1 in 20 million chance in dying from terrorism

>1 in 20 million chance in dying from terrorism
>1 in 9 million chance of being struck by lightning twice
Why should I care Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should
lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml
wncn.com/2016/01/12/odds-of-winning-powerball-jackpot-less-than-being-hit-by-lightning-twice/
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
thereligionofpeace.com
knomad.org/docs/working_papers/KNOMAD Working Paper 1 Dadush Effect of Low Skilled Labor.pdf
dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890.
reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su
cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
youtube.com/watch?v=qD833nztAdw
muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/sweden-migrants-responsible-for-95-of-all-crimes-overrepresented-by-430/
pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence,
muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/sweden-migrants-responsible-for-95-of-all-crimes-
ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Your numbers are incorrect.

reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should
lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml
wncn.com/2016/01/12/odds-of-winning-powerball-jackpot-less-than-being-hit-by-lightning-twice/

Terrorism can be prevented, lightening cannot.

...

>100% chance of dying in your lifetime
Why should anyone care? And yet they do, the get into their cars every morning and commute off to work, like busy little drones, mindless of everything save their immediate predicament. Nihilism is the key, but the frailty of the human mind prevents most from welcoming the truth, much less realizing it.

It's 1 in 10 if you're German.

I'm very very sure the chance of being killed in a racist attack is lower than both. So you shouldn't be concerned about racism.

>2011

>chances of dying to terrorism are so low, what's wrong with importing a few million muslims?
>almost no one ever gets struck by lighting, so why shouldn't I fly this kite on top of a hill in a thunderstorm?
Yeah, your chances are pretty low, but you can greatly increase them by being retarded

Yes it can
Then even if all terrorism occurs in Germany, only one in 2 million people lives in germany so Germany has a population of 3500

>implying lightning travels through a kite string
LOL

1 chance to avoid your trial
3 days remaining

>implying dying is the only problem created by mudslimes

>forgetting the 60 decillion

Nice sources, faggot.

I don't even need to explain why the first is shit, the second doesn't provide context, and the third doesn't cite any facts.

Ban metal umbrellas and walking out in open fields

>Chance of dying increases by 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
You can still fear terrorism its just something that you have to acknowledge is effectively irrelevant to the quality of your life. The lightning strike comparison is just meant to emphasise that likely you or no one you know has ever been adversely impacted by a lighting strike and that terrorism is even less likely to do so.

because the pentagon isn't already eating enough of our budget...

a terrorism attack could destroy a country's economy and way of life, lightning is another jewish trick don't believe in it

It will travel through anything with less resistance than air, and I think a cotton string soaked with rain just might do the trick

You can't stop lightning immigrating into your country. You can reduce the likelihood of islamic terrorists killing people in your country to zero.

Why don't you go stand under a tree during a thunderstorm and find out?

...

rare

Because it's the tip of the iceberg when the shitskins do something on a magnitude that even the liberal media has to cover it.

99% of stuff that shitskins do is never covered by MSM at all and you need to educate yourself on those habbenings or trends, but I assure you that people never study about it, since "lol politiks is buuring I gud beter stuff 2 do xD"

When Estonia was communist, for example, it was even more extreme. The Chernobyl disaster, for example, was only ever revealed inside the soviet union via mass media when swedes started to complain about the increase of radiation on their lands via radioactive rain. Until that, the commies never wanted to reveal that, because they openly stated that revealing this is "damaging to the nation", and they had no concept of freedom of speech.

Now imagine a world where a nuclear plant explodes 400km to your home, but the government forbids the media to report this, so you will live to shitpost in comfort of your home that "lul world is a beautiful, peaceful place", and when you do get struck by the radiation and die from radiation poisoning, it's already too late, but you could have prevented this threat when you would've increased your effort to consume the information from channels where people are really critical thinkers, and bring up lots of controversies about your home land.

The same way you do not hug a lightning rod in a storm, you should not import sandniggers

>Racism is only bad when people die

I hope your not serious. You have to realise even with recent terror attacks compared to the population of the US it wouldn't shift the needle one iota.

Its just not an argument though that you shouldn't accept muslim refugees because terrorism. Your greatly increasing something thats already so insignificant as to not be at all relevant.

