PDA

View Full Version : Warning: The Enemy Walks Among Us



rcfieldz
02-02-2017, 04:58 AM
Remember You Let Them In...
17107

And Let Them Back In...
17108
17109

Who Gets In​ Next?

stjames1_53
02-02-2017, 05:36 AM
but but but..............they're PEOPLE ................frickin savages adored by Obama...and he's going to give Trump advice?

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 07:13 AM
Some say the Statue of Liberty forces us to take these people in.


Remember You Let Them In...
17107

And Let Them Back In...
17108
17109

Who Gets In​ Next?

Adelaide
02-02-2017, 07:57 AM
Some say the Statue of Liberty forces us to take these people in.
No, I think that people are saying the Statue of Liberty stands for something that is the opposite of the ban. Not saying I agree, but it is symbolic.

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 08:25 AM
No, I think that people are saying the Statue of Liberty stands for something that is the opposite of the ban. Not saying I agree, but it is symbolic.

The intelligent ones maybe. But if you pay attention to the news and read some posts here my previous comment is spot on.

Docthehun
02-02-2017, 08:31 AM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kd82oJmzZUU/hqdefault.jpg

"The enemy walks among us"

Cthulhu
02-02-2017, 08:44 AM
The intelligent ones maybe. But if you pay attention to the news and read some posts here my previous comment is spot on.
Statue of liberty should be torn down.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Scrounger
02-02-2017, 09:00 AM
No, I think that people are saying the Statue of Liberty stands for something that is the opposite of the ban. Not saying I agree, but it is symbolic.

I think that the anti-immigrant lobby realizes that nobody is saying the Statue of Liberty means we must let anyone in. It's just that we cannot hang out the Welcome mat and then tell people they are not really "welcome" unless they can do something for the anti-immigrant lobby. Apparently the rest of society does not matter.

With respect to Muslims, America is not very realistic. Some people think America can be all things to all people. We can't. We have our own culture. An element of our citizenry has tried to change that fact for years. For example, in the 1790s the U.S. entered into a treaty with Tripoli. Article 11 provided:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan)) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Today, the atheists run around and declare that America is not a Christian nation (consequently we would not retain a fundamental chunk of our culture.) Anybody can be an "American." But, I have to tell you the Rest of the Story:

We go back to the Treaty of Tripoli. What the critics don't want to tell you is that the wording of that treaty was challenged. And Wikipedia sums it up nicely:


"A prominent member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McHenry), claims that he protested the language of article 11 before its ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wolcott,_Jr.), September 26, 1800: "The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Barlow) was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion."

A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805, superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


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

And so, we retained that chunk of our culture. Today, our Republic is incompatible with the Nation of Islam. They have declared war. Pretending that we are not at war is counterproductive to our future. Pretending that there are not fundamental differences between us is a lie. If we keep opening the door to our enemy, we will only destroy our country.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 09:06 AM
The enemy is us.

https://newsone.com/1417755/top-10-white-christian-terrorists/

People like Jared Loughner, would be assassin.

Timothy McVeigh, the OKC bomber.

James Eagan Holmes, movie theater shooter.

Frazier Glenn Miller, who attacked a Jewish retirement community.

Need I go on?

Chris
02-02-2017, 09:12 AM
Statue of liberty should be torn down.

Fear profits a man nothing.

:shocked:

patrickt
02-02-2017, 09:42 AM
No, I think that people are saying the Statue of Liberty stands for something that is the opposite of the ban. Not saying I agree, but it is symbolic.
Close. They're saying we have to let Muslims in and keep Christians out. They're saying we have to let people in who hate us, like Persians, and keep out people who want to join us, like Cubans.

The people who burn, spit on, and wipe their ass with the flag, want to destroy the Constitution, hate America, now want to weep over the Statue of Liberty. How hypocritical.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 09:43 AM
Close. They're saying we have to let Muslims in and keep Christians out. They're saying we have to let people in who hate us, like Persians, and keep out people who want to join us, like Cubans.

LOL, stop. The RWNJ propaganda is doing you real damage.

Scrounger
02-02-2017, 10:37 AM
The enemy is us.

https://newsone.com/1417755/top-10-white-christian-terrorists/
http://naturalsociety.com/arizona-shooter-jared-lee-loughner-most-likely-on-psychotropic-drugs/
People like Jared Loughner, would be assassin.

Timothy McVeigh, the OKC bomber.

James Eagan Holmes, movie theater shooter.

