No comment

[Doc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMQEv8nuvpE

http://assets.freeprintable.com/images/item/thumb/eiffel-tower.jpg

[suncat05]

That's gotta be a first for him!

Myself, I'd be thrilled if he'd flap those gums a whole lot less......but that's just me.

[suncat05]

Like the good Communist/socialist that he is, he just can't help himself. Gotta flap that gator, doesn't he?

[suncat05]

Wow! Just heard on the news that there has been a " mass shooting" in San Bernadino, California..........talk about timing, huh?

[PedroDaGr8]

based on reports, this was not a lone gunman situation. This was a coordinated attack. Suspects had body armor, AK-47 style rifles (who knows the truth of that, look at the medias gun chart (http://i43.tinypic.com/fbdvua.jpg)). Some unsubstantiated (at this time) reports of middle eastern men involved in the attack. The attack was at a Christmas party at a social services building for disabled people. Everything about this screams ISIS and their ilk. Designed to manipulate us into a ground war so they can fulfill their death cult end-of-times prophecy. They want troops in Raaqa because of what they believe will happen.

[suncat05]

Whether it's terrorism related or not, we're going to see two things happen: 1) Obama and his ilk yelling for more gun control, and 2) the federal government continuing to do little-to-nothing to protect Americans from this kind of incident.

[PedroDaGr8]

Live feed of the police radio:
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/13038/web

Ongoing car chase, shots fired at the police. Very intense situation.

[bigsky]

An attack against county employees always makes me think "militia" since that was the primary threat when I was the County Treasurer.

[PedroDaGr8]

"A senior federal official who is monitoring the case said investigators believe one of the shooters left the party after getting into an argument and returned with one or two armed companions."

"Investigators believe there were three gunmen and one of them had worked at the facility and recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials. A witness has told police that although the gunmen had their faces covered, one of them sounded and appeared very similar to an employee who had left the facility earlier in the day. “They had their appearances covered but a witness believed it had been someone who worked there,” said one official."

[bigsky]

It seems weird that the whole thing os based on a workplace argument because of how well planned and organized it was.

And explosive devices, assault gear, semi-auto military type weapons? And a safe house?

[DanISSELisdaman]

You're making way too much sense with that statement sky! You're apt to be called out for being racist or something!

[bigsky]

Well, "domestic terrorism" like Timothy McVeigh types seem very possible- AND the FBI would be involved in that scenario every bit as much as islamic terrorists.

[KeithKSR]

Reports indicating that the shooters were Islamic.

[Doc]

Well, "domestic terrorism" like Timothy McVeigh types seem very possible- AND the FBI would be involved in that scenario every bit as much as islamic terrorists.

I sense a work place violence will be the culprit. Won't be terrorism because we cant have a terrorism attack against America under Obama, at least officially

[CitizenBBN]

This will end up being "workplace violence" like the Korean war was a "police action".

I don't know any real info,no one does, but bigsky is right this is way too organized and ready to go to be random workplace hotheads.

[Catonahottinroof]

Sayeed Farook huh? Must be of the Alabama Farook's....white supremists and big NRA supporters those Farook's are......dws

[bigsky]

Sayeed Farook huh? Must be of the Alabama Farook's....white supremists and big NRA supporters those Farook's are......dws sounding more and more like Islamic terrorists because CAIR is holding a press conference to lie to us. and Miss bin ardogan of Qatar 2nd suspect. It's not Granma White from Lewistown Montana.

[Doc]

Junior and Lulu Farook

http://www.luluandjunior.com/lulujr.jpg

[bigsky]

sounding more and more like Islamic terrorists because CAIR is holding a press conference to lie to us. and Miss bin ardogan of Qatar 2nd suspect. It's not Granma White from Lewistown Montana. Now bin ardogan a hoax, cops now looking for Ben Dover and Hugh Jass.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/03/2-suspects-killed-shootout-san-bernardino-massacre-14-killed/

[bigsky]

Two Muslims, in an obviously premeditated way, shoot up a Christmas party and nobody is brave enough to call that a religious hate crime or Islamic terrorism ?

[bigsky]

Couple's house was "an IED factory".

At least we did see the Bearcats used for something other than donut runs and anti protestor tear gas dispersal.

[suncat05]

I sense a work place violence will be the culprit. Won't be terrorism because we cant have a terrorism attack against America under Obama, at least officially

What Doc said.
This incident looks like it was planned. My question is what were the words at the party about? Was this contrived due to an argument that was staged? And if so, then this whole incident was premeditated. Why? For what?
Now watch this administration fall all over itself trying to call this 'workplace violence' when it may be very likely that it was a planned terrorist attack. But as Doc said, we can't have it called that, as it will conflict with O's real agenda.

[Doc]

Could be the argument was about a Youtube video :533:

Or too much sugar in our Cola :533:

Or climate change/global warming :533:

I hear all those can cause violent outbreaks too. What we know that it isn't is a radical wing of a middle Eastern religious group.

[PedroDaGr8]

The media has been gradually covering this as a radical attack.

