who get picked on in school and shunned by their peers that they do these types of acts. I wouldn't say goth music is a direct contributor of outcast terrorists, but it seems to be an lesser indicator unlike these that are worst: 1) playing violent video games; 2) building home made bombs; 3) killing animals; and 4) enthralled by violent acts.
Seriously though, I would agree that #'s 2, 3, & 4 are definite indicators.
No, it literally means you are an idiot. What you wrote in response has no relevance to, and is is no way in support of, your initial argument that socialized healthcare perpetuates doctor terrorists.Harmor wrote:
You mean: No shit, no shit, no shit?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dur dur dur...
The Al Qaeda network is largely demolished, by the way. Our incursion into Afghanistan took care of that right quick. Now we are fighting much less organized, much more rag-tag terrorists who largely have no network behind them, save for maybe their outcast cronies at the mosque they attended.
True, but certain areas of Pakistan are giving the Taliban a chance to regroup. I realize the Taliban and Al Quida are different groups, but we need to press our advantage in eliminating what's left of the Taliban. Thankfully, Musharraf has allowed our forces in his country.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The Al Qaeda network is largely demolished, by the way. Our incursion into Afghanistan took care of that right quick. Now we are fighting much less organized, much more rag-tag terrorists who largely have no network behind them, save for maybe their outcast cronies at the mosque they attended.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If I were to goto the United States and have sex with a 16 year old, which is legal in my country, but not in the United States, is still not an excuse.Chaos_nation wrote:
Statistacally, a higher percentage of immigrants find themselves in jails due to ignorance of laws and legislation, and difficulties in integrating into new societies due to disaffection from resident citizens. A more open policy at integration and support to immigrants would result in fewer of them ending up in prison.
I think the reason why we have 27% of our federal/state inmates illegal aliens is because they are NOT trying to integrated into our country. They come here and do not learn English. They come here and watch their own language T.V.. They come here and do not learn our laws. They come here and bring their country and traditions here with no intention of 'melting' into the culture.
A more open policy will only perpetuate the immigration problems that Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have now.
Its the same, in my opinion. Why should anyone be awarded with the prosperity of our country once they enter our country's borders? Border enforcement should be done internally, but its not in our country because there are safe-harbor cities like L.A. and New York City that will not report illegal aliens to the Federal government. What we should do is deny federal funding to any municipality that does not report illegal aliens.Chaos_nation wrote:
That said, we are now talking about immigrants who are legally crossing borders whereas your statement " 27% of all people in federal/state prisons in the United States are illegal aliens. " tends to indicate those who are not legally crossing borders. That isn't an immigration problem, its a border control problem which isn't quite the same thing.
Illegal aliens who finish their time in prison should immediately be deported, but they are not - they are released to the public.
You are right, but at least we could make it more difficult. We should try, at least. I believe we can 'shut down the border'...to paraphrase a popular saying for border advocates, "If we can goto the moon we can build a fence."Chaos_nation wrote:
Short of closing down all borders and then kicking out every one who cannot trace back their roots at least till the 1900's there is no way you would ever stop the spread of terrorism.
We should at least find out who is in our country that are not legally here. We should stop the coyotes who exploit people coming into the country. We should stop the drug smugglers. Technology will help us solve this problem at the border and our ports.
As long as those parents entered the country legally then its now a domestic issue with those 1st generation extremists. But when these kids join Mosques that are affiliated with groups hell-bent on killing innocent civilians then we have a problem. What made the problem worst, in Britain, is that they allowed extremist leaders into their country that using "free speech" to disaffect these youth.Chaos_nation wrote:
You yourself are a first generation American, so are most of the kids in the UK that are being duped into extremism. Their parents come to the UK for a better way of life (and a free health service, income support, child benefit etc) and for the most part are hard working and peaceful people. Their children are the ones who kick off so should we protect our great nation by exporting the kids and their parents as well so the kids will have no excuse to come back on a visit??
In the United States we have free speech, but not the ability to preach violence - that is not protected (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, promoting drug use in school, etc...).
I would advocate the same if Girl Scouts brownies hid bombs in their Thin mints.
The problem is that extremist Muslims, as a much greater percentage to have terrorists than any other group right now. Why don't we see the same problem with Christians or Buddhists? With your logic we would have Christian bombings every day, but we don't.Chaos_nation wrote:
Considering how many billion people there are on this planet, a very small percentage, so small it would be hard to put a figure to are engaged in some sort of terrorism in some respect. To punish the majority for 0.00000000000000000001% of the planet's actions is ludicrous. It is a far better policy to integrate newcomers into the community and let the communities assist with detecting the terrorists.
