My best friend's brother is scared, not because of what they read or not, but the fact he didn't get picked for an assignment in Croatia, but three of his colleagues did, and they died in the terrorist attack in Zaventem airport. You should have seen and heard him in the days after, as a father of two, being enraged that it happened and it might as well have been him. tell me how he is irrational and should look at the statistics.
People are scared because terrible things have happened recently, hey, 9/11 only killed 3000 people, less than die in car accidents, but that doesn't mean people were irrational to be in shock, or afraid, or angry and wanting vengeance?

Edit: nvm my phone formatted it weird

"tell me how he is irrational and should look at the statistics."

should be

"tell me how my personal anecdote is less correct than statistics researched by people far smarter than me"

Didnt u mention dropping out of college? Its p clear why because youre shit at both math and writing

http://www.logcabin.org/pressrelease/a-message-on-the-gop-platform-from-log-cabin-republicans-president-gregory-t-angelo/

I love how things the GOP clearly explicitly state they want to do are "Irrational fears", but fears about "sharia law" are totally rational. because we totally have a major party in the US pushing sharia law as their platform right?

Also nobody falls for the states rights argument anymore, that argument was debunked as a dogwhistle decades ago.

@547 just want to point out that 9/11 was literally 15 years ago now, that's not a recent event anymore, not to mention what did the US expect? Like really? They have been fucking with shit in the middle east for the past 30 years. Now I am not saying that what happened was deserved or right for anyone to do on any level, but come on you cant play the victim card as you kick a guy in the teeth over and over again.

well go from page 45-47 in the rapport and take a closer look.

the UK has the most terrorist attacks (103 out of 211 incidents) but doesn't give data under which category they fall in, skewing the stats since half of the incidents or not specified.
Jihad attacks were non existent, now they are the second largest category. Having people coming/ or returning from Syria with the training and conviction to do these attacks which by far caused the most death toll.

page 45-46: 66% of arrests are jihadist ellements with a whopping 687 vs 1077 although those include 144 non specified (134 from the uk which fills in neither category)
page 47: 198 Jihadi court verdicts filling the biggest category on a total of 527 with once again 109 non specified included thats nearly half, of all court verdicts,

How is this a fraction? What mental gymnastics are here at work?

In 2015, the majority of verdicts pronounced were in relation
to jihadist terrorism. The highest number of those (120) was
pronounced in Belgium.

There were 17 Jihadist attacks in 2015 and 65 separatist terrorist attacks. And yet Jihadists were arrested at much higher rates than separatist terrorists. It's almost like everyone is hyper focused on Jihadists when there's other problems.

congratulations you just deflected the plight of gay people world wide to "muh Republicans". but the fiasco of the "arab spring" and the US democrat government supporting the overthrow of existing governments and creating power vacuums for these backwards fundies to operate in bring great distress in the middle eastern countries it happened. That's racism. thinking your government is morally superior than the native leaders of a country and only making it far far worse by intervening and creating a hopeless situation for the people living there, and then have the audacity to call it an irrational fear if people abroad are worried you'd vote in another interventionist

judge people on their individual merit, not that of the groups they belong to

150 people died in those 17 attacks, all the separatist terrorist attacks don't even add up to double digit numbers in harm caused, and are for illegal explosives and weapon caches, from historical insurgent groups like ETA and IRA

fucking lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Foreign_interventionism

there goes that argument

Funny because you are trying to justify the current anti-LGBT platform of the republican party by deflecting to what democrats did

also the idea that "people abroad are worried you would vote in an interventionist" is also funny, its more like "people abroad are more worried that you are about to vote in a literal joke of a candidate"

https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/394/ressort/politics/article/the-world-wants-hillary
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/31/europe-would-elect-hillary-clinton-landslide/

if we're going to start caring about logic and statistics when it comes to terrorism why don't we throw as much money towards curing cancer as we do to fighting terrorism? any simple google search will show that cancer kills WAY more people in the US but we spend WAY more to fight terrorism, its because terrorism is scarier and logic doesn't apply to the situation.

