London Attack

[ComradeMilton]

All of that and you choose to address one single thing in it where you basically just repeat a statement I have already destroyed. You didn't destroy any part of it. I said in the first and then follow-up messages that the Arabs exerted a strong influence on the culture and they did. ow do you also keep making the mistake of colouring my own text red also? Anyway I will simply repeat myself to respond. They were long ruled by Indian (many Muslim) and then a long period of rule by Persians (all Muslim). By the large they are an Indian people so that is automatic but Persian was the major cultural influence due to the ruling empire that ruled the area for so long being Persian (they were Turkic in reality but like Nomadic groups liked to do they adopted another culture and stuck to it). What you are doing is saying Muslim == Arab which no, it is not. If it were so simple Saudi Arabia wouldn't need to be investing a great many millions and trying to strong arm countries like Pakistan to become more like it. So we basically on something.

 

I'm just going to assume now on that you're wrong since you've posted so much that conflicts with my major posts; I cant be racist towards Islam as it is not a race and the Arab region doesn't even have a plurality of Islam.

 

"I don't expect it to go away"

 

K

 

"Actually my way is the one that results in more lives saved. Just leave the terrorists to do whatever and ignore them. They'll tire of getting nothing out of it in no time." Both are possible and it still makes sense in either view regarding saving massively more lives.

 

 

Speaking of which, how is Britain doing economically? Any market confidence with article 50 breathing down your necks? No more Scotland and possibly (probably) no more Northern Ireland.

[Caecus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36956418

 

GDP + 0.7%, up from 0.6%

Business Investment - 1%

PMI -1.2

Growth Forecast +0.6

Pound down 15% (Dollar), 12% (Euro)

FTSE 100 +16%

FTSE 250 +11%

Exports + 400 million

Imports + 300 million

 

I have never supported Brexit with an economic argument (I reject it on their fantasy to create a superstate alone) so please, don't bother. Getting out of the EU is worth every penny and some things matter more then a 1% here or there.

 

Huh, I expected worse. 

 

No, I was just genuinely wondering. I figured you were British, so you knew more about it than me. I didn't think you would support Brexit with an economic argument anyway, that's not your thing. 

[Rozalia]

Thinking Indians and Persians are basically Arablike if they're Muslim is pretty racist. Those two peoples had flourishing cultures while the Arabs were still living in their desert twiddling their thumbs. There are indeed influences from different cultures to others, simply natural, however what you're trying to do is defend Islam (as always) by saying that the bad influences are simply the Arab culture at work. No. Islam is its own culture and it is its influence that has promoted the thing we were originally talking about. So zealous are you to defend Islam that you'll throw the Arabs under the bus like that, Sad!

 

As for the Britain related stuff you know even less regarding that then other things you've spoken on. The country breaking up like that over Brexit is as likely as us seeing the return of Wessex, Mercia, Anglia, and Northumbria.

 

Huh, I expected worse. 

 

No, I was just genuinely wondering. I figured you were British, so you knew more about it than me. I didn't think you would support Brexit with an economic argument anyway, that's not your thing. 

 

That is not surprising. From the start before the vote the hype of "rats will rise up and eat our children if Brexit happens" has been ridiculous. The economic effects won't be massive unless perhaps the EU decides to try and break Britain's legs, which is something they can't much afford to do and the Tories can take as they are firmly in control of government whatever happens. The economic effects likely end up positive if in the coming years the EU experiences more difficulties/falls apart. All in all the economic argument of X will fall 1% or whatever, all Remain had, doesn't clearly win enough votes by its lonesome.

[Caecus]

That is not surprising. From the start before the vote the hype of "rats will rise up and eat our children if Brexit happens" has been ridiculous. The economic effects won't be massive unless perhaps the EU decides to try and break Britain's legs, which is something they can't much afford to do and the Tories can take as they are firmly in control of government whatever happens. The economic effects likely end up positive if in the coming years the EU experiences more difficulties/falls apart. All in all the economic argument of X will fall 1% or whatever, all Remain had, doesn't clearly win enough votes by its lonesome.

 

No, I meant the market confidence. You guys technically haven't left yet and started to renegotiate trade. There are a lot of predictions that the EU will be harsh on trade with Britain, to deter any other countries thinking about leaving the union. I don't claim to foresee the future, but I don't think Britain is going to have a lot of good trade deals going forward. Your island doesn't produce anything, so I expect consumer good prices to spike post-trade deals. 

[Rozalia]

No, I meant the market confidence. You guys technically haven't left yet and started to renegotiate trade. There are a lot of predictions that the EU will be harsh on trade with Britain, to deter any other countries thinking about leaving the union. I don't claim to foresee the future, but I don't think Britain is going to have a lot of good trade deals going forward. Your island doesn't produce anything, so I expect consumer good prices to spike post-trade deals. 

