peaceful time in human history while still recognizing that we are more at risk of terror attacks and mass shootings than we were 20yrs ago. You can also recognize how remote the chance of being killed in an attack is (incredibly) while arguing that something needs to be done to get that possibility to zero. They aren't mutually exclusive. Not everyone who argues for action against ISIS et al is driven by fear. Many are driven by compassion.
that while things are relatively safe in the West, that in certain parts of the West the potential for violence and bloodshed is significant and the threat to values is also significant. The notion, for instance, that one religion is above satire and ridicule because people acting in its name are liable to commit acts of violence in response is and should be anathema to us. Moreover, ISIS and fellow travelers throughout the world are visiting death and destruction upon people in some corners of the world, from Syria to Kabul, and for them it is tough to argue that the world is safer than it was thirty odd years ago.
as well as Donald Trump....As if the horror of these shootings was not bad enough I know you guys must have been devastated yesterday when we found out that this lunatic had nothing to do with Isis, and was just your garden variety nut that was obsessed with school shootings...
It matters because understanding why attacks happen can help us to prevent future attacks. It can also help to educate bigots and people who support policies like religious discrimination.
It seems clear mentally ill people with guns are dangerous. Perhaps we should be screening gun owners for mental health issues instead having a religious test for those visiting America. Oh wait, the NRA would never approve of that.
With a history of mental illness from purchasing firearms (the Virginia Tech shooter, for example, should have been unable to pass his background check - twice, actually). The issue isn't the NRA, (though I can see how certain under-informed and agenda driven individuals would think that), but rather the state systems for making mental health information available.
RE: oh and my condolences go out to Mike in Marin and Buford
as well as Donald Trump....As if the horror of these shootings was not bad enough I know you guys must have been devastated yesterday when we found out that this lunatic had nothing to do with Isis, and was just your garden variety nut that was obsessed with school shootings...
With a history of mental illness from purchasing firearms (the Virginia Tech shooter, for example, should have been unable to pass his background check - twice, actually). The issue isn't the NRA, (though I can see how certain under-informed and agenda driven individuals would think that), but rather the state systems for making mental health information available.
not to mention the Munich shooter is well you know in Munich and the NRA is mainly a USA based organization - they have some global reach, but nothing like the influence they have here, plus the Munich shooter bought his gun from the dark web (black market) and from what I read it was a prop gun that was re-made back into a real gun (which I had no idea was how they made prop guns or that they could be made back into real guns).
But the story fades quickly if it's just a regular nut instead of a Muslim nut
Like the Nice attack? You said it was just another nut and it turns out he had ties to a terror group and was planning the attack for months.
This guy could be just a nut, but his motivation was clear. Kill a bunch of people. But until they investigate, you won't know if he had other ties. Like where did he get 300 rounds of ammo in Germany that has strict gun control laws?
I have some experience with the current UK law, and it would be easier to build a new gun than to "re activate" a gun - a process that includes welding all its moving parts together.
I don't believe a history of mental illness is enough
It matters because understanding why attacks happen can help us to prevent future attacks. It can also help to educate bigots and people who support policies like religious discrimination.
It seems clear mentally ill people with guns are dangerous. Perhaps we should be screening gun owners for mental health issues instead having a religious test for those visiting America. Oh wait, the NRA would never approve of that.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
I do my best to be open minded on the subject. There are decent arguments to be made.
Firstly, refugees are not the same demographic as a 'normal' immigrant. Muslims that immigrate here from the ME, India, or SEA, are for the most part upper middle class folks that are relatively educated. The implication being that they are already more "westernized" (even if only in thought) than the general population of their country of origin.
Refugees on the other hand I imagine are a more representative sample of their country's economic demographics. (Gender and age are part of the discussion but not really important to my point). Considering the culture they are coming from and the basic differences (much, much, more than a European or Asian) with Western culture, some of which are unimaginable here, we'd be foolish to not think long and hard about the difficulties of assimilating large groups of these refugees. It isn't always about racism and religious discrimination.
And it absolutely is not the same as Muslim immigrants that we have seen over the past few decades. Looking at it through that lense ("my immigrant neighbor's are great people") is a mistake.
First, no one was discussing refugees. Second, how do you know they're Muslim? Do you also support a religious test? I can't think of anything more un-American.
First, no one was discussing refugees. Second, how do you know they're Muslim? Do you also support a religious test? I can't think of anything more un-American.
I assumed. Which policies of religious discrimination were you referring to? There are only two of which I've heard that have cause a rukus: Limiting refugees and the fantasy "no Muslims allowed" one. I was giving you credit insomuch as I don't think you believe the latter could possibly happen.
Also- of course there would be no Muslim test.
What part of limiting or refusing refugees from a culture with vastly different values is unamerican?
Has anyone ever suggested we take an unlimited number of refugees?