Among a significant portion of the population, the political will exists to ban terrorism, essentially.

So why not remove a cause of death if the political will exists to remove it? So what if other causes of death exist--the will does not exist to remove those.

Your refusal to eliminate a cause of death for which the political will to remove it exists is arbitrary and sadistic.

Also
>human beings
>not understanding they will prioritize direct threats to life most primarily from those sources of foreigners: unpredictable yet intelligent (relative to natural forces), the worst type of danger.

classic Rothschild Zionist statistics, nice try David Rockefeller

>Ban metal umbrellas and walking out in open fields
Let's say the government does this stupid shit. Now you have a decreased chance in getting killed by lightning, so the ratio of Muslim terrorists killing you increases.
The question is, how do we prevent people from getting killed by muzzies you dumb libshit.

islam is garbage tho
kys

>I don't even need to explain why the first is shit
Actually you do

There are plenty of ways that we could reduce lightning strikes but its stupid to even contemplate doing so because nobody is struck by lightning

Chances are I'll be fine

You want the news to cover every single rape, murder and robbery?

But nothings going to happen either way

The point was its fucking stupid to ban walking in open fields and carrying metal umbrellas because both are retarded measures for a non-issue. The same goes for banning all Muslims because it increases my chance of dying by some insanely tiny fraction.

Its not about being personally affected by a terrorist attack but about them happening it would make sense if those were the odds of the attacks ever happening but its not, people have seen the attacks happen and it upsets people you are basically saying that since its unlikely that youd be hurt in an attack that you should not worry about it and accept them as part of modern life

>how-scared-of-terrorism-should

I don't even need to click on that link to see its BS

It's not the terrorism I'm worried about
It's the massive cultural subversion and the loss of identity along with the future of my children under sharia if Islam is taken to it's logical conclusions that I AM CONCERNED WITH.

We want to keep it those odds slim, Chuck.

So if you could you would ban metal umbrellas merely for the fact that less people will die from lightning strikes?

So is there no point at which you stop caring no matter what the measure even if it saves one life we should follow through with it?

Why are all my stats always jew/rothschild propaganda

Pic related rate of violent in Germany over time

A true rationalist

So let's just abandon all insurance, we could just as easily not die from something, right!

Strict immigration policy is because they do not want to associate with muzzies who have jihad instructions for the infidel and jizya all in their book, but with normal human beings.

>You want the news to cover every single rape, murder and robbery?
I am just telling you why you can't rely 100% on MSM news. I know they are not going to change, it's us that have to dig deeper.

It shifted across Europe something fierce and would hit the us if we voted Hillary in

Importing millions of Muslims isn't walking in a thunderstorm with an umbrella; it's forcing everyone around you to do it whether they want to or not.

You're missing the point. I didn't talk about saving lives.

I talked about the public's will, and the reason for it. Saving lives is one thing, protecting against danger from unpredictable human beings is another.

The predictability makes the significant difference. You can largely plan against being struck by lightning if you choose. Terrorism is too random.


That's why you should care, and that's why the public does.

Yeah desu if because of something due to some modern industry developed that produced a disease that killed 1 in 20 million people I wouldn't give af

That's at least a more valid concern. Its retarded to suggest that at any point in the future your children will be living under sharia as long as they stay in the US

>So let's just abandon all insurance, we could just as easily not die from something, right!
People insure for events that in the long run tend to be statistically likely though. Would you personally take out terrorist insurance?

>Strict immigration policy is because they do not want to associate with muzzies who have jihad instructions for the infidel and jizya all in their book
And of course all we should also treat all christians as if they follow their religious text word for word

Compare violent crime rates among different people.
There are demographic trends to be observed; rational people operate with respect to that information.
Also argue first for the dissolution of a racially homogenous society. In what way is mass immigration of dependents viable/necessary?

We immigrate them because they will give us tons of money? Factually incorrect, as minorities are always disproportionately represented in welfare consumption. Also see pic related.

We allow them entry into our nations because it will help them not be poor? Watch the video: youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

>reminder that shills who post slide threads cannot make coherent arguments when confronted with reality

>chance of being raped by niggermuslims 10.000% higher than by a Swede in Sweden
>BUT IF YOU TURN THE NUMBERS SO LONG IT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL NUMBER THEN OMG ITS LIKE LITERALLY NOTHING YOU FUCKING RACIST STORMWEENIES! LETS IMPORT MORE NIGGERMUSLIMS AND WATCH THEM BREED UNTIL WE END UP LIKE AFRICA!