One theory of mine is that the workplace was NOT the intended target. It is just TOO random and too strange and honestly not high value enough. What if he actually had planned a DIFFERENT attack (which would explain the 12 pipe bombs found at the house) but got in a heated argument with someone at work and lost control of his emotions. His initial target in LA, would be somewhere heavily populated and easy to atta (LA is full of those kinds of places). The argument triggers him and he loses it. Basically, said **** this, now is good enough these people need to die and shot up the workplace as a result. The ecknd result would be mixed motives, both a workplace incident AND a radical terrorist attack in one. Frankly, I think the evidence makes it almost blindingly clear that the place he shot up was NOT the place he had planned to attack. Otherwise, he would have brought ALL of the bombs, all of his ammunition, taken hostages, etc. He left much of his stuff at home (almost all of the explosives except one), much of the ammunition in the car, etc. All of it screams, this place was not the intended target.


EDIT: you guys need to add f***ers and motherf***ers to the word filter. It didn't catch them so I changed it.

[Doc]

Pedro, NOBODY thinks this is actually "workplace" violence, however I'll bet the administration tries to pass it off as such like they did the Fort Hood shooting. Its important that they can say "no terrorist attacks occurred on American soil during their administration". This administration is long on spin and misdirection. Not much different than other administration except they are more blatent about it. The Fort Hood shooting is but one example. Same with the Bengazi youtube video excuse.

[CitizenBBN]

Pedro, authorities are starting to say they were planning a second attack. I think you're right, that "second" attack was going to be the first one, they decided to shoot up the Christmas party first and got caught before they got the second one started.

Jeff has once again nailed it. This country is so sick in the head there are calls to end Christmas parties to avoid offending people yet this won't be called a hate crime.

Guys, this is terrorism and a hate crime, and the absolute worst thing anyone can do in the face of such things is to give in to their demands. If this was a lynching the last thing Obama would call for is for people to be "less black" in some way, nor should he. Yet we've seen calls all over the place for this nation to be less western, less Christian, less whatever, all under the name of "tolerance" and not offending people.

There is no right to not be offended, and the fact that some who are offended think it's OK to murder others over their offense doesn't change a thing.

[Catonahottinroof]

5141

[PedroDaGr8]

Pedro, NOBODY thinks this is actually "workplace" violence, however I'll bet the administration tries to pass it off as such like they did the Fort Hood shooting. Its important that they can say "no terrorist attacks occurred on American soil during their administration". This administration is long on spin and misdirection. Not much different than other administration except they are more blatent about it. The Fort Hood shooting is but one example. Same with the Bengazi youtube video excuse.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. I am not saying he wasn't a radical Islamist. He 100% guaranteed was and he intended to commit mass murder. I'm just saying, this target made no sense. If this was his intended target, he would have brought the full armory. Instead he brought only a small fraction. We have no clue what his target actually was. For all we know, it might have been the UK game, God forbid. It certainly would fit their recent M.O. It makes much more sense to believe he had "bigger" targets in mind and something set him off here and he snapped. You don't make twelve pipe bombs without intending to use them. If this was the target, why didn't he take all twelve? Why only one? Same with the gun and ammo. Why only bring some if this is your target, why not all? Lastly, if this is your target; why only kill a "few" and leave? Why not methodically kill them all to maximize your body count and effect?

As for the no terrorist attacks, there is no way that the administration can say that, even if they want to or try to. Between the various Islamic based shootings (including Fort Hood), the white supremacist shooting at the church, to the Planned-Parenthood shooting. These have all been terrorist shootings on their watch.

Sent from my LG-ls990 using Tapatalk

[Doc]

OK, now I understand what you are saying.

[jazyd]

A fellow worker said he just got up and left, no arguement. Maybe the fact it was a Christmas party triggered it, maybe not. But since the house was full of ammo and pipe bombs and tools and material to make more, was that just a staging place for mor Muslims for several attacks? With reports of mant people coming and going several attacks might have been planned. Rented SUV? Why?

Was he or his wife on a FBI watch list?

[CitizenBBN]

A fellow worker said he just got up and left, no arguement. Maybe the fact it was a Christmas party triggered it, maybe not. But since the house was full of ammo and pipe bombs and tools and material to make more, was that just a staging place for mor Muslims for several attacks? With reports of mant people coming and going several attacks might have been planned. Rented SUV? Why?

Was he or his wife on a FBI watch list?

I have no doubt they planned either one larger big attack on a higher profile target or were going to go on a spree and sustain it as long as possible. They didn't just let themselves get killed, the fought it out. They were going to do as much damage as possible.

[bigsky]

They shot Santa Claus.

[suncat05]

These two were obviously not worried about dying, either. And I also agree that there was something else intended because of all the ordnance & materials in their home. And there can be zero doubt that this was planned, because of the clothing worn, the vests and the small arms weaponry.
This was a terrorist attack, plain & simple. It could also fall under workplace violence, but the terrorism aspects of this, especially with the foreign jihadist connections, all of the overseas travel, and the fact that they were both apparently devout Muslims can only give creedence to this being a terrorist attack first. JMHO.