Frazier Glenn Miller, who attacked a Jewish retirement community.

Need I go on?

By all means, feel free to. We can humor you all day long. But, as I've stated on gun control threads, the use of SSRIs are at fault in a lot of mass murders. And so I begin with some of those on your list:
Jared Loughner - most likely was on SSRIs and was mentally ill
http://pubrecord.org/nation/8718/jared-loughners-possible-mental/

James Eagan Holmes - a user of SSRIs which are known to have side effects of homicidal and suicidal thoughts

http://www.naturalnews.com/039796_James_Holmes_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressa nts.html

Frazier Glenn Miller - By chance I met Glenn Miller back in the late 1980s. The man was a raging alcoholic that couldn't last more than ten minutes without a cigarette. His basic diet was beer, cigarettes and coffee.

One time Miller was arrested in mid act having sex with a black transvestite. The guy had a baby with a Polynesian woman; Harold Covington, a neo nazi that knew Miller for years claims Miller had other interracial children. In any event, when you consider his extreme racial views were behind his motives in a mass killing, you're dealing with a sick puppy - a mental case. A KKK member that chases trannies, has interracial kids and married a non-white...

That leaves us with Timothy McVeigh - That story is too long for this thread, but we can go there in a separate thread if you want to know why that is irrelevant to this discussion more than the previous murderers.

Suffice it to say, when you have a religious cult or a political entity that you can identify and you know they pose a danger, you deal with them. Years ago a member of the Fugitive Squad with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation once told me that 1 out of every four Ku Klux Klan members were paid informants for the government.

I can't prove that number either way, but that was his best guess. In America, extremist groups are infiltrated, monitored, publicly ridiculed and heavily scrutinized. We can do no less with Muslims. Their religion has been demonstrated to be conducive to violent acts. It doesn't hold water to pretend to cry crocodile tears for them. America gives no safe haven nor toleration for any religious group that has a white racial tenet they adhere to.

We don't talk about their Freedoms, their Religious Liberties, etc. We, as a country, do everything short of executing them. The only thing I think some of us on this thread want is the same treatment we give to any group of people whose beliefs may be dangerous to us. And if they aren't here, why allow them to come?

Adelaide
02-02-2017, 10:48 AM
Statue of liberty should be torn down.
Fear profits a man nothing.


That's a little bit extreme. It's an iconic, American site. It seems akin to suggesting you tear down the White House or take down the Liberty bell.

Adelaide
02-02-2017, 10:55 AM
Close. They're saying we have to let Muslims in and keep Christians out. They're saying we have to let people in who hate us, like Persians, and keep out people who want to join us, like Cubans.

The people who burn, spit on, and wipe their ass with the flag, want to destroy the Constitution, hate America, now want to weep over the Statue of Liberty. How hypocritical.

Uh... majority of people aren't burning flags.

The ban does target predominantly Muslim countries but the interesting thing about that is that majority of immigrants from predominantly Muslim areas are actually Christian - is that what you meant? Persians seems like a pretty out of date term. Another fun fact is that Arab/Muslim immigrants tend to be in the middle-to-upper income class, whereas most other immigrant groups tend to have a lower socioeconomic status. I had to write a paper on this a couple months ago.

Am I misunderstanding what you meant by keeping Christians out?

Adelaide
02-02-2017, 10:56 AM
The intelligent ones maybe. But if you pay attention to the news and read some posts here my previous comment is spot on.
I don't agree. Perhaps the most extreme in society think that, but majority of people aren't that extreme (or stupid).

decedent
02-02-2017, 10:56 AM
Statue of liberty should be torn down.

Fear profits a man nothing.

I can't wait for this nationalism nonsense to be over. The hysterical mob is in charge for a while, but people will eventually come back to their senses.

Green Arrow
02-02-2017, 11:13 AM
Statue of liberty should be torn down.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Destroy history and culture? To what end?

Green Arrow
02-02-2017, 11:14 AM
Close. They're saying we have to let Muslims in and keep Christians out. They're saying we have to let people in who hate us, like Persians, and keep out people who want to join us, like Cubans.

The people who burn, spit on, and wipe their ass with the flag, want to destroy the Constitution, hate America, now want to weep over the Statue of Liberty. How hypocritical.

Who says we need to keep Christians out?

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 11:29 AM
No, I think that people are saying the Statue of Liberty stands for something that is the opposite of the ban. Not saying I agree, but it is symbolic.