>Would you personally take out terrorist insurance?
Depends, how many at-risk people in my area? What do they believe? Do they believe that I should pay jizya for being an infidel? Or are they champagne Muslims eating/having their cake at the same time, being a Muslim (which means operating against the infidel) and being a peaceful westerner.

>treat all christians as if they follow their religious text word for word
thereligionofpeace.com
Come again? When was the last time some Christian decided to be pants-on-head retarded and barbaric, like bombing an airport?

>applying arbitrary stastics to terrorism

your odds of dying from muslim sand niggers increase by 10,000 if you work in an area that is target for muslims. such as an airport or an office building

>Muslims
>non-issue

Far more lightning strikes than Muslims, you haven't accounted for people killed per Muslims/lightning strike.
Also, if we banned Muslims from coming in, we wouldn't find ourselves in a massive fucking cultural shift. How many Burgas have you seen going to woolies? Shit's already changing to accomodate muzzies. Our economy works best with closed fucking borders.

>chance of being killed by Niggermuslim terrorist 3.000% higher than by a European in Europe
>BUT IF YOU TURN THE NUMBERS SO LONG IT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL NUMBER THEN OMG ITS LIKE LITERALLY NOTHING YOU FUCKING RACIST STORMWEENIES! LETS IMPORT MORE NIGGERMUSLIMS AND WATCH THEM BREED UNTIL WE END UP LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST! SO RATIONAL!

She had the same vetting policy as Trump

>I talked about the public's will, and the reason for it
Its only the publics will because every time 5 people die in a terror attack its covered on all news outlets for days on end.

>You can largely plan against being struck by lightning if you choose. Terrorism is too random.
That's completely backwards. If you wanted to you could ban all Muslims and end all Islamic terrorism whereas even if you took every measure conceivable by random chance you would still have people being struck by lightning

>In what way is mass immigration of dependents viable/necessary?
Economic benefit, not necessary but viable

>Factually incorrect, as minorities are always disproportionately represented in welfare consumption
And thats all they ever do

"But, on the positive side of the ledger, the list of benefits of unskilled migration is long: unskilled migrants complement native skilled workers and many unskilled native workers enabling them to specialize in more highly paid jobs; they benefit owners of capital; they raise demand in key sectors such as housing, health care, travel; they reduce the cost of providing non-traded services enabling, for example, the highly educated to participate in the labor force instead of carrying out household chores or caring for children and the elderly; they are essential to firms competing in labor intensive activities such as agriculture and garments; they appear to boost economy wide productivity in the long term because of the scale, specialization, and flexibility they contribute to production. Most arrive young, single, and eager to work, and become net contributors to the government budget over decades, and though most stay, many return to their home country, often without benefiting from pensions available to native workers."


And thats only talking unskilled migrants

>Economic benefit, not necessary but viable
So why put in extraneous effort for the unnecessary? If you can't make an argument for it, then why bother?
>And thats all they ever do
Illogical statement, you just refuted your "economic benefit" claim. If they get caught in the welfare loop, then how are they a "benefit"? What mental gymnastics to you need to deploy?
>"But, on the positive side of the ledger, the list of benefits of unskilled migration is long: unskilled migrants complement native skilled workers and many unskilled native workers enabling them to specialize in more highly paid jobs; they benefit owners of capital; they raise demand in key sectors such as housing, health care, travel; they reduce the cost of providing non-traded services enabling, for example, the highly educated to participate in the labor force instead of carrying out household chores or caring for children and the elderly; they are essential to firms competing in labor intensive activities such as agriculture and garments; they appear to boost economy wide productivity in the long term because of the scale, specialization, and flexibility they contribute to production. Most arrive young, single, and eager to work, and become net contributors to the government budget over decades, and though most stay, many return to their home country, often without benefiting from pensions available to native workers."

See the Hoppe quote. Please refute the central point.
>ey esse we do de jobz u no wanna do
Well, create the supply in your own homelands instead of leeching off of others.