[suncat05]

However,this current administration and ALL of their drones in DHS & the FBI will do backflips to keep from calling this a terrorist attack by radical Muslim jihadists. Just stand back and watch.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Pedro, authorities are starting to say they were planning a second attack. I think you're right, that "second" attack was going to be the first one, they decided to shoot up the Christmas party first and got caught before they got the second one started.

Jeff has once again nailed it. This country is so sick in the head there are calls to end Christmas parties to avoid offending people yet this won't be called a hate crime.

Guys, this is terrorism and a hate crime, and the absolute worst thing anyone can do in the face of such things is to give in to their demands. If this was a lynching the last thing Obama would call for is for people to be "less black" in some way, nor should he. Yet we've seen calls all over the place for this nation to be less western, less Christian, less whatever, all under the name of "tolerance" and not offending people.

There is no right to not be offended, and the fact that some who are offended think it's OK to murder others over their offense doesn't change a thing.

This country is NOT calling an end for Christmas parties. Relax. The "war on Christmas" is a complete myth.

You're right that this is a hate crime and an act of terrorism. Every mass killing is exactly that, no matter what radicalizes it. Are you sure this isn't a mental health issue, though? IMO, there is nothing more mentally ill then using your religion or other radical beliefs to mass kill.

The fact that a U.S. citizen was able to stockpile weapons of mass destruction legally, just goes to show how f'ed up our gun control laws are. We have to have a system that monitors the count and ownership of law abiding citizens(which is exactly what this terrorist was). The sad thing is that even if he was a terror suspect, there is absolutely nothing that would have stood in his way to legally purchase these weapons. That has to change. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with accumulating large amounts of weapons of mass destruction. These people need to be identified, neighbors need to be informed, workplaces need to be informed, so the people can protect themselves.

This is just common sense. I'd rather know if my neighbor possessed a small arsenal than if he/she was a convicted sex offender. Although, I'd want to know both.

We continue to put people's lives in serious danger in order to protect gun owners so they can freely possess any limit of weapons of their desire with little consequence of action. There HAS to be a middle ground.

Marco Rubio was on CBS this morning and he said this nation has a violence problem, not a gun problem. While I disagree with that statement, let's take that as fact and discuss. If we have a violence problem, don't we owe it to the people to restrict and monitor those that are at high risk to be violent? Back in the Bush administration, when the left opposed surveillance programs, I'd hear a lot on the right say that what's it matter if you're not breaking laws, it will keep us safer. I use that same tactic in the gun control argument, if you're law abiding, then why would you care if there's additional burdens to ownership if it can keep us safer. The argument that control laws are a burden to responsible people is insane. In the name of safety, we SHOULD be burdened.

It sure is convenient, though, with this timing. Everybody has forgotten about the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack. Now that the focus has turned to homegrown Muslim terrorism as the target for mass killings, the typical profile of those that have committed these mass killings in the past, those ready to do so in the future can now proceed with the notion that they're only going to be viewed as a failure of the system and mentally ill. Not me, though, they're just as evil as these radical Muslims. To me, it's the 21st century racism. White man, non-Muslim mass killer, mentally ill. Dark man, Muslim mass killer is a terrorist. Let's have some courage to call them all what they are. Terrorist Killers.

[suncat05]

No, we should not be burdened with more governmental intrusions into that which is none of its business. A citizen of this country that has no prior criminal history and who wishes to acquire whatever firearms he so desires should not have any more ornerous burdens placed in his way, nor should any government inquiry into his responsible firearms ownership should be allowed. Why? Because what happened in San Bernadino is so outside the norm, that's why. Whatever small percentage of idiots that follow the path to radicalization is far outweighed by those who would never even allow themselves to have that suggestion made to them. And so, why should the majority have to suffer for the follies of the few? We should not. It's that plain and simple.
Now, I will tell what is idiotic.......the fact that neighbors saw suspicious activities at these terrorists home and did not want to say anything for fear of being called an Islamophobe or a racist. Oh puh-lese! Friggin' grow a pair or just turn in your man-card! And if not for letting some authority somewhere know of the activity, then to clear their own conscience of any ill feelings about themselves for not reporting that suspicious activity, and therefore possibly having saved some lives.

[dan_bgblue]

Wife pledged allegiance to ISIS (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/04/socal-jihadist-wife-pledged-allegiance-to-isis-report/?intcmp=hpbt1)

[jazyd]

No, we should not be burdened with more governmental intrusions into that which is none of its business. A citizen of this country that has no prior criminal history and who wishes to acquire whatever firearms he so desires should not have any more ornerous burdens placed in his way, nor should any government inquiry into his responsible firearms ownership should be allowed. Why? Because what happened in San Bernadino is so outside the norm, that's why. Whatever small percentage of idiots that follow the path to radicalization is far outweighed by those who would never even allow themselves to have that suggestion made to them. And so, why should the majority have to suffer for the follies of the few? We should not. It's that plain and simple.
Now, I will tell what is idiotic.......the fact that neighbors saw suspicious activities at these terrorists home and did not want to say anything for fear of being called an Islamophobe or a racist. Oh puh-lese! Friggin' grow a pair or just turn in your man-card! And if not for letting some authority somewhere know of the activity, then to clear their own conscience of any ill feelings about themselves for not reporting that suspicious activity, and therefore possibly having saved some lives.

