He had a BB gun and a paint gun. Cops wounded him. The cops need more practice and need to learn how to shoot center mass. Now we have to keep him at a huge cost. It is BS to say we want to question him. Double BS, the bastard should have been killed, call me racist if you want.
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.
The damage is already done. Terrorists are in this country and there is little that can be done about it. NYPD/FBI should pick this guy's brain and find out who put him up to this act. Find out what convinced him to kill innocent people.
I'll go out on a limb Sleepy and say ISIS put him up to it... And the fact that ISIS wants to kill every single American is what convinced him to do it.... no brainer. We are at war with ISIS...... they are bringing it to our soil.
Every red headed freckled face person with a brogue should be profiled, rounded up and deemed a possible terrorists starting with Connor McGregor. Odds should be good that many terrorists will be snared in that net because you can't racial profile anyone else that would fit the description of a terroists in this sick nation we live in. How the hell are you going to stop this terrorists lunacy otherwise?
I've heard no reason or motive on the vegas shooter. Considering the venue attacked and little to no info from authorities a possibility could be argued of some kind of anti trump leftist..... like the leftist moron that shot up republican congressmen......
The muzzies seem to make it easy though. We do need to get better at finding them.
Terrorism is a violent act done to further an ideology, cause or political position. We have no idea what Vegas was about.
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.
According to ABC New York, 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov — the man who allegedly mowed down pedestrians in the Tribeca neighborhood of New York City — entered the U.S. in 2010 from Uzbekistan under the Diversity Visa Lottery before obtaining a Green Card.
Get used to it gang, it's just going to get worse. THIS is Obama's legacy. He wanted Islam here so now we have it......warts and all. The ones who will pay the real price will be our children and grandchildren.
My condolences to the victims and their families. But, Liberals and progressives are opposed to securing the borders, extreme vetting , and immigration ban from terrorist countries. This guy was here on a "diversity visa,". Kind of ironic, that the most liberal city in the world is the number 1 target. Cuomo should include in his SAFE ACT, a ban on rental trucks.
"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."
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.
The Fake News pimps at CNN reported that when he exited the vehicle after mowing down innocent people he was yelling "God is great" but in reality he was yelling "Alla Akbar". Way to report the truth Clinton News Network.
""So no, the resident troll's quote does NOT need repeating. It needs to be rejected""
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.
I want to hear more about this diversity visa nonsense. And have Trump stop those too. At least until some activist liberal judge stops him and we get to go to the Supreme Court to regain control of the government and the power of the Presidency!
""The suspected New York City attacker, Sayfullo Saipov, was interviewed in 2015 by federal agents in the Department of Homeland Security Investigations Unit about possible ties to suspected terrorists, but the agents did not have enough evidence to open a case on him, laws enforcement officials tell ABC News.""
Not enough evidence for Obama and his minions.....
I disagree, Kevin. Anyone who is motivated to take innocent lives, whether by religion, politics, or psychosis, is both crazy and a terrorist in my book.
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.
The insidious part of lumping terrorists with the mentally ill is the proposed remedies will involve everyone. After all, since anyone could "snap," we need gun control......and this also fits in the narrative that the problem does not originate with Islam, when it clearly does.
The insidious part of lumping terrorists with the mentally ill is the proposed remedies will involve everyone. After all, since anyone could "snap,"we need gun control....
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.
People try the insanity defense. The Aurora theatre shooter tried. It got him a life sentence, not the death penalty.
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.
My point is Islamic terrorism, while perhaps the most common, is only one form of terrorism, specifically it is religious terrorism. There's also right and left-wing terrorism, state terrorism, narco-terrorism, and pathological terrorism...just to name a few. You seem to be suggesting Islamic terrorism is the only one.
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.
"The left would like nothing more than to convince the general public that non-Muslims are just as likely to be terrorists as Muslims"
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?
elkmtn, can you tell me what extreme vetting and immigration controls you're talking about? There were no civilian deaths from immigrant Muslim terror attacks in 2016 btw, so looks like we're doing worse under Trump on a year-to-year basis.
""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? ""
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?