 

Successive governments (mostly Tory but New Labour would have done it regardless) sold more and more of the family silver until the house is bare yes. Most manufacturing is gone with a lot left being foreign owned and so something that can abruptly be pulled and moved elsewhere. What isn't some are in dire straits also and the government being Tory has always had little care for British business and it is doubtful that will change. The Tory excuse has always been that with the going of everything else we would have the Service sector... which the EU can of course heavily damage and certain groups within it are trying to push that to enrich themselves (even if it might negatively affect the rest of the EU ultimately).

 

Interestingly May did address that in one of her speeches and said that if the EU decides to destroy Britain's Service sector then Britain would simply change their economy to counter such things. Considering this is the Tories we're talking about I took that personally as a very odd, "We'll invest heavily in manufacturing and other things we've thrown away for decades"... which... would be something to see. The oddness of the Tories doing such things is almost enough to want me to see them destroy the British Service sector. I don't wish for it to go either way of course but it would indeed be something if it did occur.

 

Anyway I only heard it in passing so I really should look it up but one of the EU guys has talked of the incompatibility (perhaps not the word used, but something to that effect) between Britain and the rest of the EU. That to me is the best angle for both parties. Both want a good deal where they can make a lot of money. Britain can hurt the EU too (which they don't need) and hammering Britain is hardly going to slow the anti-EU forces within the EU. At the same time it is understandable that in pursuit of their detestable superstate they have to keep everyone too frightened to oppose them. Britain already has a bad reputation within Europe so piling more on top hardly matters and by portraying Britain as someone who should never have been admitted, has always been against them, and all the rest could allow them to allow Britain off with a favourable deal without it promoting too much of a backlash on them.

I dislike the EU greatly and obviously support leaving it but once done I really don't care what they do with the nations they have under them. If France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, so on want to surrender everything to become regions of the German superstate then that is their choice to make. Britain however is too great and too proud to be absorbed like that.

[Caecus]

Successive governments (mostly Tory but New Labour would have done it regardless) sold more and more of the family silver until the house is bare yes. Most manufacturing is gone with a lot left being foreign owned and so something that can abruptly be pulled and moved elsewhere. What isn't some are in dire straits also and the government being Tory has always had little care for British business and it is doubtful that will change. The Tory excuse has always been that with the going of everything else we would have the Service sector... which the EU can of course heavily damage and certain groups within it are trying to push that to enrich themselves (even if it might negatively affect the rest of the EU ultimately).

 

Interestingly May did address that in one of her speeches and said that if the EU decides to destroy Britain's Service sector then Britain would simply change their economy to counter such things. Considering this is the Tories we're talking about I took that personally as a very odd, "We'll invest heavily in manufacturing and other things we've thrown away for decades"... which... would be something to see. The oddness of the Tories doing such things is almost enough to want me to see them destroy the British Service sector. I don't wish for it to go either way of course but it would indeed be something if it did occur.

 

Anyway I only heard it in passing so I really should look it up but one of the EU guys has talked of the incompatibility (perhaps not the word used, but something to that effect) between Britain and the rest of the EU. That to me is the best angle for both parties. Both want a good deal where they can make a lot of money. Britain can hurt the EU too (which they don't need) and hammering Britain is hardly going to slow the anti-EU forces within the EU. At the same time it is understandable that in pursuit of their detestable superstate they have to keep everyone too frightened to oppose them. Britain already has a bad reputation within Europe so piling more on top hardly matters and by portraying Britain as someone who should never have been admitted, has always been against them, and all the rest could allow them to allow Britain off with a favourable deal without it promoting too much of a backlash on them.

I dislike the EU greatly and obviously support leaving it but once done I really don't care what they do with the nations they have under them. If France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, so on want to surrender everything to become regions of the German superstate then that is their choice to make. Britain however is too great and too proud to be absorbed like that.

 

Meh, I don't know too much about it to be entirely honest. But from my basic understanding of economics, specialization is good and overall reduces the costs of goods, raising the standard of living in a mass consumption economy. Britain leaving the EU and their renegotiation of trade deals would likely cause a deficit of goods. Yes, that does require more domestic industry to make up for it, but would increase the prices of said good due to demand. Depending on the industry, it would also require investment. You would also need to put up trade tariffs to protect nascent industry, still increasing the cost of goods. 

 

In my opinion, Brexit isn't going to economically doom England, but most economists would agree that it sure is economically counterproductive. 

 

I also heard you guys are getting an extra 400M to the NHS! Congrats on better healthcare. 

[Rozalia]

Meh, I don't know too much about it to be entirely honest. But from my basic understanding of economics, specialization is good and overall reduces the costs of goods, raising the standard of living in a mass consumption economy. Britain leaving the EU and their renegotiation of trade deals would likely cause a deficit of goods. Yes, that does require more domestic industry to make up for it, but would increase the prices of said good due to demand. Depending on the industry, it would also require investment. You would also need to put up trade tariffs to protect nascent industry, still increasing the cost of goods. 

 

In my opinion, Brexit isn't going to economically doom England, but most economists would agree that it sure is economically counterproductive. 