suncat seems Mr Stu didn't pay attention to facts. Those two terrorists, Muslims terrorists, didn't buy the two AR15's, the guy bought the two pistols several years ago legally, probably much before he became such a radical Muslim t errorists. And on his salary of $51,000 I seriously doubt he could have purchased the approximate $30,000 worth of ordinance that was in that condo according to reports. So no new gun laws or any of the old 20,000 plus gun laws or any of California's strict gun laws would have prevented this.
But that is what the liberal left wing radicals would have us all believe, more gun laws tand this won't happen. Well, as long as we have someone like BO...I decided to use his initials now because of what it stands for, Body Odor because what he is doing smells...in office, we will continue to have these attacks on our soil and those of our allies. He was probably sh..ing in his pants when he uttered they just might have to look at it being terrorism.
Some have complained we lost so many rights under Bush after 9-11, no we didn't lose any rights. We still got on planes..yes a little inconvenient well so what after I saw that a coke can brought down the Russian Airliner, and yes some computer listens to conversations trying to pick out certain words or phrases, big deal we still get to talk and i have said many things about our gov, our president, senators and congressmen from both sides of the isle and no one has been to my house yet to arrest me, we still drive where we want, go to movies, go to games, do what we want. so no rights have been lost, just some inconvenience is all. I want that computer listening for those phrases or words, maybe if they had checked facebook, 14 people in California would still be alive.
New gun laws, how about liberal judges making those that break laws spend time. How about the carnage in Chicago being taken care of,
The Second Amendment says my right to own a gun 'shall not be infringed upon'. I have every right as you do, to protect myself against known enemies of this country, unknown enemies, criminals, terrorists, and yes the government when necessary.
Have you hear Harry One Eye Reid mention terrorists in Califronia that killed those people, nope, just more gun laws. Same with BO, more gun laws. Hey one eye and BO, those two terrorists had pipe bombs, what gun laws would have protected us from that.

[Doc]

They shot Santa Claus.

New theory...Sayed Farook was a jealousy husband who saw mommy kissing Santa. Expect Susan Rice to present this to the United Nations next week.

[CitizenBBN]

Have a terrorism problem? Easy solution, increase background checks.

Never mind that not one of these shootings would have been caught by the expanded background checks being proposed. Not one. The key to expansion of control and government is the idea that it's OK to curtail everyone's rights or raid their pocketbooks for billions as long as there is ANY chance that XYZ new law will EVER do any good.

Let's not focus on how we can track these people with a minimum of invasion of the privacy of others, or even if we need to revisit that need, and actually target the BAD GUYS. No, let's pass laws to increase the burden on everyone who obeys the laws.

As for that burden not being bad, that assumption underlies that you believe government will keep its word. They'll never come to collect those guns they register, they'll never ask for another even higher standard for gun control when this step proves fruitless.

That's the sucker play of this deal. Pass a law they KNOW will do nothing, b/c it's a stepping stone to the NEXT law on their list when the murders continue and they say we need to do even more. That lets them keep using the problem to pursue their largely separate agenda, and get closer and closer to the making the 2nd Amendment meaningless.

That's why we oppose these steps. They won't work to reduce these events, but they will work to slowly and inexorably move the gun control debate to more and more control that goes beyond simple background checks.

we have native born Americans now embracing these lunatics, turning their baby's nursery into a bomb making facility, and the best the Left and Obama can do is call for background checks on private gun transfers. Really?

Well it worked so well in France, where guns are largely illegal.

[KeithKSR]

The visa for the wife to be should never have been granted per some reports.

[jazyd]

Citizen, once again youn ailed it. And the shame is so many are either blind, total allegiance to the liberal democrat agenda, or too stupid to see what is happening right in front of them.

Take my second right freedom, as a law abiding citizen. Tax the hell out of me. Lie to me saying they will protect me. Twist policy around to make it look great on paper all the while knowing it is a lie.

I don't trust our government any longer, and I pay way more attention to what they are doing now than ever before. Wake up now free, or wake up shortly and realize what you helped them accomplish. People say it can't happen, well it can and its on its way.

[CitizenBBN]

The visa for the wife to be should never have been granted per some reports.

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

[CitizenBBN]

Jazy, the firearms ban in the UK began with registration. clearly to collect guns you have to know where they are to collect, esp. with 300 million of them in the US.

Confiscation in the UK began with registration. The first law was the Pistols Act of 1903, which much like our current laws forbade selling of handguns to minors and felons, very reasonable. But it also required licenses to buy/own a handgun.

Then in 1920 they expanded licenses to all firearms other than shotguns.

Then in 1953 and 1967 they banned carrying of firearms and licensing of shotguns.

By the time they got to a complete ban they'd already accomplished the key goal: eliminating the belief that a person has the right to defend himself. Licenses were refused like they are in blue counties in California and New York now, where even a threat against one's life can't get you a permit.

