The more Muslims we have the more this will occur. I'm not saying we should throw them out, etc., but just stating a fact. But because of this the only real way this will be controlled is by the Islamic community cleaning their own house, if that's even possible.
The other reality is that it's just a matter of time before one of these whackos gets a hold of portable nuclear device and/or a chemical/bio weapon and then the carnage will make what happened today look tame in comparison. It's coming.
What we search for is motive.
The fact is, if you're willing to preform such acts upon other humans because of ideology, then you've lost your humanity. Your morality gauge has disappeared. This can also occur because of psych meds and improper monitoring or prescribing of.
Simply put.... you're nuts, a psychopath and you need to be locked up before you have a psychotic break and become a danger to society.
As painful as it is to quote a troll, this is worth repeating.
The muzzies seem to make it easy though. We do need to get better at finding them.
Motive doesn't matter much in the moment a guy is trying to kill me, but in the big picture there is a huge difference between a lone, insane guy going postal and a sane person killing innocent people to further a cause.
No, when you loose your ability to belong to the human race and go on a rampage killing innocents, you're insane. You've lost the ability to choose life over death regardless of reasons.
Muslim ideology is group insanity taken to extreme.
The defense would love it they could convince a jury of that when this guy goes to trial.
Many thousands of innocent people have been killed by sane people certain they were doing something righteous and justifiable.
He hates this country, and he proved it for 8 years, with the worst of it yet to come. May he rot in hell.
Not that it matters much to the victims, but in my opinion there actually is a difference between the actions of a terrorist and that of a psychopath/sociopath, and we should never confuse them.
A terrorist uses violence in the pursuit of political or "religious" aims.
By labeling every psychopath and sociopath a terrorist, you in effect "normalize" terrorism, and you make it harder to identify and eradicate the true perpetrators.
Yes, there is some overlap but it is a huge mistake to conflate the two. These people are NOT mentally ill. They are lucid, intelligent and as passionate about their religion (or twisted political version thereof) as any Christian, Jew or Buddhist is of theirs. To them, these are NOT acts of violence but acts of worship.
The left would like nothing more than to lump all these people together. They want nothing more than to say that this isn't a radical Muslim thing, but a mental illness thing, and that any one of your neighbors is just as likely to commit a terrorist act as a radical Muslim. That's how we get to the ridiculousness of patting down American elementary school kids from Kansas on their way to Disneyland for spring break.
So no, the resident troll's quote does NOT need repeating. It needs to be rejected. Unless and until the LV shooter can be linked to some political or "religious" motive, it is a mistake to consider what he did, as horrendous as it was, "terrorism."
Yes, I don't believe the motive was the same with the LV shooter. We will probably never know. This incident in NY is terrorism IMO. How to stop someone from deciding to commit mass murder may be impossible. We may get lucky and stop an act of terror or a mass shooting before it happens once and a while, it's impossible to stop them all. Not with the protests against the police in this country.
Not enough evidence for Obama and his minions.....
And, no, I don't really want to get into a semantics and definitions discussion, but there is no universal, legally binding, and comprehensive definition of terrorism. The one common denominator in hundreds of different definitions around the world is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.
Next thing you know we will be "treating" them with the intent to rehabilitate. Good luck with that.
I agree with KPC. Keep the two separate.
Anyone can subscribe to the radical fringe beliefs of a religion, too. So, under your logic, the proposed remedies will involve everyone.
Personally, I think the insanity defense is hog-wash with any mass murderers. Treat them all as terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh, and give them the same sentence.
My logic is fine. It's not Buddhists or Lutherans who are going off as terrorists. It's Islamic terrorism, two words that go together so often that you almost can't say one without the other. When Buddhist terrorism becomes a commonplace term, your argument may have some validity.
If you're talking about war, then that might qualify. Americas adventurism in other countries boarders upon that mark. When we start mowing down innocents in those countries wholesale, we've left being righteous about our morals. But war by definition is an insane act against humanity when one commits the initial act. Hitler NAZI ideology against Jews was an act of insanity and then we saw group insanity take over.
Protecting oneself is not an act of insanity.
People collect justifications to commit acts of violence be it real or imagined in their mind. To act upon those justifications against innocents is an act of insanity.
I know people don't like this definition, because it makes people think I'm letting them off. No, I'm not. If they are insane, they need to be controlled in some manner that society is not impacted by that insanity.
Where's Jack Ruby when we need him?
I agree BK.
While not exactly the same, to a certain extent we saw the same type of "normalization" of the AIDS "epidemic" by the left.
AIDS has always been, and continues to be overwhelmingly spread among gay males an intravenous drug users. I wasn't until the general public was erroneously convinced that it was commonplace among non drug using heterosexuals that it got the funding and mainstream public attention that it did.
Like terrorism outside of radical Islam, AIDS infection outside of the gay and intravenous drug using communities is relatively rare. The left would like nothing more than to convince the general public that non-Muslims are just as likely to be terrorists as Muslims.
Let me ask you, Bad Karma, will you be fine with the Vegas shooter being declared insane, and getting something less than the death penalty for his crimes? I won't. Whether he yelled "allahu akbar", "Heil Hitler", or "I am Jesus Christ" afterwards makes no difference to me. He's still a terrorist, in my book.
Can you clarify what you mean by "just as likely" and back that up with some data? As best as I can tell, these are the first deaths from a radical Muslim in this country this year and every statistic I've seen says, since 9/11, I'm far more likely to be killed by a non-Muslim than I am a Muslim.
Like Matt, for me, it doesn't matter if the man that's shooting me yells "Allahu Akbar" or "white power," I kind of would just rather not be shot. When I look at the odds of what is going to harm me, radical Islam is about as far down the list as you can possibly get -- just a few notches below being shot up by an insane person at a theater or concert. A falling TV is far more likely to kill me.
I just don't get the hysteria (be it from the left on gun control after a mass shooting, or the right as it relates to their response to radical Islam). That is not to say these events aren't tragic or that this should provide any relief to the victims or their friends and families. But other tragic things happen FAR more frequently in this country.