 

I also heard you guys are getting an extra 400M to the NHS! Congrats on better healthcare. 

 

I'm aware of how these things are sold. With me however it often isn't that I think they are saying complete lies or whatever, but simply that it is simply not the right thing to be doing (not a fan of the putting all the eggs in the Service Sector for one). 

 

Great Britain mate. Many of the people I'm around use England too so its hardly strange if you do that but... its something I like to correct people on even if... I'm not fully accurate myself considering it's really the United Kingdom which is a term I don't use as I don't believe in Monarchies. It'll affect the other 3 also and they'll push it hard in Scotland no doubt... even though the losing money from the EU is irrelevant compared to Scotland losing money from Britain as they would with Independence. 

 

I remember when I was younger I used to think (like most people) that it was an issue you simply needed to fund enough to fix, but over the years I started to believe that the line some of the Tories use is actually accurate. The service is inefficient and you need to solve those issues which saves taxpayer money instead of simply throwing money at it... only problem of course is I don't quite trust the Tories when it comes to government owned services considering their go to is to privatise as much as possible. I'm sure you can guess but to anyone over here who isn't a extreme right winger the American system of healthcare looks like total insanity. 

[Vicente Martinez]

"Both are possible and it still makes sense in either view regarding saving massively more lives."

 

A batshit crazy argument for many reasons,to save some time I'll just use this (Roz's quote edited a bit)

-------------------------------------

 

"And again you claim that it is one or the other. A child could tell you how simple and stupid such a view is, bloody hell.I know that all that can be done is being done to handle these diseases already and you don't need to spend billions on preventing car crashes. Again I tell you that you are clearly completely ignorant of the effect these deaths you deem irrelevant (which would massively increase in size if ignored,think about a tact nuke slipping into the hands of loonies like ISIL) have on a country. If it is deemed that the terrorists cannot be stopped and people feel there is a good chance some loony might pop them off then the confidence in the government goes completely. If a government won't keep you safe from such loonies then it ain't doing its job. Then there is the effect it has towards the people committing the murders, mostly Muslim, withblack folk sprinkled in. Attacks on such people would increase greatly in such an environment where the government cares not for terrorism related deaths. Would those racial motivated deaths be addressed by Miltons government considering the small numbers? As you can't say yes as your whole premise falls apart otherwise that'd be a no. So we get a country where terrorists are popping people off left and right and then in return people are becoming more racist and going after minorities. In the end the government falls apart itself as eventually the racists get powerful enough that they decide they need the powers of the government to more effectively deal with minorities. 

 

 

 

Your idea of sitting on your hands and not caring is pure insanity. "

[ComradeMilton]

"Both are possible and it still makes sense in either view regarding saving massively more lives."

 

A batshit crazy argument for many reasons,to save some time I'll just use this (Roz's quote edited a bit) Roz is wrong, but feel free

-------------------------------------

 

"And again you claim that it is one or the other. A child could tell you how simple and stupid such a view is, bloody hell.I know that all that can be done is being done to handle these diseases already and you don't need to spend billions on preventing car crashes. They don't have enough funding in any of these programs at all. A boost would be a great help in saving many lives on a daily basis. Again I tell you that you are clearly completely ignorant of the effect these deaths you deem irrelevant (which would massively increase in size if ignored,think about a tact nuke slipping into the hands of loonies like ISIL) have on a country. We just need to tell the country we're doing what we can and still divert funding into actual dangers to Americans, not novelty ones that happen once or twice a year and killed fewer than a hundred people. It's a total waste of money.  If it is deemed that the terrorists cannot be stopped and people feel there is a good chance some loony might pop them off then the confidence in the government goes completely. If a government won't keep you safe from such loonies then it ain't doing its job. Then it's not  doing its job regarding diseases, general health or car accidents. Then there is the effect it has towards the people committing the murders, mostly Muslim, withblack folk sprinkled in. Attacks on such people would increase greatly in such an environment where the government cares not for terrorism related deaths. Based on what? Would those racial motivated deaths be addressed by Miltons government considering the small numbers? As you can't say yes as your whole premise falls apart otherwise that'd be a no. So we get a country where terrorists are popping people off left and right and then in return people are becoming more racist and going after minorities. In the end the government falls apart itself as eventually the racists get powerful enough that they decide they need the powers of the government to more effectively deal with minorities. Nope. The terrorist groups already kill so few people that if we didn't make it a big deal in the media it wouldn't be a big deal to anyone. Compared to the other causes of death terrorism doesn't even rank in the top 100 causes of death. You're basically wasting money on a sexier problem and ignoring the actual problems.

 

 

 

Your idea of sitting on your hands and not caring is pure insanity. " Not really, it's quite pragmatic and would save a lot more lives than anti-terrorism measures.

[Vicente Martinez]

". They don't have enough funding in any of these programs at all. A boost would be a great help in saving many lives on a daily basis."

 

Hundreds of billions of dollars is already being put into these stopping these killers (Murder,Cancer,AIDS,etc.) globally.