By the time we get to the 80s and 90s the UK had everything they needed: 1) a pretty complete list of every gun in the country, and 2) a belief that shooting a burglar in your own home was being a vigilante and that owning a gun was itself a sign of some kind of issue.

They demonized guns and gun ownership and registered every gun. Then it was just a matter of time till they were all confiscated.

Sound crazy? Well our own President has pointed multiple times to the confiscations in the UK and Australia as a model for action in the US, and Diane Feinstein, the senior most elected gun control official, has said if she could she'd round up every gun in the country. The leaders of the anti-gun movement absolutely positively want them to be confiscated and for gun ownership to become a thing of the past in the US.

They want it for various reasons (despite their hypocrisy of Feinstein herself having a carry permit few can get in her state and Obama having 24/7 armed guards the rest of his life), but they want it. Some are sincere, thinking it will lead to less violence and crime. Some just want those of us on the right to have no way to resist government, helps them sleep better at night knowing the state has all the power.

So let's talk about real solutions to the problem, fine. But this constant call to simply expand the tracking of guns when NOT ONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED is nonsense. It's like suggesting we bomb Bora Bora b/c we were just attacked by someone from Pakistan.

[KeithKSR]

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

The Obama administration is too busy trying to import as many potential democrat votes as possible to bother with trivial matters, such as laws and the safety of our country.

[KeithKSR]

Jazy, the firearms ban in the UK began with registration. clearly to collect guns you have to know where they are to collect, esp. with 300 million of them in the US.

Confiscation in the UK began with registration. The first law was the Pistols Act of 1903, which much like our current laws forbade selling of handguns to minors and felons, very reasonable. But it also required licenses to buy/own a handgun.

Then in 1920 they expanded licenses to all firearms other than shotguns.

Then in 1953 and 1967 they banned carrying of firearms and licensing of shotguns.

By the time they got to a complete ban they'd already accomplished the key goal: eliminating the belief that a person has the right to defend himself. Licenses were refused like they are in blue counties in California and New York now, where even a threat against one's life can't get you a permit.

By the time we get to the 80s and 90s the UK had everything they needed: 1) a pretty complete list of every gun in the country, and 2) a belief that shooting a burglar in your own home was being a vigilante and that owning a gun was itself a sign of some kind of issue.

They demonized guns and gun ownership and registered every gun. Then it was just a matter of time till they were all confiscated.

Sound crazy? Well our own President has pointed multiple times to the confiscations in the UK and Australia as a model for action in the US, and Diane Feinstein, the senior most elected gun control official, has said if she could she'd round up every gun in the country. The leaders of the anti-gun movement absolutely positively want them to be confiscated and for gun ownership to become a thing of the past in the US.

They want it for various reasons (despite their hypocrisy of Feinstein herself having a carry permit few can get in her state and Obama having 24/7 armed guards the rest of his life), but they want it. Some are sincere, thinking it will lead to less violence and crime. Some just want those of us on the right to have no way to resist government, helps them sleep better at night knowing the state has all the power.

So let's talk about real solutions to the problem, fine. But this constant call to simply expand the tracking of guns when NOT ONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED is nonsense. It's like suggesting we bomb Bora Bora b/c we were just attacked by someone from Pakistan.

Gun confiscation is just a step along the way to communism.

[jazyd]

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

How about not letting anyone in from those countries, sorry but I don't trust any of them

Talked to one of my best friends today, he lives in Paducah. He told me of a fourth grade boy there in schoo who does not speak English, guess his parents are recent to the country. So boy has tutors and special ed and writes everything in his stove language, he is Muslim ax his parents. Mush of what he writes is about killing Christians. Now where does he get that ? Hmmmm

Sometimes I think we have two war fronts, the terrorists Muslims and much of our own government. Cabt trust either.

And yet people who are supposedly intelligent can't see either. Or want this country to be drastically changed and thinking the terrorists will leave them alone. Dumb azz's will be easier to kill. Then they will be like the DC police chief that wants us to protect her

[jazyd]

I could have sworn I saw a long post by doc that I agreed with, now don't see it

[Doc]

The Obama administration is too busy trying to import as many potential democrat votes as possible to bother with trivial matters, such as laws and the safety of our country.

That and demonize the right. They are the ones with the war on women, the war on the elderly, the war on the poor.. hell apparently I got a war on with everybody despite never killing anybody but if I were to get an AK47 and some pipe bombs, dress in combat fatigues and run into a building shooting while yelling Allah Akbar, its because I don't like my coworkers

[CitizenBBN]

That and demonize the right. They are the ones with the war on women, the war on the elderly, the war on the poor.. hell apparently I got a war on with everybody despite never killing anybody but if I were to get an AK47 and some pipe bombs, dress in combat fatigues and run into a building shooting while yelling Allah Akbar, its because I don't like my coworkers

Or they had the gall to have a "Christmas party" that was offensive to you.