Are we trying to create a country where no one gets hurt or dies tragically? Is that the goal we're working towards? Because if so, that comes with a HUGE cost. That is also not to say we shouldn't learn from these events and attempt to prevent them, but there's a cost-benefit analysis that needs to come in. At what point have we managed the risk to as low as reasonably practical?
Apparently, extreme vetting and immigration controls are working. I'm OK with that...
So you're saying you would be ok with Law enforcement stepping up investigations on who is a suspected terrorist or suspected mentally ill person? Or are you saying you will riot in the streets because of Police brutality?
Yeah, you can only say that, because it was less than a month before (Tashfeen Malik, San Bernadino, 12/2/2015).
I would hope the Visa and Vetting processes were stepped up a bit by that point, by Obama. Even though they initially tried to argue it was just a "workplace argument" lol.
Plus, let's not forget Omar Mateen, whose "Moderate Muslim" parents immigrated in the 80s. 50 people dead by gunfire, June 12, 2016.
Bigeasygator, apparently you missed my post when I indicated that since you don't wish to do anything but try to "win" an argument without any wish to be bound by consistency or honesty, you will be ignored. So don't waste time asking me questions until you learn how to discuss things properly.
You just answered my question. You're inclined to protest the Police for trying to keep these people from hurting the population. The Police are not the enemy.
sleepyhunter, the police departments are not the ones vetting immigrants and tracking radical activities. I will stand-up to police brutality in instances where they commit brutality. If law enforcement is asked to take action against a threat to this country, I have no problem with that.
Let's try it for 30 years and find out.
I'm glad we agree on that, but you didn't really answer my question.
How would you feel if Paddock was deemed insane and received a lesser sentence than death? And do you feel a Islamic terrorist should be afforded the same psychological analysis and a possible insanity plea?
Living where I live and doing what I do, I have a better chance of getting killed while falling out of a tree stand than by a terrorist attack. However, the tree stand manufacturers have not declared war on me...radical jihadists have. Are you suggesting that we treat a declared war the same way we would treat homicides and accidental deaths because the incidence is (so far) comparable?
The thug shooting me for the cash in my wallet doesn't have a desire to take out an entire city or take over my country if he could . The radical jihadist (terrorist) does.
Yes, I believe the response to each should be different.
Nonsense, Police are the first line of defense between the public and the criminals.
My opinion is we are doing a lot already to stop people from taking out an entire city block or taking over the country. These types of activities tend to require a lot of resources and planning that tend to raise flags and we've done a good job at preventing them post 9/11. I'm not saying we shouldn't endeavor to prevent them...we should and we are.
A guy with a van isn't going to raise flags and is only going to do so much damage. This seems to be the attack method du jour for the radical Islam crowd. I'm not scared of a guy taking over my city, and especially not my country, with a van.
So with that said, it seems to me like a lot of people aren't comfortable with the risk of a few attacks a year that seem to kill a handful of people a year and I'm trying to understand if that is, indeed, how people feel. I base that on the fact that the same crowd calls for more action on immigration and restrictions on Muslims whenever these events happen. And to that end, how much are you willing to pay (for the resources to prevent these types of things as well as the economic and societal costs these types of policies will carry) to prevent them from happening?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you BEG, but you make it sound as if this is a bus rolling over, a subway derailing, or an apartment building fire. I'm sorry, but I don't see these deaths that way.
No, I will never be "comfortable" when the killings are perpetrated by a religious/political ideology that has basically sworn to kill all those who don't submit to their twisted beliefs.
That said, IMO we seem to be living in a world where the risk of these events impacting an American is about as near zero as we can statistically get. That still doesn't seem good enough for a lot of people.
Call me a pessimist, but I can't ever see living in a world where we are able to end all radical thought and the insidious actions that they lead to. Furthermore, I feel like at some point it is a waste of resources and too high a burden to manage these threats to zero.
People are phobic about things they don't know squat about, nor do they want to learn about. In this case it's the religion of Islam in general. It's much easier to point an ignorant finger at an entire religion, than it is to learn about how the radical's beliefs differ from the vast majority of Islamic Muslims.
It's kinda like not wanting to know the ingredients of a hot dog, because that would change their opinion of them.
WIth that in mind, I'd much prefer that he be killed by any legal means, but if the best option is life incarcerated in a mental institution, that's tolerable, but not optimal.
It is identical to the left's stance on gun control and it strikes me as funny (and sad) that folks don't see the parallels in the ideologies.
There's no way to stop it. As long as people have brains, there will always be a few whose grey matter short circuits and causes them to do evil things against innocents. It hasn't changed thru-out history.
The worst thing the rest of us can do is let these anomalous people control our lives in any way, including restricting travel or our rights to bear arms.
IMO, the best thing we could do is simply shoot obvious perpetrators on the spot. The last thing I want my tax dollars spent on is feeding and housing Paddock, or this POS in NYC, for the rest of their lives in jail.
The more Muslims we have in this country the greater the possibility of things like this will occur. It's simple math. Yes, other people can and will do it, but with certain Muslims it's part of their religion, like a sacrament in some Christian faiths. At least with the Muslims we know WHY they like to murder and kill. We STILL don't know what motivated the LV killer.
This is where we apparently disagree Matt.
A mental disorder is a "short circuit."
What these radical Islamists are doing is not as a result of a mental disorder but a firmly held religious belief.
It's akin to saying that Christians who believe that the only way to eternal life is through Jesus Christ must have gray matter that has short circuited.
Both are acting out of what they believe their God expects them to do. They are taught to hate, just as Christians are taught to love.
It's not a matter of fearing what we don't understand. If we were made aware that one or two percent of Catholic churches were teaching their parishioners to kill all Jews, we would want them eradicated also. At least I know I would.
This does not sound like "a few whose grey matter short circuits and causes them to do evil things against innocents."
The problem I have with that is it assumes you have the ability of recognizing "insanity" versus someone who knows full well what he did, and the consequences of his actions. I'm pretty sure you do, but I've known attorney's who didn't possess that intuition.