Actually, the Statue of Liberty stands for people who wish to be free. Not people who wish to destroy a society or force 14th century views upon a society.

patrickt
02-02-2017, 11:53 AM
LOL, stop. The RWNJ propaganda is doing you real damage.
You have to love a non-response from an idiot who can't address the issues. Did you sleep through the discussion of Christians from Iraq not being admitted or did they not discuss that in PoliticUSA? Did you miss your sainted President's Executive Action ordering the return of Cubans fleeing the oppressive dictatorship returned to be dealt with by his friends in power?

Now, you can go back to your left-wing media and tell each other how smart you are.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 03:00 PM
You have to love a non-response from an idiot who can't address the issues. Did you sleep through the discussion of Christians from Iraq not being admitted or did they not discuss that in PoliticUSA? Did you miss your sainted President's Executive Action ordering the return of Cubans fleeing the oppressive dictatorship returned to be dealt with by his friends in power?

Now, you can go back to your left-wing media and tell each other how smart you are.

They love that echo chamber known as the modern mainstream media.

Don
02-02-2017, 03:08 PM
Actually, the Statue of Liberty stands for people who wish to be free. Not people who wish to destroy a society or force 14th century views upon a society.
It was erected in 1886. It was supposed to be erected in 1876 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of independence day. Independence from tyranny.

The Statue of Liberty represents Libertas, Roman goddess of Liberty. She bears a torch liberty. She bears a torch and a tabula ansata. It’s a tabula that evokes the law on which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.
That’s what words are on the Statue of Liberty, words that commemorate July 4th, 1776. A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 03:30 PM
I can't wait for this nationalism nonsense to be over. The hysterical mob is in charge for a while, but people will eventually come back to their senses.
Hold your breath. I bet it will be over any second now.

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 03:31 PM
I don't agree. Perhaps the most extreme in society think that, but majority of people aren't that extreme (or stupid).

That is fine. We can agree to disagree.

Chris
02-02-2017, 05:13 PM
It was erected in 1886. It was supposed to be erected in 1876 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of independence day. Independence from tyranny.

Source, please.

Chris
02-02-2017, 05:15 PM
You have to love a non-response from an idiot who can't address the issues. Did you sleep through the discussion of Christians from Iraq not being admitted or did they not discuss that in PoliticUSA? Did you miss your sainted President's Executive Action ordering the return of Cubans fleeing the oppressive dictatorship returned to be dealt with by his friends in power?

Now, you can go back to your left-wing media and tell each other how smart you are.


Name calling.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 08:28 PM
By all means, feel free to. We can humor you all day long. But, as I've stated on gun control threads, the use of SSRIs are at fault in a lot of mass murders. And so I begin with some of those on your list:
Jared Loughner - most likely was on SSRIs and was mentally ill
http://pubrecord.org/nation/8718/jared-loughners-possible-mental/

James Eagan Holmes - a user of SSRIs which are known to have side effects of homicidal and suicidal thoughts

http://www.naturalnews.com/039796_James_Holmes_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressa nts.html

Frazier Glenn Miller - By chance I met Glenn Miller back in the late 1980s. The man was a raging alcoholic that couldn't last more than ten minutes without a cigarette. His basic diet was beer, cigarettes and coffee.

One time Miller was arrested in mid act having sex with a black transvestite. The guy had a baby with a Polynesian woman; Harold Covington, a neo nazi that knew Miller for years claims Miller had other interracial children. In any event, when you consider his extreme racial views were behind his motives in a mass killing, you're dealing with a sick puppy - a mental case. A KKK member that chases trannies, has interracial kids and married a non-white...

That leaves us with Timothy McVeigh - That story is too long for this thread, but we can go there in a separate thread if you want to know why that is irrelevant to this discussion more than the previous murderers.

Suffice it to say, when you have a religious cult or a political entity that you can identify and you know they pose a danger, you deal with them. Years ago a member of the Fugitive Squad with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation once told me that 1 out of every four Ku Klux Klan members were paid informants for the government.

I can't prove that number either way, but that was his best guess. In America, extremist groups are infiltrated, monitored, publicly ridiculed and heavily scrutinized. We can do no less with Muslims. Their religion has been demonstrated to be conducive to violent acts. It doesn't hold water to pretend to cry crocodile tears for them. America gives no safe haven nor toleration for any religious group that has a white racial tenet they adhere to.