I just hope all their virgins are ugly and inexperienced. This isn't the Minority Report so yes we can't stop someone from going off the ladle, BUT we can make it more difficult for these people in these groups teach their hate and support killing innocent civilians for their 'cause'.Chaos_nation wrote:
Regardless of what policies are put into place, you will not stop someone with a deathwish from killing themselves and taking whoever is near them along with them to meet the virgins.
You are right, I am in the minority. Isolationism and xenophobia doesn't solve all problems, but in the near term I don't know what else to do to stop terrorists from entering or inspiring people in our country to kill innocent civilians. Moderate Muslims need to be the norm and start speaking out more (like Muslim Unite! in UK have), to denouce extremist Muslims.Chaos_nation wrote:
I am just thankful that the leaders of our nations do not have the isolated views that have been shown in this thread.
Islam needs a reformation.
I play violent video games too. All I was trying to say that playing violent video games was more of an indicator of being an outcast than listening to Goth music.Turquoise wrote:
If playing violent video games is an indicator, then I must be a serial killer waiting to strike.Harmor wrote:
I would think that goth music perpetuates outcasts in general...people who are anti-social and depressed. This is a problem in our youth who get picked on in school and shunned by their peers that they do these types of acts. I wouldn't say goth music is a direct contributor of outcast terrorists, but it seems to be an lesser indicator unlike these that are worst: 1) playing violent video games; 2) building home made bombs; 3) killing animals; and 4) enthralled by violent acts.
Seriously though, I would agree that #'s 2, 3, & 4 are definite indicators.
Go create an "Islam needs a reformation" thread then. I'm sure plenty of people will have input for that. Seriously though, the idea of this thread (that socialized medicine perpetuates doctor terrorists) is insane. I think you understand that, what with the lack of logical arguments and random tangents you take on.Harmor wrote:
Islam needs a reformation.
And add to that list - Religion in modern society needs reformation.
They aren't indicators of anything.Harmor wrote:
I play violent video games too. All I was trying to say that playing violent video games was more of an indicator of being an outcast than listening to Goth music.
Violent video games are played across all demographics. I think this website is testament to that.
I was answering the questions direct as I could. Having a liberal immigration policy will make it easier for terrorists to enter your country.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, it literally means you are an idiot. What you wrote in response has no relevance to, and is is no way in support of, your initial argument that socialized healthcare perpetuates doctor terrorists.Harmor wrote:
You mean: No shit, no shit, no shit?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dur dur dur...
I agree, Al Qaeda wasn't as strong as it was, but it still have influence and is inspiring others, "A Standalone Complex" to commit terrorism (i.e. the 2nd in command released a video on July 5th).Chaos_nation wrote:
The Al Qaeda network is largely demolished, by the way. Our incursion into Afghanistan took care of that right quick. Now we are fighting much less organized, much more rag-tag terrorists who largely have no network behind them, save for maybe their outcast cronies at the mosque they attended.
Al Qaeda does have a harder time than it did in the past, I agree with you, but we should not let up our vigalence until they and their ideology become extinct.
Will that happen in our lifetimes, probably not, but we cannot stop. If these people do not respond to words then we respond with force.
Actually, each state has a different age of consent. For example, NC's age of consent is 16. So yes, you could legally have sex with a 16 year old as an adult. I believe SC's is 14.Harmor wrote:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If I were to goto the United States and have sex with a 16 year old, which is legal in my country, but not in the United States, is still not an excuse.Chaos_nation wrote:
Statistacally, a higher percentage of immigrants find themselves in jails due to ignorance of laws and legislation, and difficulties in integrating into new societies due to disaffection from resident citizens. A more open policy at integration and support to immigrants would result in fewer of them ending up in prison.
And yes, I know that's kind of a creepy thing to mention, but there used to be a website that explained all the differing laws on this for each state.
Most of their children do though.Harmor wrote:
I think the reason why we have 27% of our federal/state inmates illegal aliens is because they are NOT trying to integrated into our country. They come here and do not learn English. They come here and watch their own language T.V.. They come here and do not learn our laws. They come here and bring their country and traditions here with no intention of 'melting' into the culture.
Agreed...Harmor wrote:
A more open policy will only perpetuate the immigration problems that Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have now.
Agreed again...Harmor wrote:
Its the same, in my opinion. Why should anyone be awarded with the prosperity of our country once they enter our country's borders? Border enforcement should be done internally, but its not in our country because there are safe-harbor cities like L.A. and New York City that will not report illegal aliens to the Federal government. What we should do is deny federal funding to any municipality that does not report illegal aliens.Chaos_nation wrote:
That said, we are now talking about immigrants who are legally crossing borders whereas your statement " 27% of all people in federal/state prisons in the United States are illegal aliens. " tends to indicate those who are not legally crossing borders. That isn't an immigration problem, its a border control problem which isn't quite the same thing.