I'm saying neither, sleepyhunter (and I'm certainly not saying the latter as this has nothing to do with police brutality). I'm asking whether there is an expectation that we stop every single one of these events, as I think that is an unreasonable expectation. I'm of the belief that we just have to accept some level of risk as it relates to these types of lone wolf, self-radicalized incidents, be they from someone espousing radical Islam or other. The reason is that in order to stop everyone it would come at a high cost, both financially and with respect to the rights and freedoms in this country. People seem to suggest we need to react or do something more after everyone of these incidents, and I'm not convinced we do.
"There were no civilian deaths from immigrant Muslim terror attacks in 2016"
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.
Matt, I would have been quite content with him being shot by a police officer, or a hotel guest. And if he were to die by lethal injection, I'm okay with that, too.
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.
""People seem to suggest we need to react or do something more after everyone of these incidents, and I'm not convinced we do.""
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.
Omar Mateen was born in New York. His parents didn't commit terrorist acts. Please help me understand how your vetting policies would have prevented someone's unborn child from committing a terror act in 30 years? What are we "forgetting" and what are you suggesting? Tashfeen Malik came in under a K-1 green card, fully-vetted. Nothing has changed in the vetting procedures since she came in. And again, further vetting for immigrants is going to do nothing for folks who are radicalized here on US soil.
Feel free not to answer bk. I'm not trying to win anything. All I asked is what is the goal here and is to prevent these types of tragedies from ever occurring. I couldn't care less whether you want to add your two cents or not.
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.
And what was the criteria under which we would have stopped Omar Mateen's parents from entering our country 30 years ago? (you know, since we don't have that Minority Report system that allows us to predict their child would commit a crime 30 years before it happens and stop them from entering).
"Matt, I would have been quite content with him being shot by a police officer, or a hotel guest. And if he were to die by lethal injection, I'm okay with that, too."
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?
""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.""
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?
There's a big difference between living with the risk and tolerating the motives. I'm speaking to the living with the risk part. Nobody condones the actions of this individual or are comfortable with it.
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.
Ok GG, you got any ideas of how to stop this type of Murder? I'm well aware of what we're dealing with, Either a terrorist that kills in the name of Religion, or a deranged person who, feels he should shoot up a concert in LV. Same story same excuses. Two different groups of people same end result.
Matt, the sentence for insanity of this magnitude would be life, whether spelled out or not. Nobody would want to certify that he was no longer a danger to society.
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.
Spot on Matt. They are afraid of things they don't know and understand. They let fear drive their perspectives and are completely unable to contextualize the threat and risk they truly face.
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.
Matt, bear in mind that in my legal work, I was told that if we had a diminished capacity defense, much less insanity, we'd know it in the first five minutes of meeting with the client. I've had a few, some in the civil arena, and a couple in the criminal world. These guys don't fit it from what I can see.
And as a Catholic, if I KNEW of any Catholic church or anyone in it who was teaching their parishioners to kill ANYONE I would be in touch with the FBI ASAP. This what the "good" Muslims need to start doing.......and SOON! They are the best line of defense as they are closer to it than us infidels.
"Matt, bear in mind that in my legal work, I was told that if we had a diminished capacity defense, much less insanity, we'd know it in the first five minutes of meeting with the client. I've had a few, some in the civil arena, and a couple in the criminal world. These guys don't fit it from what I can see.
Kevin,
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.
"the risk of these events impacting an American is about as near zero as we can statistically get"
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
It's easy to have that attitude when you didn't live within eyesight of where the World Trade Towers WERE, or didn't know anyone or their family/friends/co-workers who didn't come home that day.
"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."
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.
Trump said today he's going do away with chain immigration. Going quit being PC about this problem. Immigrants will be reviewed on merits to get into the country. That's a start in the right direction IMO. I'm sure there will be opposition. Homeland security should be given more latitude to investigate terrorism with more aggressive tactics before something happens not after. Same should apply to the Police.
You want one? The National Socialist Council of Nagaland in India. I can name others if you'd like. Point being, there are plenty of organizations out there that latch onto extremist views, be they Christian, Muslim, or other. And you're right, you compared radical Islam to the moderate (majority) Christian. Well no kidding they teach hate. That's what these extremist groups do, be the the KKK or ISIS.