By your logic, since the invasion of Iraq happened under Bush, Obama is now not buzy helping rebels overthrow the assad regime in syria, or the intervention in libya never happened. the fuck dude

all he did was show how you were wrong he didnt say anything about Obama not doing something, you're the one that specified that empire type strategies are a "democrat" thing. The US has been doing it for a long time it's how our country became so powerful.

both islam and christianity supporters are cancer theres no point of arguing about which is less worse

calling u a liberal media cuck shill jew regardless of what u post

I mentioned democratic party run government, since lsrainbows twice referred to the republicans when i mentioned the USA government made situations worse for lgbt people in the Mediterranean. and so show him, it doesn't matter usually what party affiliation they have, the foreign agenda is mostly the same warhawkish stuff fueled by a military industry complex. look at the invade Iran/ Russia must be stopped in Syria crowd, and being "tough" essentially pushing for more escalation. In the mean time Saudi Arabia bombs and kills 180 people in Yemen while busy with a military campaign against the local Shiites. and we western countries earn big money selling them the arms and tech to do so.
Also, Europeans, always pick for the democrats with huge margins like 85% it's always been like that, It's not only becuase Trump is the candidate, it's because the republican party is a fucking joke.

You're actually not wrong here. Both US parties have a heavy focus on interventionism and world policing. I assume we're going to disagree about the value of that but yeah you're right. You go on to talk about interventionist policies but I honestly think you're being myopic. While the US might have destabilized the region and increased the amount of terrorism as a result, saying that we shouldn't have done it or that we should pull out is a mistake imo

The world geopolitical stage cares about the Middle East for reasons that are obviusly not the best interests of the region, and its probable that interventionism since the collapse of the Ottoman empire has led to the formation of all the weird borders that create tension in the region, but to say that not getting involved 100 years ago or not staying involved in the interim would've been smart makes the assumption that we're all better off had the ME been self-governing. We can't say if that's true or not, but we can say that we've had multiple economic booms that depended heavily on the cheap and available resources being easy to get into the world economy, so clearly some good has come of it.

Saying we should back out at this point is naive though in my opinion. It assumes that the Middle East could be self-sustaining against foreign interests without the West's help (which seems unlikely) and it assumes that political forces that lead to both terrorism and oppression would simply cease to exist or be quelled from within. Considering we've managed to cause more than a few revolutions in the area over the past century and the best we've really managed to do is get leaders who are mostly friendly to the west to play ball for a decade or two, it seems unlikely that a a government that would be beneficial for any of us would arise organically.

So, I think you're actually right, we really shouldn't be involved in the area, and pushing for more involvement is only going to lead to more proxy wars and possibly lead to something far worse. But I also think you're wrong for trying to suggest that a viable or realistic strategy is to let the ME figure itself out.

downvote me

I am not even going to bother reading each one, but the one about him wanting to ban gay marriage is bullshit. He said that it should be decided by the state and the article twisted his words to "he would consider reversing gay marriage", and you even said in your post that "he wants to reban it where possible". Basically how all such media operates.

They don't come entirely from within though do they?

I did it guys - I found a third party candidate who didn't make me want to claw my eyes out

Laurence Kotlikoff

https://kotlikoff2016.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

I think the fact that there's so much open corruption against him should tell you who to vote.

Not a fan of either candidate but what about the massive amount of sex assault accusations against him? Does that not factor into your opinions at all?

When you look at that compared to the US's kill count. Yes it is totally irrational.You think think Osama just got up one day and thought to himself "its time to kick ass and fuck goats and im all out of goats"? That there was no reason for it? Terrorism in the middle east is the US's own creation.

I would go so far as to say the US deserves far worse for what they did to Mohammad Najibullah. The irony that the US was shot in the foot with it's own gun isn't lost on me.

Because the republican party and millionaires are not known for corruption. No sir. Trump is a buffoon and gets called out as such in media. He is such a buffoon that not even the US elites want him because him coming to power would be a textbook case of accelerationism. This doesn't make Hillery better. I am of the personal opinion that they both deserve to be shot. But to say that Trump is getting more negative press for no reason is lunacy.

Killing millions for a gas pipeline or so that Libya couldn't create a pan-african currency regardless if it was in the US's economic interest should not have been a option. I for one don't consider American lives or American profits more valuable than the lives of people in the ME. The US staying isn't helping because all the US is doing is sponsoring "moderate terrorist".

Considering the ME was well on it's way to 1st world living standards and mostly secular governments before the US started sponsoring jihadist i think it is safe to say that they would have been better off.

Fuck you and fuck the world the world economy. Your smartphone isn't worth the genocide of the ME.