We don't talk about their Freedoms, their Religious Liberties, etc. We, as a country, do everything short of executing them. The only thing I think some of us on this thread want is the same treatment we give to any group of people whose beliefs may be dangerous to us. And if they aren't here, why allow them to come?

Do you think Muslim terrorists are sane?

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 08:31 PM
Actually, the Statue of Liberty stands for people who wish to be free. Not people who wish to destroy a society or force 14th century views upon a society.

So thaaaaats why the conservative members are saying tear it down.

Archer0915
02-02-2017, 08:33 PM
No, I think that people are saying the Statue of Liberty stands for something that is the opposite of the ban. Not saying I agree, but it is symbolic.

Ahhh we know the Statue had nothing to do with immigration and I believe the poem was commissioned to help with the pedestal.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 08:43 PM
It was erected in 1886. It was supposed to be erected in 1876 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of independence day. Independence from tyranny.


Source, please.

Lady Liberty's story is long and interesting but sadly that isn't part of it. The torch was displayed at the world's fair in 1876 in a fundraising move but the she wasn't whole and in place until 1886.

https://www.google.com/amp/parade.com/311395/viannguyen/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-statue-of-liberty-she-was-almost-gold/amp/?client=ms-android-boost-us

Archer0915
02-02-2017, 08:45 PM
Source, please.

Frenchman Edouard de Laboulaye first proposed the idea of a monument for the United States in 1865. Ten years later sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi was commissioned to design a sculpture with 1876 in mind for completion, to commemorate the centennial of the American Declaration of Independence. The Statue was named “Liberty Enlightening the World” and was a joint effort between America and France.

http://www.libertyellisfoundation.org/statue-history

Archer0915
02-02-2017, 08:47 PM
Lady Liberty's story is long and interesting but sadly that isn't part of it. The torch was displayed at the world's fair in 1876 in a fundraising move but the she wasn't whole and in place until 1886.

https://www.google.com/amp/parade.com/311395/viannguyen/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-statue-of-liberty-she-was-almost-gold/amp/?client=ms-android-boost-us

Don is correct:

Frenchman Edouard de Laboulaye first proposed the idea of a monument for the United States in 1865. Ten years later sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi was commissioned to design a sculpture with 1876 in mind for completion, to commemorate the centennial of the American Declaration of Independence. The Statue was named “Liberty Enlightening the World” and was a joint effort between America and France.


http://www.libertyellisfoundation.org/statue-history

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 08:53 PM
Don is correct:

Frenchman Edouard de Laboulaye first proposed the idea of a monument for the United States in 1865. Ten years later sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi was commissioned to design a sculpture with 1876 in mind for completion, to commemorate the centennial of the American Declaration of Independence. The Statue was named “Liberty Enlightening the World” and was a joint effort between America and France.


http://www.libertyellisfoundation.org/statue-history

Well ok then

I stand corrected. Thank you for the info.

Archer0915
02-02-2017, 08:55 PM
Well ok then

I stand corrected. Thank you for the info.

Hey I read/heard something about it recently or I would have been skeptical myself.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 09:00 PM
So thaaaaats why the conservative members are saying tear it down.


What?

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 09:03 PM
^^^ Stoopid ^^^

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 09:23 PM
So thaaaaats why the conservative members are saying tear it down.
Member. I think only one said to tear it down.

rcfieldz
02-02-2017, 09:36 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

There is no evidence that Dzhokhar Anzorovich "Jahar" Tsarnaev ever left the U.S.

resister
02-02-2017, 09:42 PM
Member. I think only one said to tear it down.
Hey ! you are getting in the way of a lying narrative!

Scrounger
02-02-2017, 09:48 PM
Do you think Muslim terrorists are sane?

Unlike SSRIs, I think that Muslim terrorists are in more in charge of their mental faculties. Society has the authority to tell the medical community that they must keep people in a controlled environment when they are taking drugs that are known to cause people to commit violent acts.

We, as a society, bear some of the responsibility for allowing the medical community to administer dangerous drugs as a first option instead of a last resort.

Political jihadists, racist extremists, etc. that kill for political reasons are making a fully and indisputable conscious choice.

Dr. Who
02-02-2017, 09:50 PM
Remember You Let Them In...
17107

And Let Them Back In...
17108
17109

Who Gets In​ Next?

Who is keeping track of the home-grown nut-jobs who totally outnumber the above? Thus far the bulk of terrorist activities or spree killings (who really cares why some idiot is murdering a crowd of people - are you less dead?) have been domestic assailants. Even the so-called terrorists who grew up in America are really suffering from mental health issues. You don't suddenly start subscribing to suicide missions if you are in good mental health or unless you are receiving money to save your family from starvation or acting because of some form of extortion.