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.
Christian terrorism ?? How about the Olympic Park bomber in Atlanta.... I believe he was also responsible for an abortion clinic bombing and was praised by the Army of God for his actions.....
Matt, recognizing insanity is quite easy. I also can pick out DSM-V personality disorders regularly and quickly, and have been known to tell psychologists before they test what I expect. And yes, I've also known some sociopaths that were completely without any empathy for their fellow human beings, including a big-time drug dealer. He wasn't insane, but killing others would have just been a business decision for him. I actually went to high school with a guy who gunned down three people after a busted drug deal, walking into a restaurant with an Uzi. He always wanted to be big time. He found out that Texas takes these things seriously. He was one of the folks executed when GWB was governor.
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.
The Atlanta bombing was on US soil....... And The Branch Dividians were kind of just getting their feet wet.... Koresh had a shootout with their former leader.... And he was raping 12 year old girls.... I believe the leader that Koresh overthrew killed a guy with an ax...
Kevin; I guess my point is how many people have been killed in the name of Christianity ?? U.S. Citizens like to sit back and point fingers at all Muslims.... I'll point fingers at any and all who would murder.....
Jihadists committing terrorism believe they are soldiers in a war. Its been waging for thousands of years. They see killing infidels as a rational activity because their ideology and education has shaped their perception.
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 aren't at war with any country, nor religion, nor race.
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.
If we keep importing human garbage from third world Islamic shitholes this insanity and death will only get worse. One day even the critical thinkers will even realize this.......maybe.
"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.
Agree WW. Luckily we have a pretty damn good system for filtering out the garbage coming from overseas which is why terrorist attacks from immigrants is so exceedingly rare and the critical thinkers of this country can recognize that, unlike the irrational, emotional thinkers. Now what do you propose we do about the homegrown human garbage that shows up on all sides of the political and religious spectrum?
We do have a good system??? Tell that to the families of the people murdered in NYC, or on 9-11. But you've already stated that you don't give a sh*t....MANY times. Keep it up.
And BEAR, it's bad enough that we have our own human garbage here...too damned much of it in fact. But are we really that ****ing stupid that we want to IMPORT even more of it???
Literally millions of people have entered on a diversity visa and one guy commits a terrorist act (seven years after he enters) and all of sudden the system is broken. Please help me understand the "critical thinking" that went into that assessment?
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.
In risk analysis, you look at two factors. One is the probability of a problem occurring. The other is known as the consequences of inadequate performance.
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.
Yep... murderous garbage is murderous garbage.... it doesn't matter what their motive is...... Unfortunately.... we could completely close our borders now.... And these incidents will continue.... We are at war with ISIS.... and ISIS is recruiting people on line to carry out attacks.....
"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."
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.
bk, I spend an inordinate amount of my job managing risk and you are spot on that there are always two dimensions to risk that we try to understand -- the likelihood of an event occurring and the magnitude of the consequence associated with that event.
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.
BEG, you keep mentioning "questioning allocation of resources"...seems to me that in many cases, it might be cheaper NOT to import, as opposed to importing. Especially in the case of refugees, many of which end up on public assistance.
By your own admission, the infrastructure is already in place to limit entry from hostile areas, all it basically requires is a "rule change".
No, by my own admissions the infrastructure is already in place to limit terrorists from entering. Period. No 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.
Why is it that a guy in Colorado walked into a Wal Mart and opened fire on the people inside the store...... and for the most part on the Bowsite Community Forum it's not even news...?? Murder is murder... It was a horrific act of violence...... If this had been perpetrated by the suspect who carried out the New York attack..... would you guys be taking about it ?? Both suspects should be put to death.
Uhh.....to maybe help PREVENT it from happening again? It's like deer hunting. You have to know WHY a deer will do such and such if you want to have a better chance at getting him. In other words to be more proactive than reactive.
Prevent it from happening again...... good one..... How are we doing at preventing this type of thing ?? This is the world we live in.. There is pure evil everywhere...... As far as Radical Islamic Terrorists.... we are at war with ISIS.... they are bringing their attacks to USA soil ..... We could completely shut down our borders and this type of terrorism is still going to occur here...... I don't have the answer.... you don't have the answer..... and Trump doesn't have the answer..... it's the F'd up world we live in.....
