Islamic State Extremists Exploit Refugee Flow

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:55 am

First topic message reminder :

Western governments have long feared the possibility of Islamic State militants quietly slipping across their countries' borders. Now, amid the worst refugee crisis in decades, it seems this might have actually happened. How? ISIS loyalists have reportedly infiltrated the human tide of refugees flowing into Europe.

Opportunistic smugglers have reportedly helped small groups of ISIS fighters travel from southern Turkey into Europe, hidden in cargo ships filled with hundreds of refugees, according to an ISIS operative and several smugglers quoted by BuzzFeed Monday. The ISIS operative claimed some 4,000 fighters are already waiting in Europe, intent on fulfilling ISIS's repeated threats to stage attacks around the globe. He said such attacks would be in retaliation for U.S.-led airstrikes against the group in Iraq and Syria.

“Just wait,” he told BuzzFeed

undreds of thousands of refugees fleeing war in Syria have decided in recent months to make their way to Europe, where there is more economic opportunity than in Turkey -- more than a million Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey. Last week, a picture of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi, whose body washed ashore on Turkey’s southern resort coast after drowning during a dangerous boat journey in an inflatable dinghy, raised awareness of the refugees' plight. The incident has ignited international concern over the refugee crisis wrought by years of conflict in Syria. It is in that tide of desperate refugees that more ISIS fighters have been able to quietly slip into Europe, according to individuals quoted by BuzzFeed.

“I’m sending some fighters who want to go and visit their families,” a smuggler, who said he’s been helping militants cross for months, said. “Others just go to Europe to be ready.”

The smuggler said while some fighters were from Syria, many also hailed from elsewhere around the Middle East, and even Europe or the U.S. Once they cross the porous Turkish border from Syria, the smuggler puts fighters up in hotels and waits for a passenger list to fill and for the weather conditions to be right.

http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-crisis-isis-fighters-europe-islamic-state-extremists-exploit-refugee-flow-2085787?ft=61pb1

Let em all in i say

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:31 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar Of Dibley wrote:It's just so easy for them to waltz in and still the idiots are protecting them and making excuses

Wake up you silly twats before you lose your head .

Yet do we stop hundreds of thousands that need are help because some people are shitting their pants.

So lets really weigh up the risks here.

deaths from terrorism worldwide):

– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

Like I say people are being unrealistic in their selfish reasoning

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:31 am

Cuchulain wrote:Ha ha ha

I asked for your evidence you idiot

I have gone through with smelly on risk, would you like the percentages and be made to look an even bigger tit

Last chance to present your evidence or the forum will see you are a pthetic twat?

still insulting..lol!!!!

iv'e asked you for your evidence....

which is most likely out all those "refugees" none of them are either terrorists or support terrorism or at least one of them is or supports terrorism...??

hmmm i can see where the odds are can you.....

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:33 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Yet do we stop hundreds of thousands that need are help because some people are shitting their pants.

So lets really weigh up the risks here.

deaths from terrorism worldwide):

– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

Like I say people are being unrealistic in their selfish reasoning

[/quote]

Still waiting for a counter

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:33 am

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Ha ha ha

I asked for your evidence you idiot

I have gone through with smelly on risk, would you like the percentages and be made to look an even bigger tit

Last chance to present your evidence or the forum will see you are a pthetic twat?

still insulting..lol!!!!

iv'e asked you for your evidence....

which is most likely out all those "refugees" none of them are either terrorists or support terrorism or at least one of them is or supports terrorism...??

hmmm i can see where the odds are can you.....

no answer then..lol

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:34 am

Still no evidence to counter my facts
Ha ha Ha Ha
Too easy

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:37 am

Cuchulain wrote:Still no evidence to counter my facts
Ha ha Ha Ha
Too easy

you have no facts to counter..lol

so what are the odds of all those refugees and not one of them is a terrorist or terrorist supporter...

hmmm no answers..

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:38 am

Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism
McClatchy reported in 2010:

There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don’t have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.

The March, 2011, Harper‘s Index noted:

Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.