[suncat05]

We just had our Phil-Am Christmas party at our church, in the parrish hall. Not that I'm all paranoid and stuff, but I made sure that I was facing the only door being used for ingress/egress to the hall. And I told quite a few that if somebody came in doing crazy stuff to hit the floor and let me take care of the issue. And of course, there were several "good 'ol boys" that go to church with us that told me that they'd back my move, whatever it may be.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that goes to church prepared for an emergency.

[jazyd]

She might have been an operative before coming to US, he was radicalized when he went to get here. She was evidently a plant

His father has been added to the terror watch list.

I realize many are upset with what a Trump has said about not allowing Muslim immigrants "temporarily" but if that was in affect now 14 people would be alive. BO's vetting process is very flawed.

It's going to get worse

[CitizenBBN]

I think it's very dangerous to just ban people based on faith. Trump likens it to FDR's encampment of the Japanese and he's right that's the analogy, and that was wrong as well. In fact FDR's was WAY more wrong than what Trump is proposing in hindsight b/c the fear that Japanese loyalty would push many to support the military regime and Emperor proved even more false than what we are seeing today with radical Islam being able to reach into the American Muslim communities.

It would be wise to simply admit that profiling isn't discrimination but just pragmatism. You can't ban all Muslims, but it is fair to say that someone from a nation with ties to these groups would get extra scrutiny, whether registered as Muslim or not. If you're from Pakistan you probably warrant a closer look than if you're a 60 year old from Scotland named McDervish. Just reality of good risk assessment.

But banning an entire faith from coming into the country? that's unprecedented and far overstepping in many ways. It was deeply wrong to round up American citizens and legal immigrants in WWII and put them in camps (esp. since we didn't have any German or Italian camps), and it's wrong to exclude an entire faith now when many of that faith have good reasons for coming here.

BUT we can't give that faith a pass when it clearly warrants extra scrutiny. Raising the bar for people from a given region seems warranted, but Trump once again is overreaching into hubris to exclude people based solely on something like religion. It goes against the whole reason the nation was founded, to avoid that kind of line in the sand.

[jazyd]

Citizen, I might be wrong but I dont' think he said the Islam faith but rather Muslims. He also said temporarily. That lady that helped kill 14 last week should never have gotten in based on our precedents, she was never interviewed according to testimony yesterday on the hill even though she was supposed to have been. No head of an agency yesterday could tell committees that they knew anything about her or him for that matter, nor did it seem many protocols were done.

What I think he is saying, until we can figure out what the heck we are doing.which seems no one really knows, anyone that is Muslim does not get admitted. Now, he could have done like you suggest and say anyone from a certain nation. But at least he is offering something which none of the other candidates from either party are doing, all they are doing is the same ole garbage we constantly hear.

What everyone is used to is politicians talking their language, what we hear from Trump is tought NY talk. :)

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Citizen, I might be wrong but I dont' think he said the Islam faith but rather Muslims. He also said temporarily. That lady that helped kill 14 last week should never have gotten in based on our precedents, she was never interviewed according to testimony yesterday on the hill even though she was supposed to have been. No head of an agency yesterday could tell committees that they knew anything about her or him for that matter, nor did it seem many protocols were done.

What I think he is saying, until we can figure out what the heck we are doing.which seems no one really knows, anyone that is Muslim does not get admitted. Now, he could have done like you suggest and say anyone from a certain nation. But at least he is offering something which none of the other candidates from either party are doing, all they are doing is the same ole garbage we constantly hear.

What everyone is used to is politicians talking their language, what we hear from Trump is tought NY talk. :)


There's no distinction to be made there. Trump knows it, we all know it.

It's not tough NY talk, it's good ole 21st century racist, bigoted talk to purposely prey on people's fears. If you're looking where this "talk" is resonating, it's not centered in NY.

Trump's just trying to make bigotry and racism cool again(although Scalia is giving him a run for his money), or at least allow people not to have to hide it anymore, which is something that I'm completely in favor of too. I like to see the idiots raise their hands.

[CitizenBBN]

There's no distinction to be made there. Trump knows it, we all know it.

It's not tough NY talk, it's good ole 21st century racist, bigoted talk to purposely prey on people's fears. If you're looking where this "talk" is resonating, it's not centered in NY.

Trump's just trying to make bigotry and racism cool again(although Scalia is giving him a run for his money), or at least allow people not to have to hide it anymore, which is something that I'm completely in favor of too. I like to see the idiots raise their hands.

All those Christy Minstrels shows weren't down our way. Racism is as bad there as anywhere.

Is it unacceptable to simply ban everyone of a given faith, even temporarily? Yes. But I'm not sure it's "racism" as much as it is just an overreaction to the threat. Where Trump gets his appeal is he's willing to do SOMETHING that actually may address a problem, even if it's not politically correct, even if it is as that level a racist or discriminatory policy.

The reason that appeals isn't b/c all those people are racists, is that all those people are fed up with politicians who won't do anything for fear of the PC backlash. When trump says we need to stop investigating Scotch Irish grandmothers and focus on people who may really be a threat, yes that's something most people think but dont' dare say, not b/c they are racist but b/c anything that even gives that appearance opens one up to the slur.