 

"We just need to tell the country we're doing what we can and still divert funding into actual dangers to Americans, not novelty ones that happen once or twice a year and killed fewer than a hundred people. It's a total waste of money. "

 

Ignoring terrorism /=/ spending a little less on preventing it.The latter is sensible,though the former is batshit crazy (since you're referring to the US)

 

" Then it's not doing its job regarding diseases, general health or car accidents"

 

Actually it is.The American government is putting quite a lot of money into general health and disease control.There is very little a government can do to prevent car accidents,that is determined by the actions of individual drivers themselves.

 

"Nope. The terrorist groups already kill so few people that if we didn't make it a big deal in the media it wouldn't be a big deal to anyone. Compared to the other causes of death terrorism doesn't even rank in the top 100 causes of death. "

 

Though ignoring it isn't going to do shit except cause chaos and political instability.

 

"Based on what?"

 

Common sense.If the government isn't going to protect you from terrorism then obviously groups are going to take advantage of this and basically start to target minority people,especially immigrants,besides,they're already doing it now (mostly in Europe),who's to say they won't get worse if terrorism is ignored?(basically spiraling out of control)

 

"Nope. The terrorist groups already kill so few people that if we didn't make it a big deal in the media it wouldn't be a big deal to anyone. Compared to the other causes of death terrorism doesn't even rank in the top 100 causes of death. You're basically wasting money on a sexier problem and ignoring the actual problems."

 

Alright!Let's just ignore school massacres,plane hijackings,bombings,sniper attacks,mass murders and all those stuff,because you can only care about either terrorism,or the other stuff and that's totally a responsible,sensible and easy thing to do!

 

" Not really, it's quite pragmatic and would save a lot more lives than anti-terrorism measures."

 

Again,ignoring terrorism won't do any good for anyone except the terrorists themselves,but diverting some funds to more pressing matters (Crimes and those stuff) will do some good.

 

"You're basically wasting money on a sexier problem and ignoring the actual problems."

 

No,not at all.

 

"Then it's not doing its job regarding diseases, general health or car accidents"

 

Allowing people to be brutally killed/=/ people dying of natural causes

[ComradeMilton]

". They don't have enough funding in any of these programs at all. A boost would be a great help in saving many lives on a daily basis."

 

Hundreds of billions of dollars is already being put into these stopping these killers (Murder,Cancer,AIDS,etc.) globally.  And it's not enough.

 

"We just need to tell the country we're doing what we can and still divert funding into actual dangers to Americans, not novelty ones that happen once or twice a year and killed fewer than a hundred people. It's a total waste of money. "

 

Ignoring terrorism /=/ spending a little less on preventing it.The latter is sensible,though the former is batshit crazy (since you're referring to the US) Not really, wasting time on terrorism just distracts and underfunds areas that badly need that funding to prevent orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorism.

 

" Then it's not doing its job regarding diseases, general health or car accidents"

 

Actually it is.The American government is putting quite a lot of money into general health and disease control.There is very little a government can do to prevent car accidents,that is determined by the actions of individual drivers themselves. There's plenty they could do with more funding, actually.

 

"Nope. The terrorist groups already kill so few people that if we didn't make it a big deal in the media it wouldn't be a big deal to anyone. Compared to the other causes of death terrorism doesn't even rank in the top 100 causes of death. "

 

Though ignoring it isn't going to do shit except cause chaos and political instability.  Why would choosing to ignore an incredibly rare occurrence that kills virtually no one cause chaos or political instability?

 

"Based on what?"

 

Common sense.If the government isn't going to protect you from terrorism then obviously groups are going to take advantage of this and basically start to target minority people,especially immigrants,besides,they're already doing it now (mostly in Europe),who's to say they won't get worse if terrorism is ignored?(basically spiraling out of control) So we arrest and imprison the hate groups. Easy.

"Nope. The terrorist groups already kill so few people uhat if we didn't make it a big deal in the media it wouldn't be a big deal to anyone. Compared to the other causes of death terrorism doesn't even rank in the top 100 causes of death. You're basically wasting money on a sexier problem and ignoring the actual problems."

 

Alright!Let's just ignore school massacres,plane hijackings,bombings,sniper attacks,mass murders and all those stuff,because you can only care about either terrorism,or the other stuff and that's totally a responsible,sensible and easy thing to do! I care about numbers killed. Terrorism isn't even in the same league as the problems i'd like to see addressed. Instead of trying to save the most lives possible we overspend to try to eliminate terrorism, which kills very few. It's an illogical appropriation of funding.

 

" Not really, it's quite pragmatic and would save a lot more lives than anti-terrorism measures."

 

Again,ignoring terrorism won't do any good for anyone except the terrorists themselves,but diverting some funds to more pressing matters (Crimes and those stuff) will do some good. It'll be fine. Basically no one dies from terrorist attacks and thousands die from the causes I've listed. Spending more money on the more deadly problems is just logical if our aim is to save people from premature death.