Indeed, the leading cause of deaths for Americans traveling abroad is not terrorism, or murder … or even crime of any type.
It’s car crashes.
In fact:

With the exception of the Philippines, more Americans died from road crashes in all of the 160 countries surveyed than from homicides.

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.
In contrast, the American agency which tracks health-related issues – the U.S. Centers for Disease Control – rounds up the most prevalent causes of death in the United States:
Islamic State Extremists Exploit Refugee Flow - Page 2 CDC-Mortality-CHart

Islamic State Extremists Exploit Refugee Flow - Page 2 CDC-Mortality-CHart

Comparing the CDC numbers to terrorism deaths means (keep in mind that – from here to the end of the piece – we are consistently and substantially understating the risk of other causes of death as compared to terrorism, because we are comparing deaths from various causes within the United States against deaths from terrorism worldwide):

– You are [url=https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=596339 divided by 17 &tok=duUe66lgoeLquEDcDRFVGQ&pq=596339 divided by 17 &cp=4&gs_id=1ri&xhr=t&q=596,339+divided+by+17&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=596,339+divided+by+17+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=4fb34227f337626b&biw=933&bih=421]35,079[/url] times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are [url=https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=596%2C339 divided by 17 &tok=duUe66lgoeLquEDcDRFVGQ&pq=596%2C339 divided by 17&cp=7&gs_id=1z0&xhr=t&q=575,313+divided+by+17&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=575,313+divided+by+17&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=4fb34227f337626b&biw=933&bih=421]33,842[/url] times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

Wikipedia notes that obesity is a a contributing factor in 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year. That makes obesity 5,882 to times 23,528 more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
The annual number of deaths in the U.S. due to avoidable medical errors is as high as 100,000. Indeed, one of the world’s leading medical journals – Lancet – reported in 2011:

A November, 2010, document from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported that, when in hospital, one in seven beneficiaries of Medicare (the government-sponsored health-care programme for those aged 65 years and older) have complications from medical errors, which contribute to about 180 000 deaths of patients per year.

That’s just Medicare beneficiaries, not the entire American public. Scientific American noted in 2009:

Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation.

And a new study published in the Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be up to 440,000 each year.
But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.
The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.
Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack. As CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria wrote last year:

“Since 9/11, foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States. (Meanwhile, more than 100,000 have been killed in gun homicides and more than 400,000 in motor-vehicle accidents.) “

President Obama agreed.
According to a 2011 CDC report, poisoning from prescription drugs is even more likely to kill you than a car crash. Indeed, the CDC stated in 2011 that – in the majority of states – your prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda.
The number of deaths by suicide has also surpassed car crashes, and many connect the increase in suicides to the downturn in the economy. Around 35,000 Americans kill themselves each year (and more American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.
The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism.
The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.
The agency in charge of workplace safety – the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration – reports that 4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 within the U.S. homeland. In other words, you are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism.
The CDC notes that 3,177 people died of “nutritional deficiencies” in 2011, which means you are 187 times more likely to starve to death in American than be killed by terrorism.
Scientific American notes:

You might have toxoplasmosis, an infection caused by the microscopic parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which the CDC estimates has infected about 22.5 percent of Americans older than 12 years old

Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.
There were at least 155 Americans killed by police officers in the United States in 2011. That means that you were more than 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.
The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists.
Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism. And see this and this.
The Jewish Daily Forward noted last year that – even including the people killed in the Boston bombing – you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. And see these statistics from CNN.
Reason notes:

[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010.

Scientific American reported in 2011:

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, and Mark Stewart, a civil engineer and authority on risk assessment at University of Newcastle in Australia … contended, “a great deal of money appears to have been misspent and would have been far more productive—saved far more lives—if it had been expended in other ways.”
Mueller and Stewart noted that, in general, government regulators around the world view fatality risks—say, from nuclear power, industrial toxins or commercial aviation—above one person per million per year as “acceptable.” Between 1970 and 2007 Mueller and Stewart asserted in a separate paper published last year in Foreign Affairs that a total of 3,292 Americans (not counting those in war zones) were killed by terrorists resulting in an annual risk of one in 3.5 million. Americans were more likely to die in an accident involving a bathtub (one in 950,000), a home appliance (one in 1.5 million), a deer (one in two million) or on a commercial airliner (one in 2.9 million).
The global mortality rate of death by terrorism is even lower. Worldwide, terrorism killed 13,971 people between 1975 and 2003, an annual rate of one in 12.5 million. Since 9/11 acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim militants outside of war zones have killed about 300 people per year worldwide. This tally includes attacks not only by al Qaeda but also by “imitators, enthusiasts, look-alikes and wannabes,” according to Mueller and Stewart.
Defenders of U.S. counterterrorism efforts might argue that they have kept casualties low by thwarting attacks. But invvestigations by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies suggest that 9/11 may have been an outlier—an aberration—rather than a harbinger of future attacks. Muslim terrorists are for the most part “short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning” and small in number, Mueller and Stewart stated. Although still potentially dangerous, terrorists hardly represent an “existential” threat on a par with those posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
In fact, Mueller and Stewart suggested in Homeland Security Affairs, U.S. counterterrorism procedures may indirectly imperil more lives than they preserve: “Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.”
The funds that the U.S. spends on counterterrorism should perhaps be diverted to other more significant perils, such as industrial accidents (one in 53,000), violent crime (one in 22,000), automobile accidents (one in 8,000) and cancer (one in 540). “Overall,” Mueller and Stewart wrote, “vastly more lives could have been saved if counterterrorism funds had instead been spent on combating hazards that present unacceptable risks.” In an e-mail to me, Mueller elaborated:
“The key question, never asked of course, is what would the likelihood be if the added security measures had not been put in place? And, if the chances without the security measures might have been, say, one in 2.5 million per year, were the trillions of dollars in investment (including overseas policing which may have played a major role) worth that gain in security—to move from being unbelievably safe to being unbelievably unbelievably safe? Given that al Qaeda and al Qaeda types have managed to kill some 200 to 400 people throughout the entire world each year outside of war zones since 9/11—including in areas that are far less secure than the U.S.—there is no reason to anticipate that the measures have deterred, foiled or protected against massive casualties in the United States. If the domestic (we leave out overseas) enhanced security measures put into place after 9/11 have saved 100 lives per year in the United States, they would have done so at a cost of $1 billion per saved life. That same money, if invested in a measure that saves lives at a cost of $1 million each—like passive restraints for buses and trucks—would have saved 1,000 times more lives.”
Mueller and Stewart’s analysis is conservative, because it excludes the most lethal and expensive U.S. responses to 9/11. Al Qaeda’s attacks also provoked the U.S. into invading and occupying two countries, at an estimated cost of several trillion dollars. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans so far—more than twice as many as were killed on September 11, 2001—as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
***
In 2007 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that people are more likely to be killed by lightning than terrorism. “You can’t sit there and worry about everything,” Bloomberg exclaimed. “Get a life. Actually, according to Mueller and Stewart, Americans’ annual risk of dying from lightning, at one in seven million is only half the risk from terrorism.

Indeed, the Senior Research Scientist for the Space Science Institute (Alan W. Harris) estimates that the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is about the same as being hit by an asteroid (and see this).
Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death.
Indeed, our spending on anti-terrorism measures is way out of whack … especially because most of the money has been wasted. And see this article, and this 3-minute video by professor Mueller:
Indeed, mission creep in the name of countering terrorism actually makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Note: The U.S. is supporting the most extreme and violent types of Muslims. Indeed, the U.S. has waived the prohibitions of arming terrorist groups in order to topple the Syrian government … even though the head of the Syrian rebels has called for Al Qaeda to carry out new attacks on America.
Indeed – as counter-intuitive as it may sound- stupid government policy may be more dangerous than terrorism.
Copyright © Washington's Blog, Washington's Blog and Global Research, 2015

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:53 am

interesting don't worry about being killed by terrorism as more mundane things can kill you... lol

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:03 am

I do not worry about it, I have more chance of being struck by lightning which is extremely remote. Which porves why you exaggearate.