"If one cannot live within society without murdering or committing illegal activity, they are mentally ill, psychopaths."
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.
BEAR: I said HELP prevent it from happening again. You can never really prevent it, but maybe lessen it or at least get a HINT when/where it might happen. It's either that or just roll over and give up. I for one am not ready to do that.
If these bastards want a jihad, then I'll damn sure do my part to give them one.
I could slow it to a crawl right now..... Everyone in the USA give up your internet access... That's how they are getting recruited........ Step . 2,,,,, Everyone in the USA is required to carry a pistol..... There.... I did it..... Making America Safer ....
"If these bastards want a jihad, then I'll damn sure do my part to give them one."
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.
WW, how much more are you trying to lessen it? We've had eight people die in two or three terrorist attacks on US soil this year. I'm with Big Bear, making the country safer will come with giving up a whole lot of rights and freedoms in my estimation, in addition to the other economic and societal costs that come with it. I fail to see how not overreacting to these incredibly rare events is "giving up."
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.
I'm pretty sure they're not coming to your house... The kind of terrorist attacks they use are pretty much indefensible.... Those people riding their bikes didn't have a chance.... that nut job in Wal Mart on the other hand........ incidents like that can be stopped by average Joe citizens who just happen to be shopping and packing .... legally of course......
We made it safer for them not to be able to take over an airplane..... So what do they do ?? Carry out their attacks elsewhere... Rent a truck,,, Attack other forms of public transportation..... public gatherings..... etc. etc. etc.,,, There's only so much we can do....... We certainly can't stop living and hide in a shelter.....
""If one cannot live within society without murdering or committing illegal activity, they are mentally ill, psychopaths.""
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.
The acts of the terrorist or insane leave very similar results and possibly even similar mentalities. The edges certainly blur together.
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.
Analogies are great and all, but the solutions required to isolate cancer cells are quite different than the solutions (and again, the economic and societal costs that come with them) that are required to prevent zero terror attacks in this country.
Exactly Matt.... it's not that I or anyone else "Doesn't give a shit" as WW would suggest........ Its more of a question of what the hell can be done about it ?? There were 762 homicides in Chicago last year..... does WW give a shit about that ?? If he's human he does....... but what the hell can be done to stop it ?? Or even slow it down ?? That's just ONE city in America.
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.
You can slow down the immigration all you want... I'm in favor of being very careful of who we let in.... wasn't Trump supposed to fix this ?? (And prosecute Hillary).... isn't that why I voted for him ?? But there are enough pure evil people already in our country surfing the internet right now.... supporting ISIS ..... and thinking of a way to carry out an attack.... will it stop ?????? No.
Dumping resources into "profiling" Islamic terrorists before we address our own homegrown violence is senseless. That's like treating a person with terminal cancer for a cold.
He's like every other Politician.... he's going to tell you what you want to hear.... he promised me he was going to prosecute Hillary...... I'm waiting....
We are capable of treating an infected paper cut while we treat someone for cancer. Ignoring an infected paper cut and risking gangrene would be silly.
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.
""Dumping resources into "profiling" Islamic terrorists before we address our own homegrown violence is senseless""
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.
"We are capable of treating an infected paper cut while we treat someone for cancer."
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.
Here is the difference. Random nutcases will not ever take over America. They do not receive inspiration and support from any organization that has broadcast its intention to kill all Americans.
Sleepy.... Do you care about the innocent people who get killed in the crossfire in those incidents in the inner city... Not all of the 700 plus homicides in Chicago are gang members.
Great list elkmtn. Don't disagree with any of those numbers. Also note that of those Islamist terror related attacks, all of ONE involved the USA. That ONE terror attack in NY represents the ONLY deaths from Islamist terror on US soil this year. Eight people. The reason is that we have very strong systems to keep dangerous people out of this country already in place (and they have been in place for quite some time). Are they perfect? No. But I struggle to see how they can be much better than they are (again, without a significant financial cost, a significant societal loss, and a significant loss of our rights and freedoms).
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.