>That's completely backwards.
Not at all, on an individual level. If you don't want to be struck by lightning then just stay indoors when it rains. Avoid terrorism? How? By avoiding major cities? Fuck that. Too high of a price to pay when we can just.....

>ban all Muslims and end all Islamic terrorism
Exactly my plan.

knomad.org/docs/working_papers/KNOMAD Working Paper 1 Dadush Effect of Low Skilled Labor.pdf

>We allow them entry into our nations because it will help them not be poor?
That's a side benefit but not the primary one.

I'm talking about terrorism though, increased crime is actually a more valid concern. Even then though its not exactly the case that crime sky-rocketed in Sweden

>Also, if we banned Muslims from coming in, we wouldn't find ourselves in a massive fucking cultural shift
We're not though

>How many Burgas have you seen going to woolies?
If you mean burka then none, but I live in Perth. If you mean burger then fkn heaps.

>Our economy works best with closed fucking borders.
I hope your not serious

>Terrorism*
>non-issue

pretty cool you cite an article from before the recent explosion of terrorist attacks in the west

also lightning strikes cant be minimized terrorist attacks can

>That's a side benefit but not the primary one.
Asses the rebuttal before making your claim: youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

>knomad.org/docs/working_papers/KNOMAD Working Paper 1 Dadush Effect of Low Skilled Labor.pdf
If these low skilled workers are such a benefit, why could they not apply their skill set in their own nations? What obligation do Western nations have to provide them with opportunities? If they cannot make it for themselves, why should others pick up the scraps? If we decide to be reasonable and assign agency to these immigrants for the current state of their homeland, then we can also say that we are shipping over the same mindset/problems that made their homelands shit in the first place.

Watch the video and read the quote, then refute them.

Fucks sake leaf. Read something more thought out than Tumblr posts you pseudo-intellectual dork.

Why wouldn't you care about either of those things?

We were instructed as children to know what to do in case of a huge storm, where should you go, what should you wear if you go out.

Who wouldn't want to minimize the harm done to society?

Also,
>America

has such low terrorism numbers because they protect themselves excessively. Those numbers would be way different in Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan. Or even Tunisia and Turkey.

We avoid lightning tho, it's low because we take precautions. We should take precautions when dealing with sandniggers as well.

>Depends, how many at-risk people in my area?
Alright considering the factors presented at what probability of being a victim of a terror attack would you consider taking out terror insurance?

>Come again? When was the last time some Christian decided to be pants-on-head retarded and barbaric, like bombing an airport?
Didn't a christian bomb an abortion clinic in the US not long ago?

>So why put in extraneous effort for the unnecessary?
I mean its not necessary to provide public education either but a country is undoubtedly better off because of it.

>Illogical statement, you just refuted your "economic benefit" claim
It would only be the case that they are a net economic negative like you said because they soak up welfare if that were to be all they ever do

> If they get caught in the welfare loop, then how are they a "benefit"? What mental gymnastics to you need to deploy?
The below conclusion of the meta-study on the topic of low-skilled immigration sums it up pretty well

>See the Hoppe quote. Please refute the central point.
Hoppe doesn't actually refute the fact that immigration skilled or unskilled is a net economic benefit he just makes the point that if one is to accept the research that there is still an argument that negative factors such as crime, culture etc. outweigh the economic positive. I'd probably point him to the relatively stable German crime rates and Swedish crime rates despite accelerating immigration as well as the BKA report finding that refugees in Germany have not increased crime rate dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890.

As for cultural factors I'd point to such evidence as muslims in the US being more accepting of gays than many major christian sects reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su

>not an argument

Do you walk out in the middle of a field with a 10m antenna whenever there is a thunderstorm? No? Well that's what your government does for you when they fuck up immigration control.

>terrorism is acted out on the human species
>terrorism is and will always only be the past acts of terrorists from today
>terrorism is anything like lightning

what dumb faggot fed you this analogy? can i convince you other than berating you for being a fucking retard?

>Alright considering the factors presented at what probability of being a victim of a terror attack would you consider taking out terror insurance?
Can be outright avoided by not admitting those who have a book that they demonstrate they practice: thereligionofpeace.com

>Didn't a christian bomb an abortion clinic in the US not long ago?
Citation. Compared to the links in that? Go and read the link up there.