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:21 am

Cuchulain wrote:I do not worry about it, I have more chance of being struck by lightning which is extremely remote. Which porves why you exaggearate.

do you stand outside holding metal when there is a lightning storm, you might as well there are more mundane ways of dying..

now do you understand the idiocy of your argument...

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:08 pm

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:I do not worry about it, I have more chance of being struck by lightning which is extremely remote. Which porves why you exaggearate.

do you stand outside holding metal when there is a lightning storm, you might as well there are more mundane ways of dying..

now do you understand the idiocy of your argument...

Are you really that thick?
Do you understand risk percentages?

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:54 pm

We let in 20,000 because we need to help and protect these vulnerable people... but what then if 2000 of them turn out to be ISIS and then each of them kill 20 British people each in planned attacks?

That'd be 40,000 innocent British people murdered instead...!!!

I think the risks are too big to allow them here... plus this will just send out the wrong message that more can come... and they will start coming from all over the place!!

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:56 pm

Tommy still cannot work out risks.
He is more likely to get stuck on the toilet than be harmed by a terrorist

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:01 pm

Dodge... you must be the One stuck on a toilet with all the shit you constantly come out with...

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:02 pm

Ahhh Tommy has no idea about risk factors

Now why am I not surprised lol

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:13 pm

Don't talk more shit you cretin...

If we let 20,000 Syrians in And 2000 turn out to be ISIS and with a plan to all attack and kill 20 or more British people at the same time in various parts of The UK... then that will be 40,000 British people murdered.

There is a significant high risk that 2000 of them will be ISIS fighters and that they will have plans to attack and kill British people and/or blow up targets.

We already have huge numbers of suspected terrorists for our securitm services to monitor... And we are struggling to monitor all these already... so of course we don't need another 2000 potential ISIS terrorists to monitor too

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:17 pm

Again you have more chance of being hit by lightening than being a victim of a terrorist attack. Its about weighing up the risks. Not only that you have to then weigh up the risk value of the people you are letting in. How many are Christian. They have to be deducted from your numbers, then druze, then other denominations then we are left with the Muslim figure, so we then take away children from this factor and before you know it Tommy your numbers have shrunk dramatically. Then off this number all could be genuine refugees and your claim is utterly flawed. You are at more risk from a homegrown terrorist more so than from refugees coming here.
You have offered nothing but hearsay and bullshit which is why you are a dumbass
ha ha ha

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:18 pm

So your claims are unfounded and you offer no methodology are risk factors to your claim, until you do you thick twat, best you go and have a good cry again ha ha ha

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:28 pm

You can waffle the figures all you like dodge... but it is highly possible that 10% of The 20,000 Syrians we are planning to let in are in fact ISIS fighters.

That is 2000 out of The 20,000.

And a huge headache to our national security and forces.

What if they all have a shared plan to simultaneously attack and kill as many British people as possible at the same given time and date in various different parts of The country?

If they all kill 20 people each then that is 40,000 British people murdered for trying to help 20,000 Syrians...

How can you be sure that 10% of these proposed 20,000 are not ISIS fighters with a plan to murder thousands of British people when given the chance!?

They are already in safe countries so should stay put and The best help we can give to them And ourselves is financial aid plus foo, shelter and medical aid.

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:29 pm

Ha Ha ha

You did not answer a single point and made the same unfounded claims

Game over

I do not waste my time with idiots

You had your chance and still came out with the same horseshit

Too easy

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:34 pm

Wasting your time dodge...!!!???

You seem to always have an awful lot of time to waste on here every day when you are supposed to be at work...!!!

But we all know that this IS your job!!!

lol!

Anyway...

How can you be sure that 10% of these proposed 20,000 are not ISIS fighters with a plan to murder thousands of British people when given the chance!?

They are already in safe countries so should stay put and The best help we can give to them And ourselves is financial aid plus foo, shelter and medical aid.

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:36 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:

do you stand outside holding metal when there is a lightning storm, you might as well there are more mundane ways of dying..

now do you understand the idiocy of your argument...

Are you really that thick?
Do you understand risk percentages?

suddenly you understand risk percentages yet you think letting 20000 refugees with no documentation on them in to this country is a good idea....

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:36 pm

Any methodology to Twatty's claim?

