So which is it?
1. do you think vetting is useless
or
2. Do you think the vetting by the UN was sufficient and met our security objectives?
You can not argue both
Answer the damn question
Syrian Refugee Murders 13-Year-Old Canadian Girl
- Thread starter Zaibetter
- Start date
1. do you think vetting is useless
or
2. Do you think the vetting by the UN was sufficient and met our security objectives?
You can not argue both
Answer the damn question
You don't understand logic, larue, you could easily argue both.
More important is why you support foreign policy that creates masses of migrants and then you refuse to allow those immigrants to come here.
Where do you expect them to go?
My response to this is the US and EU armies actively try to avoid civilian casualties (thats why smart bombs were invented), while muslims terrorists actively SEEK OUT civilian casualties. And not just seek them out, they try to kill as many innocent civilians as they can (see 9/11, Nice truck attack).
But I'm not surprised you dont see a difference. You, Frankie and a couple of others will defend radical Islam and terrorist organizations like Hamas to the death. I think its because you're terrified of them and dont want inflame things. That makes you look weak because you're an appeaser. Appeasement never works, just ask Neville Chamberlain
Same old post 15 or 20 times in the thread. I've already answered.
Give it up, Larue. You've made a fool of yourself in this thread already. Ready. Fire. Aim.
Well, lets have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978–present)
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_conflict_(2003–present)
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey–ISIL_conflict
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_conflict
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_insurgency_in_Tunisia
Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKuBzbGM8Hc
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram_insurgency
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_insurgency_in_Mozambique
And thats not even covering all the terrorist attacks radical muslims engage in every month worldwide
Actually I don't defend them. I don't like Islamic radicalism and I don't like Hamas. And I'm not "terrified of them". Why would I be? They are powerless in the Middle East, let alone anywhere else. And I'm not interested in appeasing them. You obsessively troll and insult me and follow my posts. So you know I have posted diddly squat about Hamas and Palestine on this board - appeasement, retribution, anything else. So you're lying about this.
But back to the original question. When the Russians bombed Grozny, did they "avoid civilian casualties"? No.
When the Serbs ethnically cleansed Bosnian Muslims, did they "avoid civilian casualties"? No.
When Assad barrel bombed his own people with Russian support, did he "avoid civilian casualties"? No.
When the US cleaned out Fallujah, did they "avoid civilian casualties"? They may have tried, but they killed WAY more people than AQ killed in 9/11, just because that's the nature of modern war in an urban area. And if I'm Iraqi, I'm pretty hard to sell on the proposition that a few of those US Marines weren't shooting to kill just because they enjoyed shooting unarmed brown women and kids. There's even a war crimes case that the USMC tried to bury that's like My Lai II set in Fallujah. That sort of thing tends to piss Muslims off, just like having our kids killed pisses us off.
Same in Afghanistan. The USAF even bombed the Canadian army and took out a company of the PPCLI. Oooops!
Now, I'm prepared to accept the West are the good guys. That's because I'm Canadian, not Arab. If I was Iraqi or Afghani, I'd feel a lot differently. Your big moment in this thread was telling us about "all the Muslim wars". Point I'm trying to make is that Muslims see it completely differently. They see it as Christian wars against Muslims to wipe out Islam. That's their big trigger for recruiting Islamic extremist terrorists. So what do you say back to them? "Fuck you, we've got bigger bombs and can kill your children, but you can't kill ours"?
So try to answer my question again and think about it a little longer.
Ah, so the Israel conflict was a perfectly good reason to murder almost 3,000 civilians in 9/11 attacks, is that what you're going with Frankie??
Uhm, you asked me a question: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Murders-13-Year-Old-Canadian-Girl&p=6230317&
I responded to it. But now I'm obsessively following your posts??
If you didnt want me to respond to you, then why did you ask??
Oh yes you do. Every time there's a terrorist attack your first reaction is to defend radical Islam
So basically what you're saying is its justified for terrorists to kill our kids because we kill theirs.
Is that the reasoning you're going with??
You are given a very direct question and all you do is evade it
You do not have a clue about this issue as you used two conflicting arguments, & showed zero concern for the victim of her family
You are the fool and apparently a cold hearted one at that
So which is it?
1. do you think vetting is useless
or
2. Do you think the vetting by the UN was sufficient and met our security objectives?
You can not argue both
The 50 year occupation of Palestine was listed as one about 4 of Al Qaeda's motives for 9/11.
That's what Bin Laden said.
Do you have better inside information on Bin Laden's justifications?
What you're saying is that you're surprised that people get upset and react when their countries are taken over by foreign powers?
Is that the logic you're going with?
Because they hate anyone that isn't Muslim, frankfooter, oagre and the other guys of the Terb Islamic brotherhood will always defend their right to do it.
Uhm, you asked me a question: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Murders-13-Year-Old-Canadian-Girl&p=6230317&
I responded to it. But now I'm obsessively following your posts??
If you didnt want me to respond to you, then why did you ask??
Oh yes you do. Every time there's a terrorist attack your first reaction is to defend radical Islam
So basically what you're saying is its justified for terrorists to kill our kids because we kill theirs.
Is that the reasoning you're going with??
I've never defended radical Islam. You're just not bright enough to follow what I write. As far as you're concerned anyone who doesn't call for Muslims to be deported and banned is a "defender of radical Islam".
And no, I'm not saying that it's justified for them to kill our kids. Again, you don't understand what I am writing.
I'm saying that perceptions are subjective. That most Iraqis perceive that Christians are waging a crusade against them. I gave you examples of events that they believe support that perception. Those events indeed support what Iraqis believe - at least to some extent.
Then I ask you to think about your own comments that all wars are started by and involve Muslims and compare that with what Muslims believe and step back a little. You appear unable to do that due to intellectual limitations. Let's leave it there. You're too stupid to participate in the dialogue.
Ready. Fire. Aim.
You getting worked up, Larue?
I discussed all this earlier. Go read those posts.
And you continue to follow other peoples threads and criticize, but are impotent to start one.
No you have not
You presented two inconsistent arguments
So which is it?
1. do you think vetting is useless
or
2. Do you think the vetting by the UN was sufficient and met our security objectives?
You can not argue both
You really need a list, are you not aware of Google? I would say, the most clear one if backing the despotic house of Saud.