And, frankly, I don't care if a mass murder was "legally insane", or not. That person is of no use to God, family, friends, or society, and will never be, so get rid of them as quickly and cost effectively as possible.
lizzie, after you mail out the sympathy cards to the statistical loser families in mourning, please provide the fraction. or ratio, at which point you would actually begin to give a sh!T
"It is identical to the left's stance on gun control and it strikes me as funny (and sad) that folks don't see the parallels in the ideologies."
OMFnG!....nevermind on that last reqest, you would still remain as near batchit F'n bonkers as one can statistically get
Muslims are not taught to hate. Radical factions misconstrue the words of the Quran to propagate hate, just like there are radical groups of Christians that do the same with the words of the Bible.
I didn't say they were. I said radical Islamists are.
Furthermore, some fundamentalist Christians believe some pretty strange things, but show me one radical Christian group that thinks all those who don't see things they way they do are to be made to submit or be killed.
The Las Vegas shooter has already gotten the death penalty.
Pay attention! ;^)
And to your analogy about extremist branches of the Catholic Church, who do you think is carrying the lion's share of the fight against radical Islam? It's the moderate Muslims of the world.
I'm to busy pontificating on the CF to pay attention. Smart azz. ;-)
Maybe Charles Manson would have been a better example. How many years have we paid for that terrorist's existence?
Is the KKK teaching that everyone who doesn't submit to their beliefs and rule be killed and they will be rewarded in heaven for doing so?
If so, both should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
obama administration MO - already been tried and a definite loser.
Like I said, I don't doubt your intuition. I do doubt the clarity of some legal and psychological crystal balls, however.
I don't think any man can truly judge what's going on in another man's mind. Only God can do that. We mere mortals can only judge a man's actions. Unfortunately, our legal system tasks attorneys, juries, and judges to interpret a man's intent, which is mostly subjective, IMO.
Go into a shopping mall and yell "Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior" and people will look at you like you're weird.
Go into a shopping mall and yell "Allahu Akbar" and people will duck for cover, and some may be pointing Glocks at you.
There is a difference.
K Cummings's Link
As will I. I don't see anyone here that suggests otherwise.
Having said that, I believe there is a difference between the two, if you don't want to see it, you won't. Contrary to what some here seem to believe, I have nothing against "Muslims" per se, I have a problem with radical Islam(ists), which is/are (even to other Muslims) a whole separate entity.
From the attached article:
Among the major distinctions (translated verbatim) made in Khadr's article are:
-Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.
-Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.
-Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.
-Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.
-Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.
-Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.
-Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad -- peace and blessing upon him -- with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.
-Radicals respect and revere every deed and every word of the prophet -- peace be upon him -- in the hadith; moderates do not.
-Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
-Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [barely tolerated subjects]; moderates oppose this [view].
-Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.
-Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.
-Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.
-Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.
-Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this [assumption].
-Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah's true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
-Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.
-Radicals accept killing young girls who commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family's honor; moderates reject this [response].
-Radicals reject the status of women today and think that the status of women today should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates oppose that women should be as in the time of the prophet.
-Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.
-Radicals agree to clitorectomies; moderates reject them.
-Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.
-Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.
-Radicals reject the terms "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic fascism"; moderates accept them.
-Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept them.
-Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West; moderates support it.
-Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it.
I don't see these people as mentally ill. They are following a religion/political system that is completely incompatible with all others.
It's amusing seeing people try to distinguish between terrorism and insanity.
Do you think Harry Truman was "insane" when he ordered atom bombs be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were the soldiers that carried out those bombings mentally ill?
Decisions and actions made during wartime are completely different than terrorist acts during peacetime. I'm surprised you'd even go there.
Excluding war examples doesn't really fit because waging war is exactly what Islamic terrorists are doing. They rationalize bombing a mall as a legitimate attack on the enemy.
We are at war with a small fringe of psychopaths who subscribe to a radical ideology that promotes killing innocent nonbelievers and suicide. They are both insane and terrorists, IMO.
It's really as simple as that for me. You can convolute the issue with subjective definitions, distinctions, and remedies that involve reading other people's minds to determine intent and sanity, but I don't care to.
Those are some great examples of radical/extremist thought. Here's a few more.
- Christian Identity (to whom Eric Rudolph subscribed) believes that that all non-whites (people not of wholly European descent) on the planet will either be exterminated or enslaved in order to serve the White race in the new Heavenly Kingdom on Earth under the reign of Jesus Christ. - The Phinaes Pristehood opposes interracial relationships, the mixing of races, homosexuality, and abortion. It is also marked by anti-Semitism, and anti-multiculturalism. - The Concerned Christians believe that the Fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 signaled "the time of the end." They interpret many biblical passages regarding the apocalypse through the lens of political events in world history. It is stated that they believe that the office of the United States President is the seat of the Antichrist. - Branch Davidian leader David Koresh saw himself as the "Lamb" in Revelation 5. - Anti-balaka have destroyed mosques and are ethnically cleansing Muslims in Africa - The Nazis believed in an Aryan Master race and as such sought to exterminate Jews, Romani and Poles along with the vast majority of other Slavs and the physically and mentally handicapped
Extremism is dangerous no matter what form it comes in. And I agree, I wouldn't necessarily label them as insane...but I think all of these folks (and lump in other mass shooters, etc) are shades of crazy that are a bit darker than the average folk.
Harry Truman was compelled to drop the bomb to save scores of American lives and end (not start) a war, not to further some crazy political or religious ideology. Even then I'm sure it was a decision he did not take lightly.
Decisions and actions made during wartime are completely different than terrorist acts during peacetime. I'm surprised you'd even go there."
I'm not surprised you won't answer the question Matt, I didn't expect you to. And no, it's not a straw man argument.
For the radical Islamist, this IS wartime. This IS their war, and it damn well should be ours. They have declared war against us, and all others who don't submit to their beliefs. The fact that you and other's won't admit that doesn't make it any less so. Just like in WWII, we should be willing to do WHATEVER is necessary to end it.