Personally, I think we should deport illegals to an island in the Pacific; forget jail time.Harmor wrote:
Illegal aliens who finish their time in prison should immediately be deported, but they are not - they are released to the public.
We should definitely set up a better border defense. I think the U.K. and the U.S. will definitely need to take different approaches on this though. The U.K. has the advantage of being islands. We don't have that advantage here, so it's going to be very difficult.Harmor wrote:
You are right, but at least we could make it more difficult. We should try, at least. I believe we can 'shut down the border'...to paraphrase a popular saying for border advocates, "If we can goto the moon we can build a fence."Chaos_nation wrote:
Short of closing down all borders and then kicking out every one who cannot trace back their roots at least till the 1900's there is no way you would ever stop the spread of terrorism.
We should at least find out who is in our country that are not legally here. We should stop the coyotes who exploit people coming into the country. We should stop the drug smugglers. Technology will help us solve this problem at the border and our ports.
Very true...Harmor wrote:
As long as those parents entered the country legally then its now a domestic issue with those 1st generation extremists. But when these kids join Mosques that are affiliated with groups hell-bent on killing innocent civilians then we have a problem. What made the problem worst, in Britain, is that they allowed extremist leaders into their country that using "free speech" to disaffect these youth.Chaos_nation wrote:
You yourself are a first generation American, so are most of the kids in the UK that are being duped into extremism. Their parents come to the UK for a better way of life (and a free health service, income support, child benefit etc) and for the most part are hard working and peaceful people. Their children are the ones who kick off so should we protect our great nation by exporting the kids and their parents as well so the kids will have no excuse to come back on a visit??
Well, hate speech is somewhat illegal in the U.K. as well.Harmor wrote:
In the United States we have free speech, but not the ability to preach violence - that is not protected (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, promoting drug use in school, etc...).
Agreed...Harmor wrote:
I just hope all their virgins are ugly and inexperienced. This isn't the Minority Report so yes we can't stop someone from going off the ladle, BUT we can make it more difficult for these people in these groups teach their hate and support killing innocent civilians for their 'cause'.Chaos_nation wrote:
Regardless of what policies are put into place, you will not stop someone with a deathwish from killing themselves and taking whoever is near them along with them to meet the virgins.
Amen to that...Harmor wrote:
Islam needs a reformation.
I'd say getting joy out of violent acts, killing animals and building bombs are definitely indicators though.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
They aren't indicators of anything.Harmor wrote:
I play violent video games too. All I was trying to say that playing violent video games was more of an indicator of being an outcast than listening to Goth music.
Violent video games are played across all demographics. I think this website is testament to that.
I didn't mention immigration policy once. All the people I mentioned were born and raised in the US. You didn't answer anything, but you did reaffirm my own personal view of you.Harmor wrote:
I was answering the questions direct as I could. Having a liberal immigration policy will make it easier for terrorists to enter your country.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, it literally means you are an idiot. What you wrote in response has no relevance to, and is is no way in support of, your initial argument that socialized healthcare perpetuates doctor terrorists.Harmor wrote:
You mean: No shit, no shit, no shit?
But socialized medicine in the UK, who has a liberal immigration policy to bring in foreign doctors, because their own countrymen do not become doctors, because of the the way socialized medicine is structured in the UK, brought in those Doctor Terrorists. Even though these Doctor terrorists only managed to burn up the driver of the Jeep in the 2 attempted bombings and 1 semi-successful bombing doesn't mean that their are more.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Go create an "Islam needs a reformation" thread then. I'm sure plenty of people will have input for that. Seriously though, the idea of this thread (that socialized medicine perpetuates doctor terrorists) is insane. I think you understand that, what with the lack of logical arguments and random tangents you take on.Harmor wrote:
Islam needs a reformation.
And add to that list - Religion in modern society needs reformation.
There are unconfirmed reports that there are 45 more doctors ready to commit attacks.
These terrorist will exploit the liberal immigration policies of our country to kill innocent civilians.
Socialized medicine is but a factor that lead to the liberal immigration policy. Need I remind you what former London mayor, Ken Livingston, said recently:
Permitting Sharia law and that attitude toward immigration perpetuates terrorism to spread in your country."London`s mayor, Ken Livingstone, begged Londoners not to scapegoat Muslims following the attacks. He did not ask Muslims to condemn their community`s dangerous fringe or urge cooperation with the police. He seemed more concerned about intolerance than terrorism.
"Group rights and winking at, or permitting, steps toward, Sharia law," Woolsey said, is risky.
If Britain allows its Muslims to be governed by Sharia law, they become a state within a state-an ideal hiding place or haven for terrorists."