The Muslim test is a huge part of a platform and is supported by many Americans. You must have a crystal ball if you say it's not happening.
I believe we have a moral obligation to help a limited number of those suffering. Especially since we played a role in creating the problem.
The entire situation is sad and similar to how Americans treated Jews in the 40s.
There are times when I feel embarrassed for America. History will not treat us kindly.
I do actually agree with much of what you're saying. I don't have a crystal ball, but no, I don't believe there is any possibility that "no Muslims" will ever be put into action regardless of who wins the election. Although not perfect, we do still have checks and balances in the form of the legislative and judicial branches that keep the more outrageous of the campaign platforms and promises from ever actually being adopted.
Does it suck that many people support such policies out of fear and bigotry? Yep, it sure does. Is it going to get better anytime soon? Nope, not as long as there continue to be frequent terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.
As far as the refugees- I believe there is a moral obligation to help people trying to escape war and make a better life. I don't believe that means we forget about protecting our own people and our values. This is very much different from other instances in the past. You can't compare it to how Jews were treated because Jews weren't strapping bombs to themselves and taking as many Gentiles with them as they could. You can't compare it to the Jews because they weren't coming from cultures in which women were treated as second class citizens and denied such things as education (relative to their contemporaries).
I do absolutely believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims from the ME want nothing more than to live in peace and to give their kids more than they had.
I can also recognize that these folks are less educated (not just r and r's but educated about the world and other cultures) than the same folks over here that you are so embarrassed by. Take a step back and apply the same thought process you use on your fellow Americans and apply it to poorer, less educated folks, from a less developed (rights wise) culture that's very different from our own and ask yourself just how many of them you want here.
To be clear, I am not against any refugees. I think we need to really understand what we are getting into it we ultimately decide to take tens of thousands of them.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
You do know that ISIS has infiltrated the refugee camps and some of the Paris attackers got there with refugees? And the FBI has said they can't vet these people.
But it's all a game to you, you just post this shit to stir up trouble.
You do know that ISIS has infiltrated the refugee camps and some of the Paris attackers got there with refugees? And the FBI has said they can't vet these people.
I assume the plan is that anyone who can't be vetted won't be allowed in the country.
What I don't understand is why these people need to be relocated halfway across the globe as immigrants rather than staying nearby their original countries as refugees waiting to return to their county when the hostilities cease. Palestinian refugees have been waiting generations to return to their place of their origin (or their grandparents origin) without being re-settled elsewhere, what makes the Syrian refugees in a hurry to abandon their dream of a return?
Logic would dictate that Arab/Muslim refugees keep to Arab/Muslim countries where they (for the most part) share a culture and language until it is safe to return to their homes in Syria. Why relocate refugees to America where they are bound to experience the most culture shock and the most difficulty assimilating?
We disagree on refugees. How is that stirring anything up? The fact that we played a role in screwing it up doesn't seem to bother you. BTW, how would one vet a widow with 2 young children?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
The neighbors don't want them because they're destabilizing, and because in many instances these conflicts prove much more enduring than originally anticipated (Lebanon, for instance, had nearly a quarter-century of on again-off again war and is still at risk). Jordan, which has settled refugees, had to drive out the PLO in the 70's. The PLO was arguably the tipping point for the start of the Lebanese Civil War. Iraq has its own problems, to be sure. Saudi is famously insular, and the princelets around the Gulf don't have the resources (food/water, not $ - they have plenty of that) to accept large numbers of refugees either.
We disagree on refugees. How is that stirring anything up? The fact that we played a role in screwing it up doesn't seem to bother you. BTW, how would one vet a widow with 2 young children?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
We disagree on refugees. How is that stirring anything up? The fact that we played a role in screwing it up doesn't seem to bother you. BTW, how would one vet a widow with 2 young children?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
It's not about refugees. It's about you.
Great, I'll try harder to ignore you.
Suicide bombing by a 27-year old Syrian national...
I
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
Holy cow the right wing has so twisted what Comey said months ago in front of congress. We have an intensely strong vetting system. It takes 6 months to get a refugee to get into this country. They are first vetted by UN security and then our country vets them. Congress asked him for 100% guarantee and nobody can ever give that about anyone trying to enter the country. Somehow Sean Hannity and Breitbart.com have taken that and interpreted it to mean that taking in refugees would be a free for all that we can't stop or monitor.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
You do know that ISIS has infiltrated the refugee camps and some of the Paris attackers got there with refugees? And the FBI has said they can't vet these people.
But it's all a game to you, you just post this shit to stir up trouble.
The most common locations that asylum seekers are leaving include Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Albania and Syria. Up to October 4, the number of refugees entering Finland from Iraq was 13,848, while 1,810 came from Somalia, 1,060 from Afghanistan, 676 from Albania and 409 from Syria.
Whats the gender split?