Lastly, whether or not you or I agree with the cause, their soldiers are no less committed to the outcome than our soldiers were (are) to ours. It quite literally would be like Hirohito accusing Truman and our soldiers all of being insane or mentally ill.
I'm surprised you don't (won't) see it for what it is. Is denial a mental illness?
I'm a little late to this party...
"just like there are radical groups of Christians that do the same with the words of the Bible."
Which ones are out running people over, destroying skyscrapers, beheading non-believers....
Like Itshot said above, how many have to die for you to give a shit? You remind of when GJ said it was no biggie if terrorists got a hold of a nuke. After all, what's the panic? They could only destroy a single city.
For the millionth time, statistics are not meant to provide comfort to the victims of tragedies. I've never offered these points as comfort to victims or their families. They aren't. They are, however, important in determining what policies we should establish and how we should allocate our resources. There is a huge difference between discussing facts, statistics, and numbers and trying to provide comfort to those that are grieving due to a tragedy. People here have an EXTREMELY hard time separating the two. And I will keep it up. I can't help it if you don't understand.
An easy to understand example is the military stockpile of nuclear weapons. Kyle can talk about this. The probability of error is extremely low. But the consequences of inadequate performance are so extreme that the standard is 100% for any work done.
Likewise with immigration from hotbeds of radical Islam, the risk is higher than importing folks from, say, Luxembourg. But the CIP from not vetting them can be extremely high, i.e. 9-11, and to a lesser extent, the Boston marathon bombing for two examples, or the French shootings that have resulted in massive death tolls. And many of the thwarted cases, like the people in Aurora, CO who plotted a bombing the NY subway system, a case I have some familiarity with, have a huge CIP. And it is the intent of the radical Islamic terrorists to maximize the damage they cause.
It's not an easy problem to deal with. But Trump is right to want to slow down the immigration system to minimize the probability of another major event. You can't eliminate it. But it's right to minimize the damage coming in from outside the country.
So, by your definition, Truman, Hirohito, and their respective soldiers were all terrorists. The all engaged in acts of violence for a ideological cause, after all.
You see, that's where trying to draw distinctions between mental illness and terrorism becomes a waste of time. Who are you or I to say one mass-murder is more or less sane than another? The fact that Islamic radicals promote killing innocent non-believers, and glorify suicide, makes them both mentally ill and terrorists to me.
Now, it's time for me to bow out of this discussion. When I start repeating myself to make a simple point, it's time to do something productive.
When trying to determine whether a risk is appropriately managed, we tend to discuss a term called ALARP -- as low as reasonably practical. There's a huge distinction between the word practical and possible. As low as possible is zero -- but zero is not always practical given the amount of resources that would be required to throw at the risk. So we land at a place where there are diminishing returns with regards to risk management and risk mitigation and we call that good. Sometimes these places are based on something that is easily quantifiable -- sometimes these places are much more subjective.
When I take our problem of radical Islamist terrorism and apply this lens to it, again, I have to ask the question of what is the goal we are working towards? Is it to have zero events like this happen?
I'm not saying we should be complacent with the system, but if I look at where we SEEM to be in terms of likelihood (these events are incredibly rare and by my measure this is only the second or third attack motivated by radical Islam in this country this year) and consequence (the method of attack appears to be of the lone wolf variety that resort to shooting rampages, stabbing rampages, or attacks with vehicles that result in a "relatively" few deaths a year), my opinion is that we are managing the risk pretty damn well. If our goal is preserving American lives, I struggle to see how we can do much better than we currently are.
Note that this makes the assumption that the current system is doing a good job at preventing large scale attacks that would have a much higher consequence. Personally, post 9/11, I believe that there are a number of changes to our homeland security that has improved terrorist identification, screening, and surveillance systems and that is why you haven't seen anything large scale. The resources required to carry the large scale events raise too many red flags that we are now watching for.
By your own admission, the infrastructure is already in place to limit entry from hostile areas, all it basically requires is a "rule change".
When I talk about the costs associated with preventing every terrorist event from ever entering occurring and the policies and resources that would require, it goes far beyond financial assistance to refugees (which I would posit is one of the lowest costs in that equation). Everything from beefing up our homeland security, the cost of lost intellect, and the cost of losing cheap labor, for example, would be a much bigger part of that equation than financial assistance to refugees.
Nice try but no, that's not what I said, and we both know that. You're deflecting.
I questioned whether you thought they were "mentally ill?"
Not all acts of war, offensive or defensive, are terrorism. Nor are all acts of war legal. Some acts of war and some warriors are criminal(s).
I simply do not accept the notion that all terrorists are mentally ill. Not any more than I accept the notion that all criminals are mentally ill.
Lastly, in my opinion, labeling them "mentally ill" opens a whole can of worms that we will all regret.
There are thousands of swine who fight for terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Tens of thousands. They are all mentally ill ?? Tens of thousands committing acts of terror against innocent people, not just those trying to stop them. And they are ALL mentally ill. You'd have to be mentally compromised to believe that.
Thank you, Rhody, that's the point I've tried to make all along. If part of a person's beliefs promote murdering innocent people, and glorifying suicide, that's about as mentally ill as one can get by today's societal standards.
If these bastards want a jihad, then I'll damn sure do my part to give them one.
Well there you go. They're not criminals and terrorists, they're just suffering from a mental illness. They need our help...
Why give them what they want? That just legitimizes their cause.
Instead, I say we put the convicted in a cell and offer them nothing but pork to eat. Let them starve themselves to death in the most horrendous conditions possible in front of others convicted of the same offense. Don't waste a dime on electricity, or heat, or any basic necessity besides a plate of pork and a glass of water each day. And no mercy killings when they get really sick, just let them suffer a miserable death for the sake of their psychopathic beliefs.
"Instead, I say we put the convicted in a cell and offer them nothing but pork to eat. Let them starve themselves to death in the most horrendous conditions possible in front of others convicted of the same offense. Don't waste a dime on electricity, or heat, or any basic necessity besides a plate of pork and a glass of water each day. And no mercy killings when they get really sick, just let them suffer a miserable death for the sake of their psychopathic beliefs."