>I mean its not necessary to provide public education either but a country is undoubtedly better off because of it.
To their own citizens, yes. They are not responsible for other nations and their lack of education or otherwise.

>they are a net economic negative like you said because they soak up welfare if that were to be all they ever do
But minorities do use up welfare much more than other groups. For example, in the US: cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

>The below...
I await the mental gymnastics.

>the point that if one is to accept the research that there is still an argument that negative factors such as crime, culture etc.
Yes. Refute that. There is no obligation to accept them in.

>dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890.
iagovar.com/how-are-refugees-andor-migrants-in-germany-related-to-crime/#Conclusions
www.unz.com/akarlin/immigrant-crime-in-germany/
Here's Sweden: youtube.com/watch?v=qD833nztAdw
muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/sweden-migrants-responsible-for-95-of-all-crimes-overrepresented-by-430/

>muslims in the US being more accepting of gays than many major christian sects
Wow, are you telling me without the theological, totalitarian government, Muslims can afford to be "champagne" Muslims? What a surprise? Kind of like how they can eat pork, drink, not wear hijab, etc. What Muslims, how devout! Certainly not cherry-picking!
pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

What about car accidents, gun deaths, and deaths from chemical pollution ?

Is there a single day of the week this shill doesn't lie?

...

It's not the 0.001% of Muslims that are terrorists that's the problem.

It's the 99% of Muslims who want to see your church replaced with a mosque, brown people owning all the region's wealth through relentless political and financial nepotism, and your granddaughter forced into the local imam's harem because the bride price of white pussy is the only way non-Muslims can afford to eat after they've paid jizya tax.

That's a far more disturbing and plausible prospect to me than actually getting Snackbar'd.

also its 1 in 350,000 chance for you to die in terrorism, frenchie

>0 percent chance of getting super powers from a terrorist attack
>1 in 9 million chance of getting super powers from a lightning strike

Your numbers are bullshit

The German truck attack last month killed 12 people. 12/ 82 million Germans = 1 out of about 6.8 million. That's just ONE terrorist attack, in what has been relatively speaking the safest country in Western Europe (compared to France or Belgium, for example), and the number is STILL less than a third your stat.

Your source must have literally pulled their numbers out of thin air because even some basic fact-checking shows it has no conceivable basis in reality.

>Too high of a price to pay when we can just.....
And not going out whenever it rains isn't?

>Exactly my plan.
If some new industrial process was developed that would have all kind of economic benefit but impact 1 in 20 million people with some rare but fatal disease would you ban use of the process?

Still an insanely small number, I couldn't imagine its somehow over twice as likely now

But his entire argument assumes that I accept immigrants for humanitarian reasons when I don't. If my only interest was helping the foreign impoverished then I would concentrate on aid over immigration

>If these low skilled workers are such a benefit, why could they not apply their skill set in their own nations?
Simply not possible. Nothing close to the same established industry in the first world and thus less job opportunities. Also these are unskilled workers, they have no skill set.

>What obligation do Western nations have to provide them with opportunities?
Syria wouldn't be in the state that it is currently in if Iraq had never been invaded. That point isn't even necessary though because its beneficial to us even otherwise

>If we decide to be reasonable and assign agency to these immigrants for the current state of their homeland, then we can also say that we are shipping over the same mindset/problems that made their homelands shit in the first place.
What do you think caused the Syrian civil war?

>Who wouldn't want to minimize the harm done to society?
Yeah but Its just not the role of the government to be stopping every conceivable threat to my person

>Those numbers would be way different in Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan. Or even Tunisia and Turkey.
Countries with completely different situations to the west

>We avoid lightning tho
Do you not go out at all that day if theres a chance of lightning?

Getting struck by lightning isn't necessarily fatal. "Dying from terrorism" is.

>Its just not an argument though that you shouldn't accept muslim refugees because terrorism.
Indeed. It's correct to say you shouldn't accept muslim, arab and african immigration because of the culture of violence and rape they bring with them. Terrorism is only a small part of what they do to the countries they migrate to. More like the new year's fireworks or a birthday celebration for them than an actual threat.

Not in Europe.