According to Kautto the vast majority of the asylum seekers roughly 15,000 are male. Women account for 2,816. There are close to 2,000 children traveling with adults, while unaccompanied minors number around 1,000.
That's Finland, but most are non-Syrian refugees and males.
We disagree on refugees. How is that stirring anything up? The fact that we played a role in screwing it up doesn't seem to bother you. BTW, how would one vet a widow with 2 young children?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
I agree the world is dangerous. It will always be dangerous.
I don't see any benefit in exaggerating the danger on US soil.
I agree the world is dangerous. It will always be dangerous.
I don't see any benefit in exaggerating the danger on US soil.
Chris Rock
What was that, 4 days?
It seems clear mentally ill people with guns are dangerous. Perhaps we should be screening gun owners for mental health issues instead having a religious test for those visiting America. Oh wait, the NRA would never approve of that.
+1
not to mention the Munich shooter is well you know in Munich and the NRA is mainly a USA based organization - they have some global reach, but nothing like the influence they have here, plus the Munich shooter bought his gun from the dark web (black market) and from what I read it was a prop gun that was re-made back into a real gun (which I had no idea was how they made prop guns or that they could be made back into real guns).
Like the Nice attack? You said it was just another nut and it turns out he had ties to a terror group and was planning the attack for months.
This guy could be just a nut, but his motivation was clear. Kill a bunch of people. But until they investigate, you won't know if he had other ties. Like where did he get 300 rounds of ammo in Germany that has strict gun control laws?
Pj, I was referring to what we can do to prevent attacks.
Link - ( New Window )
It seems clear mentally ill people with guns are dangerous. Perhaps we should be screening gun owners for mental health issues instead having a religious test for those visiting America. Oh wait, the NRA would never approve of that.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
I do my best to be open minded on the subject. There are decent arguments to be made.
Firstly, refugees are not the same demographic as a 'normal' immigrant. Muslims that immigrate here from the ME, India, or SEA, are for the most part upper middle class folks that are relatively educated. The implication being that they are already more "westernized" (even if only in thought) than the general population of their country of origin.
Refugees on the other hand I imagine are a more representative sample of their country's economic demographics. (Gender and age are part of the discussion but not really important to my point). Considering the culture they are coming from and the basic differences (much, much, more than a European or Asian) with Western culture, some of which are unimaginable here, we'd be foolish to not think long and hard about the difficulties of assimilating large groups of these refugees. It isn't always about racism and religious discrimination.
And it absolutely is not the same as Muslim immigrants that we have seen over the past few decades. Looking at it through that lense ("my immigrant neighbor's are great people") is a mistake.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
I assumed. Which policies of religious discrimination were you referring to? There are only two of which I've heard that have cause a rukus: Limiting refugees and the fantasy "no Muslims allowed" one. I was giving you credit insomuch as I don't think you believe the latter could possibly happen.
Also- of course there would be no Muslim test.
What part of limiting or refusing refugees from a culture with vastly different values is unamerican?
Has anyone ever suggested we take an unlimited number of refugees?
The Muslim test is a huge part of a platform and is supported by many Americans. You must have a crystal ball if you say it's not happening.
I believe we have a moral obligation to help a limited number of those suffering. Especially since we played a role in creating the problem.
The entire situation is sad and similar to how Americans treated Jews in the 40s.
There are times when I feel embarrassed for America. History will not treat us kindly.
Has anyone ever suggested we take an unlimited number of refugees?
The Muslim test is a huge part of a platform and is supported by many Americans. You must have a crystal ball if you say it's not happening.
I believe we have a moral obligation to help a limited number of those suffering. Especially since we played a role in creating the problem.
The entire situation is sad and similar to how Americans treated Jews in the 40s.
There are times when I feel embarrassed for America. History will not treat us kindly.
Seems like you are the one with the crystal ball Bill.
1 person killed, several others injured in explosion at bar in Ansbach, Germany, officials say - BBC News
for all we know that could be a gas leak at this point, no one else has picked up on it from what I have seen.
no idea on the other point. seems like a disaster.
Has anyone ever suggested we take an unlimited number of refugees?
The Muslim test is a huge part of a platform and is supported by many Americans. You must have a crystal ball if you say it's not happening.
I believe we have a moral obligation to help a limited number of those suffering. Especially since we played a role in creating the problem.
The entire situation is sad and similar to how Americans treated Jews in the 40s.
There are times when I feel embarrassed for America. History will not treat us kindly.
I do actually agree with much of what you're saying. I don't have a crystal ball, but no, I don't believe there is any possibility that "no Muslims" will ever be put into action regardless of who wins the election. Although not perfect, we do still have checks and balances in the form of the legislative and judicial branches that keep the more outrageous of the campaign platforms and promises from ever actually being adopted.
Does it suck that many people support such policies out of fear and bigotry? Yep, it sure does. Is it going to get better anytime soon? Nope, not as long as there continue to be frequent terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.