Oh the irony.
ISIS does want jihad. More specifically, they want an end times battle between the armies of "Rome" and their caliphate to take place on a battlefield near Dabiq, Syria. It is part of the apocalyptic prophesy they see as core to their being. All of their attacks are not an effort to take over the world, but an effort to goad us into a final battle so that their prophecy can come true. That's what they want more than anything.
Committing illegal activity could simply be running a stop sign or driving over the speed limit. Not a realistic comparison, unless you believe 99.9% of the population is mentally ill.
thanks for the.......honesty?
But to plan and implement the best defense against such attacks they most certainly have be identified and separated. The tactics, means and intelligence needed to combat them are quite unrelated. Real world facts and realities.... yes, right now we are at war. One can chose to ignore that fact, but you can be sure the ones we are at war with will not.
WRT immigration policy....... there is absolutely no case to be made that immigration of any kind from hotbeds of radical islamists is in our best interest as a country. There is no right of immigration from anywhere for that matter. Certainly no rush to it makes any sense.
There certainly seems a push by the left to force as many as possible as fast as possible through right now. And as usual they fail to make any logical reasoning as to why it is "necessary" for the country. Take you time, vet any thoroughly...... and have a good reason as to why they are needed. A "lottery" is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard.
Unlike the fight against terrorism, oncologists do everything they possibly can to isolate and eliminate only the rapidly dividing malignant cells.
Granted, not all fast growing, rapidly dividing cells are malignant. In the treatment process, other fast growing, rapidly dividing cells, like those that make up the hair follicles, skin, and lining of the digestive tract, are also negatively affected. It isn't perfect, but it's necessary in order to keep the patient alive.
Oncologists are getting better and better at isolating just the malignant cells, and subsequently targeting and eliminating only those cells that are the problem. A lot of people are alive today (including yours truly) because we allow oncologists to do their job.
We can learn a lot from that process.
As I said earlier, you can't stop it. Violence and evil behavior has been a part of human nature thru-out history. If anything, modern society enjoys a relatively safe life compared to generations of the past.
Like I said, not all fast growing, rapidly reproducing cells are malignant, but it is definitely worth isolating and eliminating just those in an effort to do away with the ones that are. Imagine the cost, both in terms of lives and money, if oncologists were required to target all cells...just to be "fair" to the rapidly reproducing ones. I don't know about you, but I'd surely rather give up my hair for a while than give up my life. The analogy is actually quite accurate.
Surely, if we are willing to "put the convicted in a cell and offer them nothing but pork to eat. Let them starve themselves to death in the most horrendous conditions possible in front of others convicted of the same offense. Don't waste a dime on electricity, or heat, or any basic necessity besides a plate of pork and a glass of water each day. And no mercy killings when they get really sick, just let them suffer a miserable death for the sake of their psychopathic beliefs," profiling likely offenders would be much more just and humane.
We spend billions fighting violent crime of all sorts in America. Islamic terrorism is a small player at the moment in terms of overall violent crimes here, but not a small player when comes to who is committing terror attacks and the deaths from them.
If gangs in the USA want to kill each other over bad drug deals I got no problem with that. Terrorist's kill innocent victims for no reason other than they're infidels to Islam.
It's not a matter of being "capable" of doing both. It's a matter of which one should be the priority. Would you treat that paper cut before you treated an amputated leg?
As Big Bear mentioned earlier, any violence relating to the Islamic "boogie man" receives vastly more attention than daily homegrown violence on a much larger scale. Just look at how this thread has exploded in the last few days compared to the virtual silence about the Colorado Walmart shootings. Our priorities are skewed.
Roughly the same amount of non-Islamic related murders happen just in the US over the same period of time.
By all accounts, this is someone who was radicalized years after he immigrated to the USA, brainwashed by the propaganda that is out on the internet and other places. Maybe we should control the internet like the do in North Korea and China? The attack was carried out using a rental truck. Maybe we should require extensive background checks and a waiting period before anyone can rent a vehicle? Again, this all happened on US soil well after he immigrated from Uzbekistan. Maybe we should throw out our privacy rights and really open up the government's ability to monitor activities of the citizens of this country? This guys came in on the Diversity Visa Lottery program, which since 2007 has admitted 1.3 million immigrants to this country (it started in 1990 so I'm sure the total number has been a lot more than that). Maybe we should cancel the program and forego all of the positives related to immigration because literally one person out of millions ended up being a bad seed?
I'm personally not ready to go to any of those places. Again, what is the goal? Is it "safety"? If so, I really struggle to see how we can get much safer than we are as it relates to these kind of things based on the frequency they are occurring and the impact of the events. Is the goal to "stop all terrorism"? Well, if so, that's a noble cause but, just like mass shootings, I think it is downright impossible to stop crazy, lone wolf individuals without giving up a ton of my rights and freedoms and the cost is not worth the incremental improvement to the safety of our country.
The threat and risk to the country from these people is being vastly blown out of proportion, and too many of y'all are lapping it up. I don't understand the fear. Do you know how many things out there kill more than eight people a year?
There is no difference. One guy with a van and a paintball gun will not take over this country either, regardless if he's inspired or backed by a terror organization that wants to kill all Americans.
Personally, I'd rather spend a day in Deerborn Michigan, than I would in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, or Kansas City, just to name a few.
Of the homicides in the US, a good percentage are in a handful of big cities, like Chicago and Baltimore. And in both towns, everyone knows where the problems are concentrated. I'll bet Big Bear knows where the "bad neighborhoods" are in his city, too. Guiliani did a good job of reducing the crime rate by dealing with the problems in those areas, and not tolerating some of the other "broken window" crime there.
But that's hard to do if the people that got you elected oppose it, favoring such things as midnight basketball (remember that?) or the latest trendy social program as a means of reducing crime.
I'm not afraid. I carry. I'm just not a do nothing bench warmer sitting on my hands like you, BEG and BB.