It's clear that people coming from these countries and people of Islamic faith are a higher threat risk than other immigrant groups, that's simply the truth of the situation. To the extent he's willing to say that and then suggest answers, where others refuse to state the obvious, he gains support.

That all being said, his approach needs to be changed to a focus on immediate suspension of ALL such visas until we can review the procedures and audit those that are in the pipeline to make sure the work is being properly done. He could even have said we do that for anyone considered a higher risk such as being from a given nation or even a faith, he just made it come out like a ban where he needs to focus on it as legitimate threat assessment where you do more homework on people who are a higher risk.

That's not a great fit with the "American way" of everyone being equal, but there are places where we allow that sort of thing even in the US among citizens, so it's not unprecedented. When assessing risk we have to take a more military approach to the situation, and with limited resources we have to expend them in the way that maximizes our chances of finding the biggest threats.

Had he called on immediate emergency action on the visa program to better assess threats and suspend immigration as needed it would have come off as far less reactionary and even racist. But Trump isn't known for laying things out that way.

[KeithKSR]

The PC people have run amok to the point that they are endangering others. Neighbors feared reporting the terrorists because of potential condemnation from the PC crowd and calls of racism.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The PC people have run amok to the point that they are endangering others. Neighbors feared reporting the terrorists because of potential condemnation from the PC crowd and calls of racism.

That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

All those Christy Minstrels shows weren't down our way. Racism is as bad there as anywhere.

Is it unacceptable to simply ban everyone of a given faith, even temporarily? Yes. But I'm not sure it's "racism" as much as it is just an overreaction to the threat. Where Trump gets his appeal is he's willing to do SOMETHING that actually may address a problem, even if it's not politically correct, even if it is as that level a racist or discriminatory policy.

The reason that appeals isn't b/c all those people are racists, is that all those people are fed up with politicians who won't do anything for fear of the PC backlash. When trump says we need to stop investigating Scotch Irish grandmothers and focus on people who may really be a threat, yes that's something most people think but dont' dare say, not b/c they are racist but b/c anything that even gives that appearance opens one up to the slur.

It's clear that people coming from these countries and people of Islamic faith are a higher threat risk than other immigrant groups, that's simply the truth of the situation. To the extent he's willing to say that and then suggest answers, where others refuse to state the obvious, he gains support.

That all being said, his approach needs to be changed to a focus on immediate suspension of ALL such visas until we can review the procedures and audit those that are in the pipeline to make sure the work is being properly done. He could even have said we do that for anyone considered a higher risk such as being from a given nation or even a faith, he just made it come out like a ban where he needs to focus on it as legitimate threat assessment where you do more homework on people who are a higher risk.

That's not a great fit with the "American way" of everyone being equal, but there are places where we allow that sort of thing even in the US among citizens, so it's not unprecedented. When assessing risk we have to take a more military approach to the situation, and with limited resources we have to expend them in the way that maximizes our chances of finding the biggest threats.

Had he called on immediate emergency action on the visa program to better assess threats and suspend immigration as needed it would have come off as far less reactionary and even racist. But Trump isn't known for laying things out that way.

I disagree or need to clarify on all bolded statements.

When I used the term racism with Trump, it wasn't isolated to the proposed banning of Muslims, it was an all encompassing viewpoint and statements that he's made in the past. Racism, in my opinion, is calling white people that commit mass killings, mentally ill and non-whites are terrorists. To me, they're all terrorists and they're all mentally ill. Radicalization is an extreme mental illness. I was also referring to Scalia, who's proving once again that he's a flat out racist.

I don't think most people that are supporting Trump are doing so, and you would have to assume that it's blind support if you aren't considering them racist or bigoted, because they're fed up. I think Trump is playing to people's fears of Islamic extremism. We've never been safer as a country(even though there's more to do), but it's the #1 fear of so many people.

I totally disagree that Muslim's are the higher risk of any immigrant group. There's absolutely no evidence of that. It's a perception, perhaps, but that just can't be supported. The fact of the matter is that immigrants are LESS likely to be criminals than native-born Americans. I go back to my city. It's not the Muslim people that I'm scared of(well, I'm not scared of anybody really), it's the day to day risks that make me nervous. I'm WAY more fearful of a drunk driver, distracted drivers or someone driving at very high speeds.

It's only human nature, though, to be scared of the wrong things.

[suncat05]

Darn it, Stu.........just when it looks like you're finally going to get it right, then you suddenly veer left again! Darn it all!

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Darn it, Stu.........just when it looks like you're finally going to get it right, then you suddenly veer left again! Darn it all!

There's a huge difference between veering right and common sense. I'm a centrist, outside of the bubble. Not libertarian(I do believe that government has a purpose), or not liberal(or at least as defined by those on the right). I debate the other side with my liberal friends and family all of the time.

On social issues, however, I'm extreme to the left, but that's where that ends. Economically, I'm more center, some may say a little right of center. I can find common ground with people like Rubio, Paul and a couple of other people in the Republican party, but I just can't support someone who caters to a fringe that I'm completely 100% opposed to. I can see the difference in needing their support to get elected and pushing their agenda, which is why if that person would be elected, I would get them the respect and support until they don't deserve it, which is a rarity for people in both parties these days.