 

"You're basically wasting money on a sexier problem and ignoring the actual problems."

 

No,not at all.

 

"Then it's not doing its job regarding diseases, general health or car accidents"

 

Allowing people to be brutally killed/=/ people dying of natural causes When there's only a certain amount of funding and a lot of it is wasted on terrorism rather than appropriated for making the world safer for the thousands who die everyday is a noble and natural goal.

[Vicente Martinez]

" Not really, wasting time on terrorism just distracts and underfunds areas that badly need that funding to prevent orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorism."

 

It's not "one or another".

 

"Why would choosing to ignore an incredibly rare occurrence that kills virtually no one cause chaos or political instability?"

 

Because terrorism usually represents the underlying problem of government instability.Not to mention people would loose all faith in the government because some random guy can now snipe,shoot or bomb them at any moment,meanwhile the government isn't doing crap.

 

"When there's only a certain amount of funding and a lot of it is wasted on terrorism rather than appropriated for making the world safer for the thousands who die everyday is a noble and natural goal."

 

Alright,let's just ignore it then,pretty responsible,sensible and easy thing to do.

 

"There's plenty they could do with more funding, actually."

 

Nope,governments can't just prevent car accidents with billions of dollars worth of funding.

 

"And it's not enough."

 

Meanwhile most of these diseases have cures and research being continuously looked into.3.2 trillion is such ridiculously small number according to you.

 

"When there's only a certain amount of funding and a lot of it is wasted on terrorism rather than appropriated for making the world safer for the thousands who die everyday is a noble and natural goal."

 

"Certain amount"=3.2 trillion

 

"Wasted money"=16 billion

 

"Basically no one dies from terrorist attacks and thousands die from the causes I've listed. Spending more money on the more deadly problems is just logical if our aim is to save people from premature death."

 

Aka=3,000 people

 

Globally=tens of thousands of people (ISIL and American-state terror sends it up)

 

Diverting money from something that has way too much funding (military) is a much better alternative here decreasing military funding won't really cause much damage,besides the military gets a ton of funding.

 

"So we arrest and imprison the hate groups. Easy."

 

Then again why would we?Hate groups cause very little deaths,so obviously Milton's government would ignore them,right? (Denying it just makes your whole argument fall apart instantly)

Edited April 12, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

" Not really, wasting time on terrorism just distracts and underfunds areas that badly need that funding to prevent orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorism."

 

It's not "one or another". It is with government funding.

 

"Why would choosing to ignore an incredibly rare occurrence that kills virtually no one cause chaos or political instability?"

 

Because terrorism usually represents the underlying problem of government instability.Not to mention people would loose all faith in the government because some random guy can now snipe,shoot or bomb them at any moment,meanwhile the government isn't doing crap. Fewer of them would die on their way away from a terrorist incident.

 

"When there's only a certain amount of funding and a lot of it is wasted on terrorism rather than appropriated for making the world safer for the thousands who die everyday is a noble and natural goal."

 

Alright,let's just ignore it then,pretty responsible,sensible and easy thing to do. Agreed, except perhaps WMD monitoring continuing.

 

"There's plenty they could do with more funding, actually."

 

Nope,governments can't just prevent car accidents with billions of dollars worth of funding.They already have. Kind of late to tell them they can't when they've already done it a bunch of times.

"And it's not enough."

 

Meanwhile most of these diseases have cures and research being continuously looked into.3.2 trillion is such ridiculously small number according to you. None of those I mentioned have effective treatments at this time and need much more funding to get their research going more rapidly. There's also no such thing as a cure, so I'm not even confident you read about this before ejaculating your opinion on it.

 

"When there's only a certain amount of funding and a lot of it is wasted on terrorism rather than appropriated for making the world safer for the thousands who die everyday is  noble and natural goal."

 

"Certain amount"=3.2 trillion Who said that?

 

"Wasted money"=16 billion Who said that?

 

"Basically no one dies from terrorist attacks and thousands die from the causes I've listed. Spending more money on the more deadly problems is just logical if our aim is to save people from premature death."

 

Aka=3,000 people Much more than that that everyday. Hence the WTC incident being a total waste of money.

 

Globally=tens of thousands of people (ISIL and American-state terror sends it up) Tens of thousands out of 330m (US) is barely anything and among Muslims (1.3b) is virtually not existing.

 

Diverting money from something that has way too much funding (military) is a much better alternative here decreasing military funding won't really cause much damage,besides the military gets a ton of funding. Both areas way overspend. If we don't fix the actual causes of death why bother doing anything about terrorism? It's casualties in the US generally are less than those of the people fleeing the terrorist attack in a car.

[Vicente Martinez]

"Fewer of them would die on their way away from a terrorist incident."

 

Well obviously if nothing is being done to prevent terrorism,the terrorists will get braver and more sophisticated in carrying out their attacks,leading to much more deaths,which in turn completely destroys confidence in the government.Obviously we should just carry on with life and do nothing.