As far as the refugees- I believe there is a moral obligation to help people trying to escape war and make a better life. I don't believe that means we forget about protecting our own people and our values. This is very much different from other instances in the past. You can't compare it to how Jews were treated because Jews weren't strapping bombs to themselves and taking as many Gentiles with them as they could. You can't compare it to the Jews because they weren't coming from cultures in which women were treated as second class citizens and denied such things as education (relative to their contemporaries).
I do absolutely believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims from the ME want nothing more than to live in peace and to give their kids more than they had.
I can also recognize that these folks are less educated (not just r and r's but educated about the world and other cultures) than the same folks over here that you are so embarrassed by. Take a step back and apply the same thought process you use on your fellow Americans and apply it to poorer, less educated folks, from a less developed (rights wise) culture that's very different from our own and ask yourself just how many of them you want here.
To be clear, I am not against any refugees. I think we need to really understand what we are getting into it we ultimately decide to take tens of thousands of them.
Quote:
That's just awful. Why would anyone want to emulate Merkel's example?
for all we know that could be a gas leak at this point, no one else has picked up on it from what I have seen.
no idea on the other point. seems like a disaster.
Mayor confirmed it was a bomb, not a gas leak.
Quote:
In comment 13043589 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
That's just awful. Why would anyone want to emulate Merkel's example?
for all we know that could be a gas leak at this point, no one else has picked up on it from what I have seen.
no idea on the other point. seems like a disaster.
Mayor confirmed it was a bomb, not a gas leak.
I was pretty sure, but didn't want to jump to conclusions.
History will not treat us kindly sounds like some sort of prediction, but who knows with you.
Quote:
I'm not predicting anything
History will not treat us kindly sounds like some sort of prediction, but who knows with you.
Wasn't worth responding to Rob.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
You do know that ISIS has infiltrated the refugee camps and some of the Paris attackers got there with refugees? And the FBI has said they can't vet these people.
But it's all a game to you, you just post this shit to stir up trouble.
What I don't understand is why these people need to be relocated halfway across the globe as immigrants rather than staying nearby their original countries as refugees waiting to return to their county when the hostilities cease. Palestinian refugees have been waiting generations to return to their place of their origin (or their grandparents origin) without being re-settled elsewhere, what makes the Syrian refugees in a hurry to abandon their dream of a return?
Logic would dictate that Arab/Muslim refugees keep to Arab/Muslim countries where they (for the most part) share a culture and language until it is safe to return to their homes in Syria. Why relocate refugees to America where they are bound to experience the most culture shock and the most difficulty assimilating?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
It's not about refugees. It's about you.
Quote:
We disagree on refugees. How is that stirring anything up? The fact that we played a role in screwing it up doesn't seem to bother you. BTW, how would one vet a widow with 2 young children?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
It's not about refugees. It's about you.
Great, I'll try harder to ignore you.
Practice at your craft makes perfect. Well good practice makes perfect. Must be hard for these bozos to practice suicide bombs.
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
Holy cow the right wing has so twisted what Comey said months ago in front of congress. We have an intensely strong vetting system. It takes 6 months to get a refugee to get into this country. They are first vetted by UN security and then our country vets them. Congress asked him for 100% guarantee and nobody can ever give that about anyone trying to enter the country. Somehow Sean Hannity and Breitbart.com have taken that and interpreted it to mean that taking in refugees would be a free for all that we can't stop or monitor.
Quote:
Ya know- the idea of not letting a flood of Muslim refugees in the country isn't bigoted.
You do know that ISIS has infiltrated the refugee camps and some of the Paris attackers got there with refugees? And the FBI has said they can't vet these people.
But it's all a game to you, you just post this shit to stir up trouble.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/yle_head_count_roughly_three_out_of_four_asylum_seekers_are_male/8355945
Where are they from?
The most common locations that asylum seekers are leaving include Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Albania and Syria. Up to October 4, the number of refugees entering Finland from Iraq was 13,848, while 1,810 came from Somalia, 1,060 from Afghanistan, 676 from Albania and 409 from Syria.
Whats the gender split?
According to Kautto the vast majority of the asylum seekers roughly 15,000 are male. Women account for 2,816. There are close to 2,000 children traveling with adults, while unaccompanied minors number around 1,000.
That's Finland, but most are non-Syrian refugees and males.
17397/17816 = 0.977, 95% non-Syrian.
15000/17816 = 0.84, 84% male.
Quote:
In comment 13043680 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
We disagree on refugees. How is that stirring anything up? The fact that we played a role in screwing it up doesn't seem to bother you. BTW, how would one vet a widow with 2 young children?
Rob, You are correct. My apologies. I firmly believe that will be the case.
It's not about refugees. It's about you.
Great, I'll try harder to ignore you.
That would be a blessing.