>I accept immigrants for humanitarian reasons when I don't.
Then that leaves economic benefit, which is not a viable argument. Consider the World Bank birth rates for the nations that these immigrants come from:
Morocco: 2.71
Algeria: 2.82
Saudi Arabia: 2.7
Syria: 3.00
Iraq: 4.09
Afghanistan: 5.14
Somalia: 6.67
Pakistan: 3.26

Now, for the host nations:
Sweden: 1.91
France: 2.01
Germany: 1.38
Norway: 1.85
U.K.: 1.90
Belgium: 1.79

If you tell me that you will give me $1 billion if I accept all these "refugees", I will decline because it means I lose my national identity within a few generations. There is more than simply material wealth, like Hoppe said.

>Simply not possible.
Yes, I am asking WHY, WHAT about these immigrants is it that simply cannot create these "established industries", like you say. Why should we take them in?

>Syria wouldn't be in the state that it is currently in if Iraq had never been invaded.
>What do you think caused the Syrian civil war?
So a Jewish lobby pushing for wars in order to achieve Greater Israel by destabilizing the Jews' neighbours is a burden that must be forgiven by the taxpayer? I'm an isolationist, I didn't agree with attacking those nations to conserve the Petrodollar and I sure as shit don't want it now.

This

You shouldn't, you should be worried about women getting raped by mudslimes.

Mudslime mosques calling for prayers in your country.

Having to be in the same country with a mudslime.

Those chances increase exponentially when you start letting durkas in.

Let's put it this way.

Terrorism isn't aimed completely random, it's aimed at perceived enemies of islam, this includes entertainment like charlie hebdo and south park, but also political commentators like filmmaker theo van gogh.

Imagine every politician fearing to enact policies that are in any way not what muslims want and every political commentator not telling the truths about islam.

On top of that, imagine immigration causing more and more muslims to be in your country. Now you might think, three times as much muslims will only increase the chance to be similar to lightning death.

But that is underestimating the increased radicalization as they willingly ghettoize, willingly form enclaves and grow bolder by seeing their numbers increasingly stronger. It's not linear growth, it's exponential, much like facebook is increasingly valuable the more people are on it.

The question isn't the current risk of terrorism, the question is how our policies will increase or decrease the risk of terrorism, as well as the assault on free speech and free thought.

Why don't you go fly a kite in a thunder storm then? Meanwhile, I'll keep being islamophobic, kthxbye.

I don't believe in terrorism, I do believe in fake news though. I actually have 1 in 1 chance to hit a fake news every time I watch the news on my TV.

Oy vey! Shut ze lightning down!
Ze goyim know!!!

Nihilism is literally degenerate garbage.

The comparison is making the point that the threat of lightning to you or any think you know is many orders of magnitude greater than the threat of terrorism and that both are likely to never impact you personally in any way.

>Can be outright avoided by not admitting those who have a book that they demonstrate they practice
Okay then Australia should no longer accept immigrants from Canada, US, Ireland, France or Finland as all have slightly higher homicide rates. Even if we save six lives it'll totally be worth it.

>Citation. Compared to the links in that? Go and read the link up there.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence, no there are more islamic terrorists

>To their own citizens, yes. They are not responsible for other nations and their lack of education or otherwise.
What? The point I was making that just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Nothing to do with foreigners recieving educations.

>But minorities do use up welfare much more than other groups. For example, in the US
Yes but in the long run pretty much all studies conclude this is balanced out and figures out to a net economic positive

>Yes. Refute that. There is no obligation to accept them in.
Did I not?

>iagovar.com/how-are-refugees-andor-migrants-in-germany-related-to-crime/#Conclusions
This seems to be looking at crime as a whole and not violent crime or rape alone

>www.unz.com/akarlin/immigrant-crime-in-germany/
BKA report found otherwise

>Here's Sweden:
Funny how he leaves out the opening up of the definition of rape in Sweden over time. His crime rates also don't seem to be consistent with the NTU results

>muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/sweden-migrants-responsible-for-95-of-all-crimes-
Sure in many circumstances immigrants will commit more violent crimes however the economic positives and inconsistency of rising crime rates leaves it to be a net positive

because the increase in terrorism is a symptom of the demographic change that is the real problem

>1 in 20 million chance of an Aussie not shitposting

nice sources
sage, aussie shit dicks are out now

Because you getting killed is not the only issue you fucking kike. There is all of the economic damage that follows.