BB, yes I do care. There are numerous threats in the USA to be killed in our present society. If we can block one of the threats by not letting them into our country. I have no problem with it. I also think we should act on it now.
I do seem to recall a day where over 3000 people were killed in one day in America, and the aftermath crippled an economy for a period of time. And I think I'm right in saying that the plan from that bunch, or their successors, is to do something worse when they can. That they have been unsuccessful at pulling off a big scale attack is not grounds for thinking that they aren't trying, or planning, another big event.
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.
Karma..... People seem to forget that we have been at war since that day over 16 years ago.... Heck our younger generation of adults aren't old enough to remember it...... The smaller scale terrorist attacks are mainly a result of our efforts to prevent a large scale attack.... They have become a norm around the world now.... there is no easy answer or response for it....
I remember that day pretty well, bk. I can also list a multitude of reasons this country is in a very different place than it was 16 years ago with respect to how it identifies, monitors, and prevents terrorist attacks -- all of which seem to be producing a very safe country. You're damn right they've been trying to do similar -- do you think it's just coincidence that they haven't been able to? I'm sure something can (and quite possibly will) happen that will make me think we need to do more than we are when it comes to the threat of terrorism -- that hasn't happened yet.
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.
I have to say no one here knows how many small OR large scale attacks have been disrupted or thwarted already...... or how many bad guys we have on the radar right now.Those things are not public knowlege. There are reasons why we have been "lucky" so far WRT major attacks.
Some seem to think we should do nothing to find and root them out of their holes? Not worth the trouble? Good grief.....
Not true. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks we should do nothing.... I think we should do what we are doing right now..... like you said... thwarting and disrupting attacks.....
considering the high cost of our near zero chances of attack, we should ratchet back and find a reasonable, acceptable, more affordable level of random islamic terrorist mayhem
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
Yes, and we have nothing to fear, as the odds of being killed by an Islamo nut job are SO low that we may as well not even bother being concerned.
"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.
You are a piece of work sleepy. Maybe you should get some more rest so your reading comprehension doesn't suffer so much.
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.
Uzbekistan is not part of the "Middle East" but it is part of "elsewhere". If Kal Penn is saying Trump should have included Uzbekistan on the restricted travel list, I agree.
"Like BB, I've maintained we need to continue doing what we're doing cause it's working."
BEG,
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.
Piss off. You are so biased you can't even see the truth when he STATED it. He has stated that it's SUCH a small risk that it's insignificant.....but why do I bother. You wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it grabbed you by the throat. Have a nice life.
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.
It is a small risk because of what we are currently doing. Sorry you can't understand the difference between that statement and saying we should do nothing. Matt gets it. A lot of people do. Unfortunately some of you are so blinded by your hate and bigotry that you can't see past that. I'm not surprised.
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.
WW should be ashamed as he's clearly misquoting and misconstruing my points, either deliberately or out of ignorance. A lack of critical thinking skills is no reason to call someone's words "crap." Nice to see at least two people on here understand the point I've been maintaining all along.
"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."
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.
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.
Please explain the NECESSITY of any "Diversity Lottery Visa program"? Why can't it be shut down or at least replaced with a tighter program. I still see no need for such a thing and can't see any positives but for someone to get some warm fuzzy feelings. There are probably 5 negatives to any positives. But "diversity" is so "progressive"...... folks can wear a colored wrist band, publicly proclaiming their support of bringing in a band of people with no intention of assimilation, hard to get much more diverse, because, um, diverse is a goal, right? How cool is that..... and the color matches the other 3 bands they have.....
WRT treating terrorists and terrorism as some law enforcement issue and not a national security/military one...... the original attack on the Twin Towers (using a truck bomb with some 1400 lbs of explosives) was handled as a law enforcement issue by the left (Clinton administration) ..... they also had the chance to arrest Bin Laden and passed, also claiming it was legal law enforcement engagement rules. That all worked out real well......
One guy out of the more than three million that have entered the country on a Diversity Lottery Visa commits a terrorist act and TD wants a tighter program. Love it. Also love how he posted a picture of Omar Mateen and Tashfeen Malik - a person born in the USA and his wife who came in on a fiancé visa. Would love to hear how these two have anything to do with the Diversity Lottery Visa program. I get it...you don't like foreigners.