 

 

"There's also no such thing as a cure, so I'm not even confident you read about this before ejaculating your opinion on it."

 

Of course there is a cure to diseases,common knowledge Milton,common knowledge.Considering you don't even know American counterterrorism funding I suggest you do the same.

 

"None of those I mentioned have effective treatments at this time and need much more funding to get their research going more rapidly. "

 

Then again cures and better treatments are currently being researched as we speak.

 

"Who said that?"

 

The birds (i.e. spending pie charts).Counter terrorism funding is an absolute joke compared to healthcare funding.

 

") Tens of thousands out of 330m (US) is barely anything and among Muslims (1.3b) is virtually not existing."

 

Yes Milton.Preventing tens of thousands of deaths and trying to prevent political destabilization is a waste of time and is completely insignificant.

 

"If we don't fix the actual causes of death why bother doing anything about terrorism? "

 

Because the American government isn't God.It can't just stop deaths by diseases and car accidents by investigating a completely insignificant amount (16 bn) won't really have an effect on the 3.2 trillion that's already being pumped into healthcare.

 

"They already have. Kind of late to tell them they can't when they've already done it a bunch of times."

 

When?Government funding has no impact on the actions of the individual.

 

"It is with government funding."

 

Meanwhile healthcare receives more than 100X the funding counterterrorism does.

 

"So we arrest and imprison the hate groups. Easy."

 

Then again why would we?Hate groups cause very little deaths,so obviously Milton's government would ignore them,right? (Denying it just makes your whole argument fall apart instantly)

 

If you want more funding then simply take it from defense,they get much more funding than many other aspects of American spending.Besides you can't really keep up with stuff like this for too long,eventually a government will be forced to address these concerns.When will you start to care?When crazies like ISIL get a hold of a tact nuke and use it?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

"Fewer of them would die on their way away from a terrorist incident."

 

Well obviously if nothing is being done to prevent terrorism,the terrorists will get braver and more sophisticated in carrying out their attacks,leading to much more deaths,which in turn completely destroys confidence in the government.Obviously we should just carry on with life and do nothing. That's just speculation without any evidence to back it.

 

 

"There's also no such thing as a cure, so I'm not even confident you read about this before ejaculating your opinion on it."

 

Of course there is a cure to diseases,common knowledge Milton,common knowledge.Considering you don't even know American counterterrorism funding I suggest you do the same. I know and medical personnel absolutely never use the term cure since it's not valid. They use treatment or maintenance, not cure.

 

"None of those I mentioned have effective treatments at this time and need much more funding to get their research going more rapidly. "

 

Then again cures and better treatments are currently being researched as we speak.And the treatments could be drastically improved with much more funding.

 

"Who said that?"

 

The birds (i.e. spending pie charts).Counter terrorism funding is an absolute joke compared to healthcare funding.Uh, not even close, no. The black budget alone for the intelligence community last year was $52b. That's a lot of money we could use to fight the actual dangers to American lives.

 

") Tens of thousands out of 330m (US) is barely anything and among Muslims (1.3b) is virtually not existing."

 

Yes Milton.Preventing tens of thousands of deaths and trying to prevent political destabilization is a waste of time and is completely insignificant. Agreed,

 

"If we don't fix the actual causes of death why bother doing anything about terrorism? "

 

Because the American government isn't God.It can't just stop deaths by diseases and car accidents by investigating a completely insignificant amount (16 bn) won't really have an effect on the 3.2 trillion that's already being pumped into healthcare.isn't the same as health research. They require more funding and we have some we can put into them.

 

"They already have. Kind of late to tell them they can't when they've already done it a bunch of times."

 

When?Government funding has no impact on the actions of the individual.

 

"It is with government funding."

 

Meanwhile healthcare receives more than 100X the funding counterterrorism does.And healthcare is not research

 

"So we arrest and imprison the hate groups. Easy."

 

Then again why would we?Hate groups cause very little deaths,so obviously Milton's government would ignore them,right? (Denying it just makes your whole argument fall apart instantly) Why would I deny something so obviously true?

 

If you want more funding then simply take it from defense,they get much more funding than many other aspects of American spending.Besides you can't really keep up with stuff like this for too long,eventually a government will be forced to address these concerns.When will you start to care?When crazies like ISIL get a hold of a tact nuke and use it? I'll care when terrorism starts coming even close to the casualties caused by the problems I referenced earlier. I also specified WMD defense would remain the same for this very reason.

[Vicente Martinez]

" That's just speculation without any evidence to back it."

 

Not really.Just look at the middle east.It's also natural when dealing with the terrorism.It's also logical,if you ignore a problem and let it happen then naturally it's going to progressively get worse overtime

 

"Why would I deny something so obviously true?"

 

Alright!So we ignore the terror groups that are actively causing thousands of deaths as we speak and kill hundreds of people annually in the globe,but focus on hate groups which kill virtually no one compared to radical terrorists,what a great idea!Though what happened to saving more lives?