FYI, my Glock is never far from my reach either. But that's not out of fear of the Islamic boogie man. Rather, it's out of respect for the far, FAR, greater probability of an encounter with a homegrown psychopath.
Some seem to think we should do nothing to find and root them out of their holes? Not worth the trouble? Good grief.....
Just sit in your easy chair and don't exhaust yourself GG.
ONE attack per 1,000,000 per year might work....then adjust as necessary to keep harmony amongst the unaffected
this stolen land has been too white & too christian for too long...lets level the playing field, for the greater good
You've advocated doing nothing this entire thread BEG. No surprise.
"That said, IMO we seem to be living in a world where the risk of these events impacting an American is about as near zero as we can statistically get. "
His own words. Almost zero, so don't worry sleeper, all's well.
There's a big difference between nothing and nothing more -- I'm against ADDITIONAL radical steps which many here are proposing to prevent terrorism, not stopping what we are doing. Like BB, I've maintained we need to continue doing what we're doing cause it's working.
Understand the difference?
Or should we NOT go by what you say?
You really shouldn't have to explain that simple point. You've been clear and consistent on it from the start. Those who try to spin it differently are just being disingenuous for the sake of arguing.
Not at all. And you should be ashamed for implying such nonsense. Only a biased partisan hack, with no reading comprehension skills, would come to that conclusion.
If the shoe fits......
And, as a matter of fact, I do have urinate, now that my coffee is kicking in.
Actually, I'm surprised you keep going there. You should be ashamed of yourself. You're better than that.
Earlier in the thread you stated that there is "no universal, legally binding, and comprehensive definition of terrorism."
You may be right in terms of "universal," but the US does have a legally binding definition, and that is the only one I'm concerned with. If Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, or Syria have a different definition, who cares?
In the US, Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
My main point is that it would be a HUGE mistake to conflate "terrorism" with "mental illness" and "insanity." Words do mean things and if we ever get to the point where we conflate an act of war with mental illness, we're screwed.
I've read enough of your posts to realize you're not in favor of stopping Terrorists from coming into the USA. That's all I need to know. The rest of the drivel you post I ignor.
I'll try one more model to help some of you understand. We utilize the bow tie model of risk management where I work. It's a nice framework to help visualize how a risk is being managed.
On the left side you have a threat (say radical Islam). In the middle of the framework you have what we call a "top event" -- essentially an incident related to that threat (say, a terrorist attack). On the right we have the ultimate consequence (for this example, loss of human life). Between the threat and the top event are a number of barriers that aim to prevent an incident from occurring -- in the event of terrorism you can add controls like security screening, immigration vetting, surveillance of suspected terrorists, etc. Between the top event and the ultimate consequence, there are recovery measures which aim to limit the amount of consequence -- law enforcer and first responders for example, or even concealed carry laws.
We have a ton of controls in place as it pertains to manage the threat of radical Islam and prevet terrorist attacks. I'm not saying the risk is zero and I'm not saying we take away all of the controls that are already in place. I'm saying adding more controls (like canceling the Diversity Lottery Visa program) are not necessary and will not make us any safer, as the risk is already being managed to an incredibly low level.
Sleepy and WW still probably won't get it but I know most of you will.
According to much of what I read, Bergdahl's supposed "mental illness" played a large role in his defense, as well as the Judge's final decision. If that is indeed the case, the implications should be pretty damn scary.
And there in lies where we disagree, Kevin.
IMO, the HUGE mistake is considering terrorists anything but mentally ill and insane. Any distinction otherwise only legitimizes their psychopathic beliefs and behavior.
And to my defense of BEG, he has repeatedly stated that he thinks we are doing enough to minimize the risk of the Islamic boogie man since 9/11. And that spending more resources to further reduce the already minimal risk is unnecessary at this point. Attempts to spin his words otherwise demonstrate a lack of desire for an honest discussion.
I happen to agree with BEG. If anything, additional resources should be spent minimizing the far greater risk of homegrown terrorism and violence, IMO.
IMO, the HUGE mistake is considering terrorists anything but mentally ill and insane. Any distinction otherwise only legitimizes their psychopathic beliefs."
Oh come on Matt, you know better than that. That actually borders on the ridiculous. Like how I did that? :)
It most definitely acknowledges the seriousness of their intent, but in no way "legitimizes" anything, especially their beliefs.
If holding people responsible for the actions "legitimizes" their beliefs, our entire judicial system crumbles as the entire system is predicated on ILLEGITIMZING criminal beliefs and behavior and therefor holding them accountable.
Now you're just belaboring the discussion.
Look, I said earlier that I think the insanity defense for mass murderers is nonsense. There should be no distinction between a sane mass murderer or a insane mass murderer. They are all insane, in my book, and the punishment should fit the crime, regardless of a subjective determination of their mental health.
Obviously "intent" has to be considered in certain cases. If you look away from the wheel for a moment and run someone over, you aren't necessarily insane, nor are you a murderer. If you take aim and kill multiple pedestrians with your truck, then you are insane, a murderer, and a terrorists. And you should be punished for the worst of your crimes, IMO.
Now, you can have the last word, which I'm sure you'll take. Enjoy your weekend, my friend.
Why this Constant atrack on People of other Color???!!!!
Let it Go Xenophobias!!!!
Annony Mouse's Link
Unfortunately some people (BEG, GG) are so liberal/lazy/dumb they cannot see the benefit of how easy it would be to seriously slow down or eliminate one of the many threats to the American people. It's never important till it happens to you. If tightening the regulations on Muslium's coming into this country foils one potential killing. It's worth it.
It's akin to saying that Christians who believe that the only way to eternal life is through Jesus Christ must have gray matter that has short circuited.
Both are acting out of what they believe their God expects them to do. They are taught to hate, just as Christians are taught to love.
It's not a matter of fearing what we don't understand. If we were made aware that one or two percent of Catholic churches were teaching their parishioners to kill all Jews, we would want them eradicated also. At least I know I would.
