lets talk in voice chat

terrorist attacks are not dependent on how many terrorists there are. it takes very few terrorists to commit an attack

that's not very long

You guys are talking past each other. One is talking aobut UK jihadists and the other is talking about ISIS terrorists. Those are different groups

@The Lemon the article literally states "intelligence officers" in the first two words

So they are getting the stats from intel officers in the UK

but you guys have to realize that jihadi =/= terrorist

the article specifically states the jihadists are identified as "potential terrorists" not terrorists

well it may be vague but you know where the number is coming from

no, the number is not meaningless

he's not the one who wrote the article

he's not the intel officers deciding

yes he can

it's reasonable to assume intel officers are being reasonable with their definitions

you are trying to take a number you don't like and just throw it out and that's unreasonable

so what?

we know what the word jihadi generally means

we know about how the government defines it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism

The term "Jihadism" (also "jihadist movement", "jihadi movement" and variants) is a 21st-century neologism found in Western languages to describe Islamist militant movements perceived as military movements "rooted in Islam" and "existentially threatening" to the West.[1] It has been described as a "difficult term to define precisely", because it remains a recent neologism with no single, generally accepted meaning.[2] The term "jihadism" first appeared in South Asian media; Western journalists adopted it in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks of 2001.[3] It has since been applied to various insurgent and terrorist movements whose ideology is based on the notion of jihad.[4]

what are you guys debating specifically?

i thought you were debating whether terrorists have gone up or down

is that what you are debating crank?

see you guys are talking past each other

@The Lemon my issue with your argument would stem from what is "worse". If I was a British citizen then immigration to the UK would be worse because it impacts me more

so what do you mean by "worse"?

@The Lemon Do you want Western nations to intervene in every ethnic cleansing?

Sounds expsensive

What would the cost of military intervention be of every ethnic cleansing? How many bodies would we lose?

lol

by saying "more" you already admit it is getting some attention though

you know about it don't you

mainstream media isn't the only media

Yeah well there's lots of stuff the MSM should cover and doesn't I think we can all agree on that

Are you talking from the USA or from another country?

I'm American so our media is different than UK media

European media focuses more on foreign stuff than American media

Very little coverage of the South African stuff going on

So what? We're not using them.

Yes, because there is more to our relationship than what they do in Yemen. Like protecting oil, influencing their human rights issues (like allowing women to drive), etc.

If we stop selling them weapons and they stop their relationship with us, how does that benefit the world?

Saudi human rights could be worse

lol

This is pragmatism vs ideology. We're being pragmatic

Easy to agree to stop selling weapons you aren't selling lol

Saudis have already threatened to buy from Russia who is willing to sell

Do you want to push Saudi Arabia into an alliance with Russia?

Yeah, you can't be a one-variable thinker either. These are complex relationships.

so I guess he left?

Russia can sell whatever the Saudis need, trust me.

Okay, found the time stamp. Anybody who cares about gender issues and length of life needs to watch this video: https://youtu.be/5HGxSGcfadM?t=797

just a few minutes

so Warren Farrell explains that Telomeres in cells hold genes, and the longer they are the more genes they can hold that are related to fighting diseases. At 9 years-old, girls and boys without father involvement already have 14% shorter Telomeres, and the difference between boys and girls without father involvement is 40%.

So lack of father involvement is much worse for boys than girls, and quite literally kills boys.

were the crusades political or just purely religious?

I'd say they were political as much as religious. Religions involve politics

Actually it was more about defending themselves from Muslim attacks

The Muslims attacked Europe first

Islam has a history of conquering and was founded on principles of conquering others.

Muhammad was a warlord. Jesus wasn't

Even by your statement, he fought a war but wasn't a warlord?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ial2ySpfhMU

Muhammad was also a pedophile

I'm in the USA thankfully 😃

There's a whole Wiki on Muhammad's military career, which it claims lasted 10 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

@The Lemon why are you defending him no matter what? you went from he wasn't a warlord to finding out he was to now downplaying the number of casualties

I just don't get it

then why did you bring up that there were only 1000 casualties?

back then people were being killed by worse weapons.

we are more efficient at killing now, and there's more people to kill

Granted, Muhammad wasn't like Ghengis Khan or anything but still

we can admit he's a warlord at least

yeah I think there were worse warlords but w/e

that's a pretty mild objection to make

The Quran is tiny IIRC

apparently it's 600 pages so not tiny. about the size of the New Testament

yeah there is messed up stuff in the bible i agree

deuteronomy talks about stoning disobedient children to death at the town square

Part of the reason Islam has a problem with radicalism is because of the religion's principles that support radicalization

It's harder to become a radical of some religions over others.

anyways i'm going afk for a few

@The Lemon he quoted the exact lines for you not sure why you are askign for the source when it's the Quran

It seemed unknown although Warren Farrell said he has some ideas. You should email Warren (who reads every email) and ask him. I'm not completley sure.

I don't think the science is fully there yet.

big difference between a government system and family system though

I wouldn't call family systems communist either. I didn't have access to all my parents' stuff. They had stuff I couldn't touch in the house, not to mention bank accounts and money they'd only give me on approval. I couldn't use the car.

When I was older I could borrow it, but I did not have ownership of it

and they did have ownership

@McBacoon President Trump is amazing

He has destroyed the horrible Conservative establishment in favor of something much better

He has made progress with North Korea. N and S Korea are now talking about joint Olympic bids, connecting the countries together through infrastructure like railroads, constantly meeting, etc. American hostages have been returned. They have stopped missile tests and blew up some launch sites.