""Unfortunately some of you are so blinded by your hate and bigotry that you can't see past that.""
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.
KpC: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.
KPC
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/;
You didn't answer. You just reply as any good leftist would, tossing out some redneck "racism" card, don'like dem forners. In what way is this program or any like it..... of what NECESSITY are they other than some warm fuzzy feeling? Why? In what way does it serve any security interests of the country?
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.
Sleepy, maybe if you got a little more rest you wouldn't be so scared of the bogeyman. I swear I've never seen a bigger bunch of snowflakes than some of the folks on this board. The big bad jihadists aren't gonna get you sleepy. You're safe. Relax.
"Please explain the NECESSITY of any "Diversity Lottery Visa program"?
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.
I'm happy to welcome Muslims in, sleepy. They're great people. I work with literally dozens of them on a daily basis. I can do without the jihadists, and (as I've said all along) I'm confident the system will weed them out. You don't have to hate everyone that's brown, sleepy.
"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."
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.
Gee, Kevin, I must have gotten under your skin. I'm sorry for that. Does this mean you're going to challenge and nit-pick every post I make from now on?
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.
After reading this thread, I'm relieved to know that I don't have to care about a terrorist attack if it doesn't happen to me, or by extension, to my family. I'm sure that I can apply the same compassion should, say, a massive hurricane were to hit New Orleans. So, when that happens, I'll ask my fellow Bowsiters to urge their congressional representatives to vote against any aid to the damaged communities.
Some ideas are so ridiculous that when carried to their logical conclusion they expose weapons grade ignorance.
I fail to see where anyone said they "don't care" about terrorist attacks. What I've read indicates a difference in opinion on how much more resources we should commit to preventing Islamic terrorist attacks, versus other forms of violence.
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. This was a "don't worry your pretty little head about it, it's got nothing to do with you" attempt to minimize a rational concern about importing problems.
Once again I'll say that President Trump has been our President for almost a year.... so fix this. Make the attacks on USA soil stop...... and while you're at it build a wall along the Mexican border and make the Mexicans pay for it like you said you were going to do..... and Prosecute Hillary Clinton. I'm waiting.......
Well, BB, I'll demand the same from you. Reduce crime to zero in your town. You've been the police chief for longer than Trump's been in the White House.
"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?
Oh........ So you say it's IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the terrorist threat on USA soil ??? You say terrorist attacks are going to happen no matter what the President does ???? Ding ding ding ding....... So when President Trump does whatever he does..... and the next attack on USA soil happens on his watch....... how will you know if he even prevented one attack ??
My point is this....... It's the same damned thing as asking President Trump to make all the 700 plus homicides a year in Chicago stop.... You can all sit on your computers and come up with simple solutions..... and the homicides continue.......Im all for your suggestion of cutting back on immigration and stepping up vetting and doing away with things like this lottery VISA thing........ Do I think it's going to stop terrorist attacks on our soil ??? No..... No.... and NO..... So one guy is prevented from coming to the USA..... therefore.... that guy instead focuses all his time and efforts towards talking with another guy who is already in the USA and the attack occurs anyways....
"weapons grade ignorance".... Another bullseye by BK. I'm gonna use that phrase out here on my home front. Firing off those little catch-phrases tend to capture attention, creating a shock & awe effect in leftists whose minds have been overthrown by media-fueled left coast deception.
Curious...is Uzbekistan one of those terrorist hotbeds? Again, I fail to see how cutting immigration by half and limiting immigration from so called terrorist hotbeds is really going to "limit the problem" when we've had all of ONE fatal attack from a so called radical Islamist in this country in the last year. I'm not willing to accept the financial and societal costs that come with such an extreme policy that will have zero impact on the occurrence of these events. How many other things that kill about a dozen people on US soil a year are you as concerned about? Falling TVs kill about five times more people in this country than immigrant terrorists. Where's the outrage there?