Big Amen (Grin) You are 100 percent on the money and until our politicians recognize this and eliminate all Islamics that adhere to Sharia we will have people that kill us because they hate what we as Americans and Westerners believe./ They consider us to be heretics and worthy of death not because of what we believe as much as what we do not believe. The false teachings of Islam/;
God bless and great post, Steve
WRT immigration I'd guess in HI I live around far more immigrants from over the world than you by a large number. WRT races maybe many more than that. As a white male I AM a minority. Maui even more so.
I'm saying ignoring where they come from and who they are and what potential threat they may or may not be under some feel good politically correct blanket is insanity. It's like kicking in the doors in an Amish community looking for an extremist islamic cell. In that case I'd have to agree, a total waste of time and resources with no greater security. But that time and those resources would have better effect used where the source of where the trouble comes from.
I doubt if they'll get me. They're afraid of me. They'll get a idiot like you who welcomes them into society.
I've read it was a bill created by Irish and Italian-American members of Congress to primarily help western European immigrants come to the US. It got bipartisan support in Congress and Bush senior signed it into law. Newt Gingrich even supported it. There's been several attempts to repeal it over the years, but none of them have passed.
It became permanent in 1990 when it was part of an overall immigration bill (introduced by Ted Kennedy). So when you say it got bipartisan support and GB signed it into law, what you really mean is that the overall bill (including all the pet BS that gets added to an overall bill in order to buy votes) got bipartisan support, and was signed into law by GB.
Both houses of congress were controlled by democrats at that time, so you can do the math on how far a veto would have gotten, even if GB was so inclined.
This most recent case is not the first time a DV recipient (or family of one) engaged in a terrorist attack. In 2002, 6 people were shot (2 killed) at LAX by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national who was committed to applying Islamic law in the 20th century.
Unfortunately, attempts to legislate "fairness" and "diversity" often have unintended consequences...sometimes even fatal ones.
Gray Ghost's Link
Actually, no, that's not what I "really mean." The diversity program was one of three major aspects of the bill. It wasn't a add-on to buy votes. The full text of the bill is at my link, if you are interested.
Now, you can have the last word, which I'm sure you'll take.
My point is, in typical Trump fashion, he's spent more time trying to blame Schumer for the bill than he has trying to repeal it. The final version of the bill received a majority of republican support from both houses. And the diversity program was a large part of all the various iterations of the bill prior to passing. Some of the republicans who supported it are still in office. I don't see Trump pointing a finger at them.
The irony is, Schumer actually voted in favor of a later bill that would have eliminated the program, but that bill didn't pass.
Some ideas are so ridiculous that when carried to their logical conclusion they expose weapons grade ignorance.
"Nonsense. If we want to limit the problem, without spending one more dollar, simply cut the number of immigrants down by half, and by 90% plus from Islamic terrorism hotbeds."
Fair enough, Karma, I don't disagree with that comment.
It that's the approach, then I have to ask why aren't the countries that have produced over 90% of terrorist deaths on US soil since 1975 not on the banned list?
Maybe you can answer your own rhetorical questions? Where were you when Trump tried to ban immigration from some of those hotbeds and the left went into total tantrum/meltdown mode? We'll never have meaningful travel bans as long as the left supports wide open immigration and opposes profiling.
I was asking the same question you quoted.
And the problem with being a police chief is often that the town leaders have an agenda, which can limit the strategies used to limit crime. So, folks who fit that agenda get the jobs, and folks who can be effective work elsewhere. I'd bet my Grand Cherokee if Chicago were to elect Guiliani or someone of his like mind, the crime rate in Chicago could be dramatically reduced. There'd be a change in police strategy, either by a new chief, or someone who would change the game.
Yes, I agree. Terrorism can't be cut to zero. But the opposition to some of Trump's reasonable ideas, like limiting immigration from some terrorist hotbeds, is unprincipled opposition to Trump because he is Trump, and because they can't admit where the problems lie.
It's like hunting. Your success is greatly improved if you bring gun or bow to where the elk are. And you concentrate your efforts there.
Should Saudi Arabia be on the list of countries warranting heightened scrutiny? Yes, in my opinion. Why aren't they there? A couple of possibilities: they are helping behind the scenes, or that we need their oil. I would not be surprised to learn that both were true.
But their absence doesn't minimize the need to restrict other countries on the list.
Not at all Matt. When the subject interests me, and I read something that I feel is false, or that I don't agree with, I'll respond...regardless of who posted it. The only thing I target, or "nit-pick" as you call it, is fake news and unsupportable conspiracy theories. I take issue with them every single time I see it...regardless of who posts them. I see them as a cancer on a democracy. Unlike a lot of other posters here, I've been very consistent on that also.
"My point is, in typical Trump fashion, he's spent more time trying to blame Schumer for the bill than he has trying to repeal it. The final version of the bill received a majority of republican support from both houses. And the diversity program was a large part of all the various iterations of the bill prior to passing. Some of the republicans who supported it are still in office. I don't see Trump pointing a finger at them."
And that surprises you? Look, I'm no all in - all the time Trumper (something I've also been very consistent on) but ""is as much a part of "policy" as the policy itself...if not more. You act somehow shocked by that reality. Either you are pretty naïve, or you are feigning your surprise. I suspect it's the latter, but only you know that.
I get it. If Trump picks a fight with those in his own party, he's a fool. If he singles out people of the other party, he's divisive. If a democrat calls for border control, he's a genius. If a republican calls for border patrol he's a racist. It's the way Washington works. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether Trump is able to get done what he ran on using the tactics that he's using.
Sorry, but I have a problem just "letting that go".
Wonder how many folks on this forum would even be around if their descendants were exposed to some sort of merit based immigration policy back when they came to this country. Europe wasn't exactly sending their best and brightest during the great wave 100 years ago. The anti-immigration sentiments are nothing new, and some Americans were saying the same thing you are about your ancestors 100 years ago. Nice to see that rational heads prevailed and recognized the fear from the anti-immigration crowd as far overblown.
There have been times in the past when America paused immigration, so there is precedent.
Stop work visas until unemployment is very low. Stop all federal welfare programs to encourage people to take the available jobs.