Foreign terrorists are generally being well screened. Domestic nut-jobs, not so much. IMO, mental health issues are rising in direct proportion to excessive free time for young people. They have too much time to obsess about personal problems and look for like-minded malcontents to talk to on the internet.

Is screening ever going to be 100%. No. However, your chances of being killed by a foreign terrorist is so miniscule as to be statistically irrelevant. Your chances of being killed by your mentally ill neighbor are much higher.

Scrounger
02-02-2017, 10:03 PM
Who is keeping track of the home-grown nut-jobs who totally outnumber the above? Thus far the bulk of terrorist activities or spree killings (who really cares why some idiot is murdering a crowd of people - are you less dead?) have been domestic assailants. Even the so-called terrorists who grew up in America are really suffering from mental health issues. You don't suddenly start subscribing to suicide missions if you are in good mental health or unless you are receiving money to save your family from starvation or acting because of some form of extortion.

Foreign terrorists are generally being well screened. Domestic nut-jobs, not so much. IMO, mental health issues are rising in direct proportion to excessive free time for young people. They have too much time to obsess about personal problems and look for like-minded malcontents to talk to on the internet.

Is screening ever going to be 100%. No. However, your chances of being killed by a foreign terrorist is so miniscule as to be statistically irrelevant. Your chances of being killed by your mentally ill neighbor are much higher.

We're playing semantics here. Omar Mateen and Nidal Hasan (among others) may have been born here, but they were Muslims whose parents were foreign born. I won't research everyone because these debates are never-ending. Many terrorist attacks in this country are done so by Muslims.

Their concepts are not compatible with ours. While I don't agree with all this guy's thinking on the subject, he is more qualified than you or I:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-immigration-ban_us_58933c0de4b070cf8b80d970

rcfieldz
02-02-2017, 10:18 PM
Who is keeping track of the home-grown nut-jobs who totally outnumber the above? Thus far the bulk of terrorist activities or spree killings (who really cares why some idiot is murdering a crowd of people - are you less dead?) have been domestic assailants. Even the so-called terrorists who grew up in America are really suffering from mental health issues. You don't suddenly start subscribing to suicide missions if you are in good mental health or unless you are receiving money to save your family from starvation or acting because of some form of extortion.

Foreign terrorists are generally being well screened. Domestic nut-jobs, not so much. IMO, mental health issues are rising in direct proportion to excessive free time for young people. They have too much time to obsess about personal problems and look for like-minded malcontents to talk to on the internet.

Is screening ever going to be 100%. No. However, your chances of being killed by a foreign terrorist is so miniscule as to be statistically irrelevant. Your chances of being killed by your mentally ill neighbor are much higher.

Outnumber? Please post links. And what's the death count? Do you suppose that Timothy McVeigh may have inspired extremists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

If you see something...say something.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/us/omar-mateen-wife-arrested/

Dr. Who
02-02-2017, 10:40 PM
We're playing semantics here. Omar Mateen and Nidal Hasan (among others) may have been born here, but they were Muslims whose parents were foreign born. I won't research everyone because these debates are never-ending. Many terrorist attacks in this country are done so by Muslims.

Their concepts are not compatible with ours. While I don't agree with all this guy's thinking on the subject, he is more qualified than you or I:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-immigration-ban_us_58933c0de4b070cf8b80d970
While I am not suggesting that immigration from the ME should be a free for all, I seriously doubt that letting in women and children and men over a certain age who are not crazy fundamentalists is particularly dangerous. Certainly just banning people simply because of their country of origin is a bit silly. Syria was invaded by ISIS, not the birthplace. Really the birthplace of Islamicism can be found where Wahhabism is most popular, and those are the countries not currently restricted. It makes no logical sense at all. The leaders of the movement are Wahhabis. The 911 terrorists were Wahhabis, from the currently non-restricted countries. People are drawing parallels between the completely unvetted stream of refugees entering the EU via places like Italy, with a far more vetted process of bringing in refugees who are standing in queue to be allowed in. There is no guarantee with any immigrant that they might not turn out to be a nightmare, however as America breeds their own nightmares at a fairly consistent rate with no vetting whatsoever, the odds of the newcomers causing problems is probably lower than homegrown crazies. The OP is correct in one particular respect, if you want to find the source of terrorist activities in America, look closer to home.