And as far as just letting niggers in, and only worrying about "terrorism" is retarded as well. They are a drain on welfare, housing, schools, petty crime, violent crime, public health, you name it.

Pic very related. It's you.

Because if you don't deal with terrorism chances would rise, ulike with the lightning.

They also say you have a better chance of dying by a meteor ending the world....

So I'll just use common sense to know that the statistics are bullshit.

>Wow, are you telling me without the theological, totalitarian government, Muslims can afford to be "champagne" Muslims?
Or maybe they assimilated? Don't you want more muslims like this?

>It's the 99% of Muslims who want to see your church replaced with a mosque
Proofs

Source

>Your source must have literally pulled their numbers out of thin air because even some basic fact-checking shows it has no conceivable basis in reality.
Or the numbers I used were for the US and not Germany

>Then that leaves economic benefit
The reason I accept them is economic benefit but it also does humanitarian good for some

>If you tell me that you will give me $1 billion if I accept all these "refugees", I will decline because it means I lose my national identity within a few generations
Birth rates decrease as populations become wealthier and more educated, immigrants do not sustain their country of origins birth rate. I dispute the fact in any case that you'd lose your national identity, US muslims have clearly adopted mainstream US values more so than many US religious groups

>Yes, I am asking WHY, WHAT about these immigrants is it that simply cannot create these "established industries"
Because there's no demand for a Walmart or KFC in Syria, Libya or Algeria

>So a Jewish lobby pushing for wars in order to achieve Greater Israel by destabilizing the Jews' neighbours is a burden that must be forgiven by the taxpayer?
Redpill yourself ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html

You don't run around in a thunderstorm with a metal rod because the chances are small.

>Yes but in the long run pretty much all studies conclude this is balanced out and figures welfare out to a net economic positive
thats why trump won, that you believe that

For fucks sake. If we could stop lightning strikes from killing people, we would, but we can't. If we could stop muzzies killing people, we should, and we can.
If lightning changed cultures and affected people and culture negatively, we would do something about it. If we can prevent Muslims from affecting people and culture negatively, we should do something about it.
Not to mention, these fucking bearded sandshits decided to kill people. Lightning isn't conscious. If anything, you're the racist for comparing sentient Homo sapiens to a spark of electricity or some shit. You haven't convinced anyone, and your arguments are shit.

terrorism is only one of the many reasons to hate muslims tbqhwyf

>believing bullshit facebook statistics
>ignoring ISIS
>ignoring terrorist attacks

Because it's being used to take away your rights.
>destabilize countries
>invite them to yours
>???????
>terrorism
Totally not planned, you guys. All of the mistakes were really just mistakes.

your numbers are bullshit and idiotic leftists like you want to increase my chances of dying from a terror attack.

>immigrants from Canada, US, Ireland, France or Finland as all have slightly higher homicide rates.
By what rates? Consider the margins. What do they believe in?

>no there are more islamic terrorists
Correct.
>The point I was making that just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
That isn't an argument. Create an argument for your assertion.

>Yes but in the long run pretty much all studies conclude this is balanced out
Why can they not create these environments in their own homelands? Why must others pick up the scraps? Compare the early stages to the native population performances.

>Did I not?
No.

>This seems to be looking at crime as a whole and not violent crime or rape alone
Okay, but this isn't an argument. Crime is crime.

>BKA report found otherwise
Well, minorities do commit crime at rates beyond other groups. Analyze the assertions in my source, compare them to yours. The superior one triumphs.

>in many circumstances immigrants will commit more violent crimes however the economic positives and inconsistency of rising crime rates leaves it to be a net positive
Not an argument. They verifiably commit more crime, so why take them in? They take up more welfare, so why take them in? It takes effort that they could be putting into their own citizens, so why rely on long-term results? Your own citizens are the priority, not other nations' citizens.

>Don't you want more muslims like this?
No, I want Muslims in their own nations.

>The reason I accept them is economic benefit but it also does humanitarian good for some
Not an argument: youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
>as populations become wealthier and more educated
Through other nations efforts. Let them create those own circumstances in their own homelands. Oh wait...
>US muslims have clearly adopted mainstream US values more so than many US religious groups
Yeah, they they aren't Muslims anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it, too