When I was in college at the University of Texas, there was a problem with crime on the "drag," a popular street hangout for university students and professors. They hired a new chief, who sent cops in on roving walking patrols, and had it worlds better in a few months. What does this have to do with Chicago, or other places? We know where the problems exist. Cops know where the problems are. And good police chiefs have the means and knowledge to do something about problem areas. Guiliani reduced NY's crime rate significantly by targeting certain areas, and putting up with none of the usual street crime. Yet, you don't see any programs in Chicago to target the problem areas, and get the troublemakers eating prison food for a few decades. To be fair, the political agenda that tries to make almost every police shooting into some kind of racist war on blacks by cops story has hurt this tremendously.
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.
So we agree... terrorism can't be cut to zero....... And there are thousands upon thousands of crimes in every city every year... easy to look at the numbers and see if efforts to reduce crime are working...... We had ONE terrorist attack.... how do you determine if efforts to reduce that are working....... when you admit that it can't be reduced to zero.
There was only one Terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 2001 as well...unfortunately, it took nearly 3000 innocent lives, in the name of Allah. You didn't hear the Mayor stand up two days later and say "Today, I'm a Muslim". In fact, the majority of the Country on both sides of the aisle, came together (for the first time in decades) against Islamic Terrorism.
Sorry, but I have a problem just "letting that go".
I guess I have a different definition of what "reasonable" is when it comes to Trump's proposals. Banning immigration from countries responsible for zero terrorist attacks in this country doesn't seem reasonable to me -- seems rather arbitrary. I get the fact that there are holes at times in the vetting process given a lack of infrastructure in these countries, but when there are we don't just say "boy, we know nothing about you, so we're just gonna roll the dice...come on into the USA and we'll take a chance." That's not how immigration into this country works. Do all of you just think it's coincidence that people from these supposed high risk countries that were part of the travel ban were responsible for zero terrorist attacks on US soil? It's not. Proposing we end the Diversity Visa Lottery because one person out of the literal millions that have been let in on a golden ticket got radicalized seven years after he entered the country also doesn't strike me as very "reasonable."
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.
Nobody likes radical Islam (or radical anything for that matter) save for the sick fringe that prescribes to their doctrine. We need to continue taking the fight to them like we are and rid the world of the sick ideology.
I think it is reasonable to stop all immigration (including refugees) until those already legally in are assimilated and become Americans. During that time, anyone here illegally should be sent home and not be allowed to get in line to come legally.
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.
And bk, I'm surprised you preferred up the analogy of a hurricane aid and compassion AFTER a tragedy when debating how much we should do to PREVENT tragedies, which has been the thrust of the thread. Arguing a lack of compassion for a tragedy is the same as debating the cost/benefit analysis we should apply to prevent a tragedy is the fact of folks like WW and sleepy. I thought you were smarter than that. Guess not. A more appropriate analogy would be arguing how much federal money we should spend to PREVENT loss of life from hurricanes in our coastal communities. After all, hurricanes kill far more people in this country than terrorists do. Are you lobbying your congressman to allocate more budget to folks like the Army Corps of Engineers to improve flood protection in this country?
Unfortunately, BB, Islamic terrorists are not operating on the same timetables as street criminals. They may be operating on a several year schedule to commit their acts of terrorism, versus a street criminal who may not make it a week or a month before his next felony. That makes it tough to measure success like you can with street crime.
Initially, if known Muslim nations showed us they can vet their own travelers in accordance with certain standards, then we didn't place them on the extreme-vetting list. And leftists went nuts.
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 think that the US should have a voting day for entry of muslims, with no background check, and if you want muslims to be in this country, you vote yes, then you have to give your name and address, and must be mandatory, for the YES voters, to take care, and house, at least two, per house hold. That would take the burden off the US citizens, that voted, NO, having to pay for for them. I would like to see the participation numbers, out of that vote. This method, shouldn't make a single person on either side, upset. You want them, then you take care of them, and if you don't want them, then you wouldn't have to spend a dime.
Love to hear how much of a burden you think these people put on you right now Bentstick. Lol I bet you think immigrants don't provide a single economic benefit to this country, do you?
I swear, some of the perceptions y'all have in your mind...I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Well, we just had another "crazy" person shoot up a church in Texas. Or should I say a "mass murderer?" Or was he a "terrorist?" Damn, all these distinctions and definitions have me so confused!!