 

"Agreed"

 

So those tens of thousands of people are irrelevant then,not worth trying to save them,just let the terrorists kill them and then it'll be all dandy.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

" That's just speculation without any evidence to back it."

 

Not really.Just look at the middle east.It's also natural when dealing with the terrorism.It's also logical,if you ignore a problem and let it happen then naturally it's going to progressively get worse overtime Yeah, I have and this doesn't happen.

 

"Why would I deny something so obviously true?"

 

Alright!So we ignore the terror groups that are actively causing thousands of deaths as we speak and kill hundreds of people annually Which is it? Thousands or hundreds? in the globe,but focus on hate groups which kill virtually no one compared to radical terrorists,what a great idea!Though what happened to saving more lives? I said diversion of funding excepting WMD involvement.

 

"Agreed"

 

So those tens of thousands of people are irrelevant then,not worth trying to save them,just let the terrorists kill them and then it'll be all dandy. No idea what their results would be, but ours would be saving many, many more than a measly few thousand people.

[Vicente Martinez]

K.

[Vicente Martinez]

By paying attention hate groups (which kill virtually no one) with a bad approach and ignoring most (interesting how you switched from "all" to "most") forms of terrorism (which kills thousands of people worldwide,btw it'd get worse if you ignored it) the whole logic behind your argument completely collapses.

 

*other stuff*

 

No Milton.you are acting as if the only way to solve these issues is to ignore terrorism which is absolutely inconsiderate and insane.This is like saying the only way to solve cancer is to ignore and divert all funding from Ebola and Zika.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

By paying attention hate groups (which kill virtually no one) with a bad approach and ignoring most (interesting how you switched from "all" to "most") Feel free to re-read my original post which includes keeping WMD prevention funding.  forms of terrorism (which kills thousands of people worldwide,btw it'd get worse if you ignored it) the whole logic behind your argument completely collapses. It wouldn't expand their attacks or casualties, no.

 

*other stuff*

 

No Milton.you are acting as if the only way to solve these issues is to ignore terrorism which is absolutely inconsiderate and insane.This is like saying the only way to solve cancer is to ignore and divert all funding from Ebola and Zika. It's neither inconsiderate nor insane, Reducing funding for Ebola and Zika in favor of more common causes of death would also be an excellent idea.

[Vicente Martinez]

"It wouldn't expand their attacks or casualties, no."

 

Actually it would,just look at it now,if you ignore terrorism,then it'll be easier for terrorists to gain more sophisticated forms of weaponry,thus creating more deaths if used.I mean obviously if a radical willing to these stuff will be encouraged to carry it out if he/she knows that your government wouldn't really care.

 

"It's neither inconsiderate nor insane, Reducing funding for Ebola and Zika in favor of more common causes of death would also be an excellent idea."

 

You literally just said that thousands of "measly" deaths aren't a problem (highly inconsiderate),it is quite insane actually.

 

YOU ARE LITERALLY SAYING WE SHOULD IGNORE MASS MURDER AND DO NOTHING TO PREVENT IT BECAUSE IT HAS A POLITICAL MOTIVATION,DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW INSANE THAT IS???

 

Then again you are not saying a reduction in anti-terror efforts (which is logical and sensible) you are saying we should just ignore mass murder (aka a crime) and leave innocents to the mercy of these lunatics.(not very logical,sensible or responsible).The government (American or not) will be required by law to try to address the problem since it is literally just murder on a much,much larger scale.I've never said reductions are insane,I'm saying that ignoring the problem is.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[Rozalia]

The world does not work like a spreadsheet where the numbers can be safely moved with no side-effects occurring. Removing anti-terrorism spikes terror attacks and emboldens people to become terrorists when they otherwise would have not bothered. Even then you might consider the loss of lives is little even if they bomb trains, buses, or whatever else but then what happens Milton huh? Do you think the people will just accept increasingly more daily bombings while the government sits on it's hands pointing to bloody car accidents of all things? No. The government either then changes it's course or it falls and then we get extremes where Muslims are thrown out of the country or worse. 

 

This madness of yours ironically is a very Conservative mindset. An uncaring view of things that sees merely the numbers on the sheet while not knowledgeable of what the effects taking such a thing away will result in. Look at any time a Conservative government deems something a waste, cuts it, and then the country loses more money due to the policy/agency/whatever being cut. However the failure does not stop there as you also suffer from the Socialist error of thinking that simply throwing money at things works. No. Taking money away from other issues to pile it all up on car accident prevention would not in any serious manner reduce the deaths resulting from that.

[ComradeMilton]

"It wouldn't expand their attacks or casualties, no."

 

Actually it would,just look at it now,if you ignore terrorism,then it'll be easier for terrorists to gain more sophisticated forms of weaponry,thus creating more deaths if used.I mean obviously if a radical willing to these stuff will be encouraged to carry it out if he/she knows that your government wouldn't really care. This only works if you completely ignore reason ISIS is committing acts of terror. There's no reason frequency or severity would increase. They're already trying as hard as they can and this is the result.