I never said I hated anybody. You're a liar BEG.
That's not quite accurate BEG. Deportation proceedings had already begun on Hesham Mohamed Hadayet when he (conveniently) married a diversity lottery winner and was granted permanent status. Hadayet when on to shoot 6 people (killing 2) six years later during a terrorist attack and LA International Airport.
Who knows what some of the other "winners" have in store for us. How many need to die before not allowing any more would be "reasonable."
In terms of cost, not only would eliminating the program not cost anything, it would save millions.
I figure that if we could get away with it, we'd put every person traveling to the US from every Muslim nation into the extreme vetting category. And we should. But the wacky leftists (and every RINO lookin' to promote their own popularity) would go batsheet crazy like they did when Trump tried to put 7 countries on the first terrorist-watch list.
How dare a President try to protect our citizens from harm by placing the inconvenience upon the non-citizens trying to force their way over our borders. Leftists are absolute fricken idiots on so many key issues, like this one.....sheeesh.
I swear, some of the perceptions y'all have in your mind...I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Forgive my sarcasm.
Ain't it the truth. That's exactly why I started the "Texas Church Shooting" thread. It will be an interesting comparison, assuming the Texas shooter isn't Muslim.
You want that arrangement, then I'll agree to it as long as we can strip out all of the economic benefits that immigration provides you, and I get them instead.
Immigration only benefits the population here if the immigrants that come intend to be a net contributor to the system, versus a net receiver of benefits from the system. While many are contributors, many haven't been as well.
No one here is against legal immigration. I know it fits your ideology to say different BEG. Only illegal. And, until we can get a grasp on what the true effects created by previous administration's abuse of our immigration policy, playing it safe is the only practical approach. God Bless
We don't have open borders Bentstick. Our borders are extremely secure, especially to people from "terrorist hotbeds."
Middle Easterners are sneaking across the Mexican border quite often, if you cared to be open minded about the problem rather than just blindly pushing the Dem/Lib agenda. And one might suspect that those going all that way to sneak in from the south have bad intentions. It just doesn't get a lot of press (because the libs control the media and it looks bad for their open border globalist agenda!)
You can make big moves, like the Dream Act. Or small moves, like simply neglecting the resources to actually attend to the problem.
Via Conservative Tribune:
A new report from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed that a federal audit found the computer system used by the Department of Homeland Security and border agents to screen for illegal aliens was so slow it was pretty much broken.
The report, published last week, noted that DHS’ “front-line border protection agency is slow, frequently blacks out and can’t prevent the entry of inadmissible aliens with ‘harmful intent.’”
“Incredibly, thousands of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents rely on the flawed information technology (IT) system to fulfill their duty of securing the nation’s borders and keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the United States,” it states.
The Judicial Watch report is based on an audit by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General. The IG’s report found woefully inadequate conditions for Customs and Border Protection.
Trump has tried to dial it down to get better handle on it. And has met with resistance from many places, even republicans and some who reflexively do so for no logical reason, only that it is Trump. Several here it appears as well.
Resources already stretched to the breaking point with little support from politicians and previous administrations and need to be bolstered and given the tools and support they require to do the job right.
There is NO necessity to speed up nor increase the numbers possessed. None.
Please cite one reference backing up this claim.
Just offhand without spending the afternoon googling.... there's a couple quick ones with the link..... won't even go to encouraging illegal immigration by EO.... of which near 10% of MENA immigrants are.
Via Washington Times:
Let’s just cut through the clutter of all the border control proposals, packages, deals and discussions that have marked U.S. politics for the past, oh, let’s say, gazillion campaign seasons, and narrow it down to one consideration and one consideration alone: What can you do for America?
That’s the question that should be first and foremost asked of anyone seeking permanent or semi-permanent entry to America’s soil.
That’s really the only question that matters.
What can you, oh mighty migrant, oh wanna-be refugee, oh hopeful immigrant — what can you bring to the table that betters America?
And if the answer is lame — if the answer is all about what America can provide, what America can offer — slam! Sorry, don’t let the door hit you.
A majority merit-based system is the way to go.
America’s immigration policy should be almost entirely about the U.S. of A., and almost not at all about the plight of the one knocking at our doors. This isn’t so much selfish as safety-conscious.
If you want to look at numbers of immigrants and refugees as a whole, no we have not been greatly expanding the admittance of either as a country over the last twenty years. Immigrant admissions have been more or less flat at around 1 million people a year and refugee admittance has been capped at more or less the same number (around 70-80K refugees a year). Nothing has been expanded from an immigration perspective.
As far as refugees go, the fact that more of the refugees (a small percentage of the overall immigration mix) are Muslim is only indicative of the fact that that's where the upheaval has been and where people have been displaced. Also, seeing as an American has never been killed in a terror act by a Muslim refugee and that not a single refugee has carried out a terror attack since vetting processes were strengthened by the Refugee Act of 1980, I'm gonna say we're good. Come back to me when the first Ametican dies at the hands of a Muslim refugee terrorist.
"According to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland, there are over 1,000 active homegrown terror cases being investigated by the FBI in all 50 states. This is not the result of ISIS or the Taliban coming here with an Air Force or Navy and invading America; this is the result of suicidal immigration policies."
Seeing as the majority (muslim refugees that is) are just now hitting the ground I'll remind you of cause and effect when it does. Again..... there is no national security reason to NOT get a grip on EXACTLY who they are and how they behave. Get it right or shut it down.
Or maybe ignore all reality and have a look at the Nordic immigration problem......
Speaking of "cherry picking" WRT Muslim immigrants there are many attacks with specifically radical Islamic motives and corresponding dead racked up. Americans killed in America for being American. Again, maybe you should tell those families and friends how insignificant their numbers are and how we NEED to bring in yet more.....
You're about the tenth person that likes to bring up this "tell the families" line. I guess when you all have no facts to stand on and nothing of intellectual substance to argue, that's where you go, eh? It's the mental equivalent of throwing in the towel. It's as dumb as arguing you don't care about the victims of gun violence because you oppose gun control measures.