Nope

Any risk factors?

Nope

Is he a dummy?

Yep

ha ha

Lets allow Twatty the last word again because he clearly does not understand maths and just makes up numbers which makes no sense

cheers

I shall wait until someone who knows what they are talking about comes on, you just embarrassed yourself again

lol!

Bye Twatty

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 pm

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Are you really that thick?
Do you understand risk percentages?

suddenly you understand risk percentages yet you think letting 20000 refugees with no documentation on them in to this country is a good idea....

Do you always avoid going out in the rain?

Do you avoid crossing the main roads?

Do you avoid driving?

Work out the risks and then you will see why you are being an idiot

Now I have worked today

Bye

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Wasting your time dodge...!!!???

You seem to always have an awful lot of time to waste on here every day when you are supposed to be at work...!!!

But we all know that this IS your job!!!

Anyway...

How can you be sure that 10% of these proposed 20,000 are not ISIS fighters with a plan to murder thousands of British people when given the chance!?

They are already in safe countries so should stay put and The best help we can give to them And ourselves is financial aid plus foo, shelter and medical aid.

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:04 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:

suddenly you understand risk percentages yet you think letting 20000 refugees with no documentation on them in to this country is a good idea....

Do you always avoid going out in the rain?

Do you avoid crossing the main roads?

Do you avoid driving?

Work out the risks and then you will see why you are being an idiot

Now I have worked today

Bye

lol another huge problem, I can try to be careful. I can stop driving...

I cannot stop ,my idiot leaders letting potential terrorists in...

but again while we are on risk assessment..

what are the possible risks of letting 20000 un documented refugees in to a country....??

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:08 pm

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Do you always avoid going out in the rain?

Do you avoid crossing the main roads?

Do you avoid driving?

Work out the risks and then you will see why you are being an idiot

Now I have worked today

Bye

lol another huge problem, I can try to be careful. I can stop driving...

I cannot stop ,my idiot leaders letting potential terrorists in...

but again while we are on risk assessment..

what are the possible risks of letting 20000 un documented refugees in to a country....??

But you have a far greater risk of harm in all these situations than you do with refugees.
So why is it you take far greater risks but then contradict yourself claiming risks from refugees which is minimal? You offer the smallest risk going compared to what you answered above on the questions?
It shows you are an utter hypocrite who cannot argue off risk, when you take far greater risks all the time.

Here ends the lesson for the complete dummy again

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:11 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:

lol another huge problem, I can try to be careful. I can stop driving...

I cannot stop ,my idiot leaders letting potential terrorists in...

but again while we are on risk assessment..

what are the possible risks of letting 20000 un documented refugees in to a country....??

But you have a far greater risk of harm in all these situations than you do with refugees.
So why is it you take far greater risks but then contradict yourself claiming risks from refugees which is minimal? You offer the smallest risk going compared to what you answered above on the questions?
It shows you are an utter hypocrite who cannot argue off risk, when you take far greater risks all the time.

Here ends the lesson for the complete dummy again

you still can't debate without insult...

but many things are avoidable... your country taking in potential terrorists is not avoidable..

what is the risk of one or more of them being terrorists??

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:16 pm

The risks are high and very real...

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:16 pm

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

But you have a far greater risk of harm in all these situations than you do with refugees.
So why is it you take far greater risks but then contradict yourself claiming risks from refugees which is minimal? You offer the smallest risk going compared to what you answered above on the questions?
It shows you are an utter hypocrite who cannot argue off risk, when you take far greater risks all the time.

Here ends the lesson for the complete dummy again

you still can't debate without insult...

but many things are avoidable... your country taking in potential terrorists is not avoidable..

what is the risk of one or more of them being terrorists??

That is because you are an ignorant idiot as seen

You clearly take bigger risks and thus have no case to argue off a smaller risk, than the ones you openly choose

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:21 pm

Don't be a twat with that bogus argument...

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Don't be a twat with that bogus argument...