BEG, How could YOU be upset about what i said? You get what YOU asked for, and others don't have to participate. You are right, I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.
Matt... don't you know by now that some of these guys in the CF are only interested when it's a Muslim perpetrator.... Bentstick..... I'll go along with eliminating all Muslims from coming into the country if we make it for all Catholics too... after all... a small percentage of Catholic Priests are raping little boys...... deal ??
"Matt... don't you know by now that some of these guys in the CF are only interested when it's a Muslim perpetrator."
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.
Because you act like immigration only comes with a cost and provides zero benefit. You should educate yourself on the economic proposition of immigration. Please find me some literature that comes to the conclusion that immigration does not provide a net economic benefit to citizens of this country. I can point you to plenty that come to the opposite conclusion and shows that the return on immigration is undeniably positive in economic terms (there are plenty of studies that I can point you to that show immigrations positive impact on GDP, wages, employment, etc).
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.
BB, I don't care who you want to include in the voting process. BEG is ready to let the muslims in, all i said was let him, and others, that want them, take them into their homes, and take care of them. So why would he be upset? He would be getting what he wanted.
BEG, is that literature produced by the same people who said Trump being elected was going to hurt the stock market?
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
I just don't understand why any AMERICAN, is sooo against closing the borders, and bring the Immigrants in legally, and they must prove that they will get a job, and be self supportive, help the citizens, of this country, and be a positive influence to this country? Amazing how some can agree with open borders? These people that are for open borders, are the one's that should have to house them, and be accountable for the IMMIGRANTS, they house. I bet there wouldn't be near as many that say they would take them in. The Dem mindset, "Lets open the borders, for votes, and political gain." And we wonder what's wrong with America, today?
"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!)
BEG, we were talking about legal immigration. Until you took it upon yourself to assume that anyone that wants to slow things down was doing so from a prejudice position. You've jumped all over trying to rationalize your position. In this thread and every other one involving any immigration. Don't back up now.
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.
Nobody said anything about the elimination of immigration. Slowing immigration down so as to make better, more accurate use of our current limited resources only makes sense. Stuffing more and more ever faster through the system as with the refugee programs such as the left is pushing is ridiculous on its face. Prior to Trump that was exactly what was happening, greatly EXPANDING these programs SPECIFICALLY from hotbeds of radical islam.
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.
" The Obama administration surpassed its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrians via the refugee resettlement program in fiscal year (FY) 2016, up from just 36 in FY 2013 (see Figure 1). In total, 18,007 Syrian refugees were resettled in the United States between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016." Actually pushed through nearly 50% more than their stated 2016 goal, was 14,000 something. All over and above normal immigration. And ALL from high security risk areas.
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.
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.
Sorry TD, one cherry picked stat that shows an increase in Syrian refugees really only shows your lack of knowledge on what refugees are and the process we use to vet them. Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, ultimately (not initially) displacing millions of people. Prior to the Civil war breaking out, there were no refugees. Seeing as it takes around two years to vet a refugee, you wouldn't expect to see an influx of Syrian refugees for a few years.
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.
Maybe missed the link on immigrant demographics during the Obama years, not just "total" immigration.
"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.....
We do have a grip on it, we do know who they are, and we do get it right. You've provided zero evidence that suggests we don't. In the meantime, I'll be waiting for that cause and effect thing to play out (it already is...we vet the crap out of this people or they don't get in...the effect is we don't see terror attacks occurring with any kind of regularity). Remember, zero dead from Muslim refugee terrorists on American soil, in the last five years there have been three attacks total involving Muslim immigrants of any kind (NYC, San Bernardino, Boston marathon -- all of which involved immigrants that were radicalized long after they entered this country). If that counts as "many attacks" with respect to Muslim immigrants, how do you characterize the violence done by radical white folks with ARs that kill FAR more innocent Americans? I still maintain they are statistically infrequent (not nearly as infrequent as terror attacks by Muslims, but still EXCEEDINGLY rare) events that we shouldn't overreact and enact sweeping policy changes in response to.
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.
If the immigrants "were radicalized long before they entered this country" that shoots any argument that we have suitable vetting procedures in place right in the nuts.