 

"It's neither inconsiderate nor insane, Reducing funding for Ebola and Zika in favor of more common causes of death would also be an excellent idea." Yes, it would. Ebola tends to naturally burn itself out and zika is too new to be dealt with yet.

 

You literally just said that thousands of "measly" deaths aren't a problem (highly inconsiderate),it is quite insane actually. I don't think you or Roz actually understands what insanity is wit. You throw it around so casually and with so little information that it makes me laugh.

 

YOU ARE LITERALLY SAYING WE SHOULD IGNORE MASS MURDER AND DO NOTHING TO PREVENT IT BECAUSE IT HAS A POLITICAL MOTIVATION,DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW INSANE THAT IS??? I literally did not say that. I said we should spend more of the money earmarked for one of the rarest kinds of death on things that actually kill many more Americans.

 

Then again you are not saying a reduction in anti-terror efforts (which is logical and sensible) you are saying we should just ignore mass murder (aka a crime) and leave innocents to the mercy of these lunatics.(not very logical,sensible or responsible).The government (American or not) will be required by law to try to address the problem since it is literally just murder on a much,much larger scale.I've never said reductions are insane,I'm saying that ignoring the problem is. The government decides what it's going to prosecute or not. If they see where their funding went they should be pretty happy that we're saving the most people possible from death, not ignoring it to make a media spectacle out of it.

 

 

The world does not work like a spreadsheet where the numbers can be safely moved with no side-effects occurring. Removing anti-terrorism spikes terror attacks and emboldens people to become terrorists when they otherwise would have not bothered. No, it doesn't. Even then you might consider the loss of lives is little even if they bomb trains, buses, or whatever else but then what happens Milton huh? Do you think the people will just accept increasingly more daily bombings while the government sits on it's hands pointing to bloody car accidents of all things? Yes. No. The government either then changes it's course or it falls and then we get extremes where Muslims are thrown out of the country or worse. Only if the people throwing them out enjoy the prison time coming their way.

 

This madness of yours ironically is a very Conservative mindset. An uncaring view of things that sees merely the numbers on the sheet while not knowledgeable of what the effects taking such a thing away will result in. You have no information about what knowledge I have or do not. Please stop pretending you do; it makes you look even sillier.  Look at any time a Conservative government deems something a waste, cuts it, and then the country loses more money due to the policy/agency/whatever being cut. However the failure does not stop there as you also suffer from the Socialist error of thinking that simply throwing money at things works. It does. It saved the auto industry during the Great Recession. It saved banks and insurance company giants as well and we even made a nice profit. No. Taking money away from other issues to pile it all up on car accident prevention would not in any serious manner reduce the deaths resulting from that. That's your opinion and it's just as irrelevant as ever.

[Vicente Martinez]

". This only works if you completely ignore reason ISIS is committing acts of terror. There's no reason frequency or severity would increase. They're already trying as hard as they can and this is the result."

 

Lol ISIL hasn't committed a single attack in the US.The homegrown terrorists (Muslim and right wing) won't really stop attacking the populace anytime soon.The current result it's because due to counterterrorism action it's extremely difficult to try to carry out more sophisticated attacks so they just use simpler but potentially deadlier and harder to track ways.

 

"Yes, it would. Ebola tends to naturally burn itself out and zika is too new to be dealt with yet."

 

Why respond to your own quote?

 

"I literally did not say that. I said we should spend more of the money earmarked for one of the rarest kinds of death on things that actually kill many more Americans."

 

Why not just use the funds from the military?

 

"I don't think you or Roz actually understands what insanity is wit. You throw it around so casually and with so little information that it makes me laugh."

 

K.As I said on discord I don't care about anything you do.

 

"The government decides what it's going to prosecute or not."

 

So should they just ignore murder because it's politically motivated?

 

"I literally did not say that."

 

You've said it multiple times.

_____________________________

Vincent:

So should we just completely ignore terrorism???

 

Milton:I would,yes.

_____________________________

 

"The government decides what it's going to prosecute or not."

 

Are you really exexpecting the American government to give guys that have killed 10-3000 people a slap on the wrist or something?

Edited April 13, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[Rozalia]

Right now if a young kid gets angry and wants to do something he knows there are eyes on such things. He goes and searches up on these things and they'll know, he starts making moves to develop a bomb or whatever and they'll know, he talks to certain compromised people and they'll know. The net is large, effective, and that is well known. If instead the young kid knows that nobody is going to touch him... he goes and does it. You don't even know this basic fact of life, absolutely ridiculous. It is said that Vlad the Impaler could put a gold cup in the middle of a town square and not have it stolen for his reputation was such that no-one would dare try. The stopping of crime (including terrorism) is much like that in that the threat of the police, anti-terrorism units, and so forth is strong enough that it existing on its own prevents crime. 

 

I'm not going to waste my time (as you are simply incapable of learning anything apparently) on stating the difference between bailing something out and endlessly throwing money at something that will only become more expensive as the root problem will not have been fixed.