You are that thick, I have given the percentages of terrorism compared to other risks.
As seen the risk of terrorism here is very small, even more so of being effected by any here.
You offer nothing of any methodology or any maths or any expert that can challenge my facts.
That is because you are such an idiot Twatty

Laughing

Now stop wasting my time with your bullshit

Put up or run along you pathetic little runt

I would happily swap to have a million refugees here to get rid of you

lol!

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:28 pm

Does the risk of terrorism increase or decrease when allowing thousands more potential terrorist into your country...?

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:35 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:

you still can't debate without insult...

but many things are avoidable... your country taking in potential terrorists is not avoidable..

what is the risk of one or more of them being terrorists??

That is because you are an ignorant idiot as seen

still insulting them!!!!!!!!

You clearly take bigger risks and thus have no case to argue off a smaller risk, than the ones you openly choose

i may take bigger risks but many are of choice, my choice but without any risk assessment how do you know how many of this 20000 are terrorists or support terrorism...??

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:37 pm

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

That is because you are an ignorant idiot as seen

still insulting them!!!!!!!!

You clearly take bigger risks and thus have no case to argue off a smaller risk, than the ones you openly choose

i may take bigger risks but many are of choice, my choice but without any risk assessment how do you know how many of this 20000 are terrorists or support terrorism...??

If you take bigger risks you have no justification about far smaller risks, it proves you are a hypocrite and contradicting yourself. I have shown you the risk values.

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:39 pm

Don't conflate risks of different activities and of life in general.

We are talking about the increasing risk of terrorism and national security.

And do you like my new avatar dodge?

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:40 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:

i may take bigger risks but many are of choice, my choice but without any risk assessment how do you know how many of this 20000 are terrorists or support terrorism...??

If you take bigger risks you have no justification about far smaller risks, it proves you are a hypocrite and contradicting yourself. I have shown you the risk values.

lol have you shown me the risk value of bringing 20000 refugees from a known terrorist area???

i must have missed that...

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:41 pm

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

If you take bigger risks you have no justification about far smaller risks, it proves you are a hypocrite and contradicting yourself. I have shown you the risk values.

lol have you shown me the risk value of bringing 20000 refugees from a known terrorist area???

i must have missed that...

Well considering we have been taking in refugees for years, how many terrorist attacks have we had from refugees or former refugees?

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:53 pm

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/sweden-ikea-witness-asylum-seeker-had-cut-at-least-one-head-off-the-attack-was-a-terrorist-act/

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:56 pm

So Tommy now thinks we are Sweden I guess and goes off and anti Muslim article that gets the crime wrong and is not a terrorist act at all.

You cannot make it up how desperate Twatty is

So terrorism from refugees in the UK?

Back later to see what evidence is presented next.

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:00 pm

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e4_1366641037

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:02 pm

Plus weren't the Boston bombers asylum seekers?

And wasn't one of lee rigby's murderers an asylum seeker?

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Plus weren't the Boston bombers asylum seekers?

And wasn't one of lee rigby's murderers an asylum seeker?

good points there...

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:06 pm

So yet more hearsay about Russian exiles now and even then why has there been no terrorist attacks since that article which is over 2 years old? 2013 and you have no Russian exiles commit an act of terror?
How desperate are you Tommy
The risks are still minimal.

Laters

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:09 pm

Asylum is now just used by the majority as a way to get into and to stay in our country and get free housing and money etc... then to bring over their families for the same

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Asylum is now just used by the majority as a way to get into and to stay in our country and get free housing and money etc... then to bring over their families for the same

Hearsay bullshit showing you make up bullshit to fit your racist agenda

When you repeat drivel Twatty, its get easily rubbished

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:12 pm

The more Muslims here the more risk..

Plus huge risk that significant numbers of 'Syrian refugees' are in fact ISIS terrorist fighters being invited in freely to carry out terrorist acts against the British people.

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:12 pm

The more Muslims here the more risk..

Plus huge risk that significant numbers of 'Syrian refugees' are in fact ISIS terrorist fighters being invited in freely to carry out terrorist acts against the British people.

by Guest Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:12 pm

Still failing to understand risks again.
Just making yet poor claims

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:14 pm

Oh I understand risks very well dodge... it's a shame you lefties have not even thought about risks here...

by Sponsored content