Trump got us out of the horrible Paris Climate Accord, which is causing riots in France, even though it's completely non-binding and countries like China can use it to take advantage of anybody who does follow it.

Trump is taking a stand on border security

Our economy is doing really well, including very low unemployment rates, especially among minority groups.

Trump is not perfect, nobody is, but he's doing pretty dang well.

@McBacoon The railway system has already gotten approval to go ahead for research by the UN, and South Korea is sending engineers and resources to study upgrading North Korea's system for the connection to South Korea: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/world/asia/north-south-korea-rail-un.html -- If you want to argue this will never happen, you need to at least explain why and preferably give some hardcore facts instead of just projection.

As for the joint Olympic bid, that's more meaningful than you make it out to be. Hosting Olympics costs a lot of money and takes a lot of organization. It also makes a lot of money in tourism. Just sitting down and making the plan means something, but also if they ever won (admittedly unlikely), that would be huge for working together and North Korea opening up.

On missile sites, blowing them up is permanent. Sure, they can rebuild or have other sites, but blowing up sites is still permanent. The reason North Korea had a rough winter btw, is because of the pressure Trump put on them. China leaned on them because of Trump.

On the PCA, you're just being ridiculous, like with the rest of my points. Make some real objections. The PCA was opposed by environmentalists at the time because it is not legally binding. It was an economic agreement that asked countries to promise to self-regulate to certain goals. It did nothing. It will only punish those who follow it, and it will benefit those who don't. (France follows and has riots.) This does not mean we need Mad Max. We can solve the problem in other ways. We are more likely to solve the problem because we aren't faking it in the PCA.

On border security, Trump did persuade many in the Caravans to turn back. They have been catching illegals at solid rates. Prototypes for the wall have been built. The military has worked with ICE to set up barricades. There has been progress, despite you not seeing it.

On the economy, the whole world is not doing great economically. France's unemployment is 9.3% and Spain's is 15.2%. Even Canada is at 5.6%. We could talk about the countries having serious problems, too, like Syria at 50%, Senegal at 48%, Yemen at 35%, Venezuela at 33%. Many African countries are around 20%. There has been world growth, but the USA's has been particularly good, especially given we were already economically strong.

As for minority groups, I don't know why you say they don't matter, but they do. Races tend to live in different areas and even have different cultures. So when the unemployment rate is lowered because a few people got jobs all around the country, that's different than when it goes lower because a city in despair finally gets jobs. Trump is bringing jobs to the neediest areas, which is why Blacks in particular are benefiting so much.

@Tyberius D Sure, some of it is point of view, but some of it comes down to facts as well.

On the GOP, what smart people were run out? Jeff Flake? And what do you mean by the populists can't do math?

Also, I want to be clear that I'm a left-leaning Centrist. I voted for Obama twice. I'm not on the Right at all. While I'm a nationalist because I believe in the nation-state, I stand against ethnonationalism and I believe in global trade deals, just the good kind.

On North Korea, I never said there was physical connection yet, but they are working towards that. Research, money, and resources are being put towards developing connecting the countries. That's a big deal. Also, North Korea has more tourists than you probably think. Most of them are good. Otto Warmbier was the exception, and Trump got him back, too, btw. I wouldn't be surprised if the three hostages were spies, either. We don't know what their real stories are, but I think you are being unfair to them.

The PCA was a horrible deal. Why do you think it wasn't? Like I said, the goals were completely non-legally binding. That means that if the USA were to commit and China doesn't, China would gain economic advantages and we would be punished for following it, while China isn't. That's as bad as it gets. And yes, the riots are due to the PCA, because the taxes were put on (especially gasoline) to get under the CO2 goals of the PCA. Not sure how you can say these aren't connected.

As to what you said at the end, 60 in the Senate rarely happens. It's common for a push against the President's party in the midterms. In fact, the Senate grew. Only the House went down in numbers, and by less than expected. It was actually a solid day for the Republicans.

@McBacoon Laughing only shows how insecure you are. I'll deal with your arguments later, but so far you have offered very little. Maybe stop laughing and concentrate a little more on convincing arguments.

@McBacoon About the railway, you said the main problems are sanctions, bad relations, and NK promising to nuke the world. The railway is predecated on denuclearization. It's unlikely the Koreas would be going forward with the railway as far as they have already if they didn't see a serious path towards denuclearization. Also, NK has already gotten UN approval to make the railway exempt from the sanctions. I argue that NK was striving to get nukes for security, but the best security is becoming getting rid of them and building up an interconnected economy with South Korea. Missiles are just making NK a target at this point.

NK is much more hidden than the USSR ever was. NK does allow tourists, but only in certain places. With as many tourists as the Olympics would bring, tourists would go all over the country. That's very different than the USSR situation.

Blowing up sites is permanent. Even if they blow them up and rebuild them, that still costs money. It does mean something. If you just shrug off these types of gestures as literally meaning nothing, than you are not a part of the serious discussion.

On China, you were mainly arguing against things I didn't say. Go back and read what I actually said, which is that Trump leaned on China which is what caused North Korea to have a tough winter. Of course China tries to cheat them, but we also catch some of this stuff, and we were really cracking down last year: https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-confirms-it-has-seized-tanker-suspected-of-delivering-oil-to-north-korea/a-41972044