Dr. Who
02-02-2017, 11:14 PM
Outnumber? Please post links. And what's the death count? Do you suppose that Timothy McVeigh may have inspired extremists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

If you see something...say something.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/us/omar-mateen-wife-arrested/

Since 911 (2001), 109 at the hands of foreign-born terrorists (not all from the ME). http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-refugee-muslim-ban-terrorist-attack-us-statistics/

As of 2014, 486 were killed by domestic spree killers since 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html

The total number of deaths in America as a result of any kind of terrorism in the last 10 years: 10. The number of deaths in America as a result of the use of guns in the last 10 years: 280,024. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Do the math. Your chances of being killed by a criminal or a nut-job are 2800.24 to 1 more likely than being killed by a foreign terrorist.

Cthulhu
02-03-2017, 12:27 AM
:shocked:
It is used to often as an excuse to ignore present immigration law.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Cthulhu
02-03-2017, 12:29 AM
That's a little bit extreme. It's an iconic, American site. It seems akin to suggesting you tear down the White House or take down the Liberty bell.
Liberty Bell is groovy. But yeah, tear down the White House too.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Cthulhu
02-03-2017, 12:32 AM
I can't wait for this nationalism nonsense to be over. The hysterical mob is in charge for a while, but people will eventually come back to their senses.
I built part of a truck dock today.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Cthulhu
02-03-2017, 12:32 AM
Destroy history and culture? To what end?
No, destroying sources of excuses.

Fear profits a man nothing.

stjames1_53
02-03-2017, 05:36 AM
Statue of liberty should be torn down.

Fear profits a man nothing.

maybe we can donate it to the far eastern edge of France...............jes sayin'

Peter1469
02-03-2017, 05:43 AM
Describe the vetting process the US uses to investigate the background of someone who fled a territory controlled by ISIL for 2 years? They look at various nations intel databases to see if the name came up and if so why. They look at Interpol records for the same thing. Are all ISIL fighters on such lists? What else can they do to vet these people? Call the ISIL local sheriff for a statement of character?


While I am not suggesting that immigration from the ME should be a free for all, I seriously doubt that letting in women and children and men over a certain age who are not crazy fundamentalists is particularly dangerous. Certainly just banning people simply because of their country of origin is a bit silly. Syria was invaded by ISIS, not the birthplace. Really the birthplace of Islamicism can be found where Wahhabism is most popular, and those are the countries not currently restricted. It makes no logical sense at all. The leaders of the movement are Wahhabis. The 911 terrorists were Wahhabis, from the currently non-restricted countries. People are drawing parallels between the completely unvetted stream of refugees entering the EU via places like Italy, with a far more vetted process of bringing in refugees who are standing in queue to be allowed in. There is no guarantee with any immigrant that they might not turn out to be a nightmare, however as America breeds their own nightmares at a fairly consistent rate with no vetting whatsoever, the odds of the newcomers causing problems is probably lower than homegrown crazies. The OP is correct in one particular respect, if you want to find the source of terrorist activities in America, look closer to home.

Peter1469
02-03-2017, 05:45 AM
You can't separate the lone wolf attackers from the US who were radicalized to the Jihadist cause from ISIL or al Qaeda- they fight for the same thing.

MAJ Hassan killed 14. (One was a fetus).

His handler's daughter died last week in the US raid in Yemen.
Since 911 (2001), 109 at the hands of foreign-born terrorists (not all from the ME). http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-refugee-muslim-ban-terrorist-attack-us-statistics/

As of 2014, 486 were killed by domestic spree killers since 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html

The total number of deaths in America as a result of any kind of terrorism in the last 10 years: 10. The number of deaths in America as a result of the use of guns in the last 10 years: 280,024. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Do the math. Your chances of being killed by a criminal or a nut-job are 2800.24 to 1 more likely than being killed by a foreign terrorist.

stjames1_53
02-03-2017, 06:01 AM
You can't separate the lone wolf attackers from the US who were radicalized to the Jihadist cause from ISIL or al Qaeda- they fight for the same thing.

MAJ Hassan killed 14. (One was a fetus).

His handler's daughter died last week in the US raid in Yemen.

I'm sure Lynch and Obie have a different spin to offer us....