THE WEST IS THE FOREIGN INTEREST THAT CAUSED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You've made your bed, now lie in it.

Letting the ME figure itself out is better than having the US support religious extremist. If the US is going to be involved they are going to support what is in the US's interest. Which is the plundering of the ME.

Don't mind if i do~

If you look at Trump himself and nothing else, he just lacks the general political experience to be a good candidate. He's an entertainer, not a politician. He's run the Miss USA pageants and co-produced The Apprentice up to last year. He hasn't been a governer or military commander, or even been in the military at all. He has a degree in economics, and that's it. He also speaks before he thinks sometimes, which is very dangerous in a job where everything you say is broadcasted to the world.

Republicans had a great shot at this election but they screwed themselves by nominating Trump.

I can rally 10 of my friends and throw an accusation that you groped me. It doesn't make it 100 percent true.

When the media(dems) do not like someone, they prepare to sling shit at that person repeadetly. That is what happened to Rudy Guiliani, its what happened to Julian Assange and its what happened to Bernie (in his case, the media gave him the Ron Paul treatment of "you can't win the primary) and its what's happening to Trump now which btw if you check wikileaks you will see that Hillary rigged the primaries with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is now on board of directors of the Clinton campaign or smth right after she resigned.
Small note: Tim Kaine was promised a VP spot on july 2015. He also was the old DNC chairman b4 DWS took over. But its probably a coincidence right guise :^)

Also the first allegation and many other allegations have been debunked. There are emails where the accusers are connected to the Clinton Campaign. If you don't like, there are some people who say that "they got raped by Trump a long time ago" were praising Trump in their private emails. I wouldn't praise my rapist now would I?

Also its pretty funny that all of these people jumped in and started to accuse Trump when there's 1 month left for the election.
"Hey I got groped 20 years ago! But I'll wait till the time is somehow right"
Also check wikileaks and you will see that this attack was orchestrated 3-4 months ago by the media and Clinton Campaign. I can just dump all the links if you people are too lazy to do your own research.

So you think that Trump's sex allegations deserve 200 minutes of press while wikileaks only deserves 12 minutes (which most are from Fox News) and that it is completely fine? Oh wait, according to CNN; it is actually ILLEGAL to look at wikileaks emails and only the press can show the info to the public. Wow I suppose 1984 really was an instruction manual after all :^)

Also do you unironically believe in the following:

That Republican Party elitists support Trump
That he was supposed to get support from the elites in the first place like Hillary?
That calling Trump a buffoon repeadetly like a little kindergarten studennt will make your point acceptable?

You can easily fling bullshit about "Trump Corruption" that are factually proven to be debunked and incorrect constantly. But if you really think that someone who invests 100 million dollars to his own presidential campaign and does not suck up to the lobbyist is going to be a "corrupt president". Then you really have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

I can't really blame you, I would hate Trump too if I only listened to the Mainstream Media and refused to watch his rallies or his events. The difference is, some people make their own research and use common sense while some people would rather throw a temper tantrum over things they do not like.

I've read the things you've written to others in response when it comes to foreign politics and you sound a little like Trump over the fact of the US' failed nation building and the stupid things that the US does in the foreign policy. I would advise you to watch the Commander in Chief forum and the South Carolina GOP primary debate so you can see what I am talking about.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/19663

x

u ever notice how all the trump supporters ITT are all weeaboo college dropouts?

I don't doubt that the timing of the accusations was influenced by the Clinton campaign. I'm also not surprised that there have been links between the accusers and the campaign, you know, since they're the party that supports more progressive women's/LGBTQ rights and all. A quick statistic: about 2/3 of all sexual assaults are never reported to the police. When you factor in the fact that Trump threatens to sue everything under the sun that makes him look bad, it'd be dumb not to reach out to the Clinton campaign for some sort of protection. That's why Allred is baiting him with the Zervos accusation.

Are there liars among the accusers? I wouldn't be surprised if there were. Then again, the accused is someone who denies what he's said on tape and has a history of bragging about sexual assault, so I'd be much more surprised if he's clean. When you get a guy who's turned modern american politics into a shit slinging contest, don't be upset if he gets some shit on himself as well

I die inside a little every time this thread gets bumped and I read the same pro-Trump arguments that have been made and refuted 1,000 times.