Scrounger
02-03-2017, 04:51 PM
Since 911 (2001), 109 at the hands of foreign-born terrorists (not all from the ME). http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-refugee-muslim-ban-terrorist-attack-us-statistics/

As of 2014, 486 were killed by domestic spree killers since 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html

The total number of deaths in America as a result of any kind of terrorism in the last 10 years: 10. The number of deaths in America as a result of the use of guns in the last 10 years: 280,024. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Do the math. Your chances of being killed by a criminal or a nut-job are 2800.24 to 1 more likely than being killed by a foreign terrorist.

Your figures: "The total number of deaths in America as a result of any kind of terrorism in the last 10 years: 10."

So, the Boston City bombings and the San Bernadino shootings were not acts of terrorism?

Peter1469
02-03-2017, 05:15 PM
MAJ Hassan got 14 at Ft. Hood.

Dr. Who
02-03-2017, 07:29 PM
Your figures: "The total number of deaths in America as a result of any kind of terrorism in the last 10 years: 10."

So, the Boston City bombings and the San Bernadino shootings were not acts of terrorism?
The statistic is as of October 2015, so that figure should be 24 plus 13 for the Hasan shooting, making it 37, although I don't know how many would drop off from 2005. Thank you for the correction. Nevertheless, your odds are still far greater of being killed by a crazy neighbor.

Dr. Who
02-03-2017, 07:32 PM
MAJ Hassan got 14 at Ft. Hood.

I just included the 13 deaths from Ft. Hood.

Peter1469
02-03-2017, 09:50 PM
I just included the 13 deaths from Ft. Hood.

A female victim was pregnant. 14 dead.

Dr. Who
02-03-2017, 10:24 PM
A female victim was pregnant. 14 dead.

I won't argue the point. There were only 13 death certificates.

rcfieldz
02-03-2017, 10:32 PM
Since 911 (2001), 109 at the hands of foreign-born terrorists (not all from the ME). http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-refugee-muslim-ban-terrorist-attack-us-statistics/


As of 2014, 486 were killed by domestic spree killers since 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html

The total number of deaths in America as a result of any kind of terrorism in the last 10 years: 10. The number of deaths in America as a result of the use of guns in the last 10 years: 280,024. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Do the math. Your chances of being killed by a criminal or a nut-job are 2800.24 to 1 more likely than being killed by a foreign terrorist.

You have to add all linked to terrorism. Not what you only want to see.

Subdermal
02-03-2017, 10:48 PM
The statistic is as of October 2015, so that figure should be 24 plus 13 for the Hasan shooting, making it 37, although I don't know how many would drop off from 2005. Thank you for the correction. Nevertheless, your odds are still far greater of being killed by a crazy neighbor.
Your point is a deflection.

I can protect myself from a crazy neighbor by choosing certain actions. Your attempt to compare my odds of death in the manner you are attempting is non sequitur: we are discussing how to protect ourselves from the possibility of death at the hands of a terrorist. Your stance in no way acknowledges that terrorist attacks in a place like France, for instance, were at one time virtually unheard of. This is about anticipating a threat, and circumventing it.

Oh, if only the people of France could go back in time and reconsider their own naivete, and - perhaps - take direct issue with yours.

I am quite sure that the Steinle family doesn't find solace in your equivocations.

Peter1469
02-03-2017, 10:57 PM
I won't argue the point. There were only 13 death certificates.
Some states issue them if the death is caused by a homicide (other than abortion).

Scrounger
02-03-2017, 11:12 PM
Omar Mateen was an "American," but his parents were Muslims so a little paperwork prestidigitation moves that kind of terrorist act into the column of killing by a "neighbor."

Dr. Who
02-03-2017, 11:21 PM
Your point is a deflection.

I can protect myself from a crazy neighbor by choosing certain actions. Your attempt to compare my odds of death in the manner you are attempting is non sequitur: we are discussing how to protect ourselves from the possibility of death at the hands of a terrorist. Your stance in no way acknowledges that terrorist attacks in a place like France, for instance, were at one time virtually unheard of. This is about anticipating a threat, and circumventing it.

Oh, if only the people of France could go back in time and reconsider their own naivete, and - perhaps - take direct issue with yours.

I am quite sure that the Steinle family doesn't find solace in your equivocations.

That really depends on your definition of terrorist. I would also include all of those mentally unbalanced spree killers who have wrought more death and destruction in the last 10 years than any Muslims, as domestic terrorists. Dead is dead Subdermal. Whether the gun was loaded by a Christian, Muslim or atheist, if you don't see it coming, you may die. Are you more dead if the reason for killing relates to Islam or middle eastern polltics, rather than domestic politics or just general hatred for society because it didn't live up to expectations?

rcfieldz
02-03-2017, 11:25 PM
Where did this 10 years thing come from? Off topic..

Dr. Who
02-03-2017, 11:49 PM
Where did this 10 years thing come from? Off topic..
Because ten years is current in sociological and political terms.

rcfieldz
02-03-2017, 11:50 PM
Because ten years is current in sociological and political terms.
Not on the terms of my original post.

Common Sense
02-03-2017, 11:51 PM
Not on the terms of my original post.

How long ago do you think 9/11 was?

rcfieldz
02-04-2017, 12:00 AM
How long ago do you think 9/11 was?
You are still missing the point of this thread.

Common Sense
02-04-2017, 12:03 AM
You are still missing the point of this thread.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know the point of this thread.

Hal Jordan
02-04-2017, 01:46 AM
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us-walt-kelly-100338.jpg

Peter1469
02-04-2017, 07:41 AM
There are many types of people who fight for the various Jihadist groups- the two most known are al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (a wider area than S-Syria). Both of these organizations has a core group and then "franchise" groups made up of smaller lesser known Jihadist organizations that swear allegiance to one of the larger groups (and sometimes these smaller groups switch back and forth between al Q and ISIL).

Then there is a third group of terrorists / fighters. They are called lone wolves, or grassroots terrorists. Since 9-11 it has become harder for established terrorist organizations to infiltrate the West - especially with complex / spectacular attacks. So they have shifted tactics: (1) simple non-complex attacks conducted by there members such as an armed assault, knife attack, or using a truck or car; (2) or asking for citizens of the target countries to rise up in your name.

Both of these methods use the leaderless resistance group model (made famous by White White Supremists groupsgroups in the US). The eliminates a large weak spot for operatives working inside a hostile nation- it is easier to take down large numbers if a member is caught or turned. Conversely it also limits the tactics used. It forces the fighters to keep things simple.

The US has the best security for many reasons. So al Q and ISIL rely on lone wolves inside the US to conduct attacks. And that is what we have seen here. Europe is easier to infiltrate because of proximity and the openness of its borders.

Anyway just some background for context. We don't have cohorts of terrorist from the ME running around the US for a reason. But the lone wolves present a real danger.

rcfieldz
02-04-2017, 10:04 AM
Here they come...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/al-qaeda-says-trump-has-ignited-‘the-flame-of-jihad’-with-yemen-raid/ar-AAmAD45?li=BBnb7Kz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/a-deadly-us-raid-in-yemen-reveals-strength-of-al-qaeda-affiliate/2017/02/03/5753e1c6-e908-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_yemen-430am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c2a4b6b2cb31

Common Sense better hide in his bunker now.


Look out y'all... "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/02/in-yemeni-capital-signs-of-hatred-toward-americans-are-everywhere/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.5a97fb14d50c

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bannon-film-outline-warned-us-could-turn-into-islamic-states-of-america/2017/02/03/f73832f4-e8be-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.c97fb3d76377

Subdermal
02-04-2017, 10:34 AM
That really depends on your definition of terrorist. I would also include all of those mentally unbalanced spree killers who have wrought more death and destruction in the last 10 years than any Muslims, as domestic terrorists.


So? We already have rules in place for such forms of domestic terrorism. What more is there to do with them in this regard? And my "definition" isn't important. There are different forms of terrorism, and the form about which we are discussing is a new form, and requires a new strategy - particularly since we can easily understand where this flow of terrorism emanates.



Dead is dead Subdermal.


Non-sequitur, and emblematic of the broken thought processes of a liberal. I can die in a car accident as well, but "dead isn't dead": I could have died due my own fault (running a red light), or died because someone else was a 5 time drunk driver, and wasn't doing it again - and society foolishly didn't protect itself from the POS by throwing away the key, or taking more severe action.



Whether the gun was loaded by a Christian, Muslim or atheist, if you don't see it coming, you may die. Are you more dead if the reason for killing relates to Islam or middle eastern polltics, rather than domestic politics or just general hatred for society because it didn't live up to expectations?

Non sequitur. Threats take many forms, and require more than one strategy to combat. The wise amongst us can enact policy that anticipates threats, and averts them. The dense amongst us...cannot.

rcfieldz
02-04-2017, 10:45 AM
We must look ahead for they may be planning The Day Of Jihad where the radical extremists will be called upon to carry out a coordinated attack on their perceived enemies. That day must never happen. One already did...911!