I never want to be party labeled or affiliated, and I want to always choose the best person that shares my views. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of them, so I have to find the best fit, flaws and all.

[suncat05]

I hope you know I was making a joke, even if it was a poor attempt.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I hope you know I was making a joke, even if it was a poor attempt.

I don't like to miss an opportunity to try to explain that I'm not as crazy as I appear of some may think.

[KeithKSR]

That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.

Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.

[jazyd]

Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.

Makes one really wonder about this administration and where their true loyalty lies

[jazyd]

That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.

no they can't and Keith pointed that out. The AG will retaliate against them and has said so. They would also risk retaliation from those they accused to the point of killing them, and this couple would have done just that.

[jazyd]

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

Isn't that what Trump really wants, tougher background checks on foreign Muslims until we know for sure who and what they are? Right now we have no control over them coming into this country, zero and Trump knows it.

[jazyd]

I think it's very dangerous to just ban people based on faith. Trump likens it to FDR's encampment of the Japanese and he's right that's the analogy, and that was wrong as well. In fact FDR's was WAY more wrong than what Trump is proposing in hindsight b/c the fear that Japanese loyalty would push many to support the military regime and Emperor proved even more false than what we are seeing today with radical Islam being able to reach into the American Muslim communities.

It would be wise to simply admit that profiling isn't discrimination but just pragmatism. You can't ban all Muslims, but it is fair to say that someone from a nation with ties to these groups would get extra scrutiny, whether registered as Muslim or not. If you're from Pakistan you probably warrant a closer look than if you're a 60 year old from Scotland named McDervish. Just reality of good risk assessment.

But banning an entire faith from coming into the country? that's unprecedented and far overstepping in many ways. It was deeply wrong to round up American citizens and legal immigrants in WWII and put them in camps (esp. since we didn't have any German or Italian camps), and it's wrong to exclude an entire faith now when many of that faith have good reasons for coming here.

BUT we can't give that faith a pass when it clearly warrants extra scrutiny. Raising the bar for people from a given region seems warranted, but Trump once again is overreaching into hubris to exclude people based solely on something like religion. It goes against the whole reason the nation was founded, to avoid that kind of line in the sand.

Citizen, we know for a fact that two of the terrorists in France came in as refugees. We know for a fact ISIS has said they are/will plant operatives/terrorists into the refugee system, we know for a fact that Somalia refugees in Detroit have returned to the middle east to fight for ISIS and AQ, we know for a fact this female in San Bernadino was never questioned, interviewed and she was a radical and possible plant before she came here, we know for a fact that two men from the middle east who made IED's there came to Bowling Green Ky and resumed making IED's here and thankfully were arrested before they could do anything. We know for a fact that 70% of the so called Syrian refugees are male..which is odd when you think about it...throw in the FBI is watching about 1000 Islamics iphere tied to terrorism

We know that the president of the USA is sworn to protect his citizens against all enemies of the country.

So are you willing to bet your families lives by allowing unknown muslim refugees into this country knowing that our process of so called vetting them is a farce? I am not willing to allow that to my family

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.

That's not a reality. How does a call to your local law enforcement lead to violence? Can you cite an example where this has occurred?

I stand by my statement that if anybody is in fear of retaliation by making a simple phone call, it's irrational, fear based, unrealistic and idiotic.

[suncat05]

That's not a reality. How does a call to your local law enforcement lead to violence? Can you cite an example where this has occurred?

I stand by my statement that if anybody is in fear of retaliation by making a simple phone call, it's irrational, fear based, unrealistic and idiotic.

Then WHY did she say that, and if that's not what she meant, then why has she not sought to clarify her meaning? She meant exactly what she said. After all, she only answers directly to the POTUS, and he clearly stated in his book, if he has to choose between America or the Muslims he will choose to side with the Muslims, every time.
The meaning is crystal clear to me. It's a direct threat against Americans who do not care for this Muslim ideology and the threat it poses to our national security.
America & Americans are the enemy of this administration. They say it to us every day. Many of us here have that much figured out. Others here........not so much.

[bigsky]

We are way too Muslim friendly in much the same way Ashcroft et al were focused on covering the breasts of statues while muslims learned to fly airliners. Time to quit fiddlin while Rome burns

Feds need a big enema followed by priority based belt tightening

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Then WHY did she say that, and if that's not what she meant, then why has she not sought to clarify her meaning? She meant exactly what she said. After all, she only answers directly to the POTUS, and he clearly stated in his book, if he has to choose between America or the Muslims he will choose to side with the Muslims, every time.
The meaning is crystal clear to me. It's a direct threat against Americans who do not care for this Muslim ideology and the threat it poses to our national security.
America & Americans are the enemy of this administration. They say it to us every day. Many of us here have that much figured out. Others here........not so much.

What did she say, exactly, for you to make such an inference?

Please point out where Obama said this in his book?

You realize that there are many Muslim Americans that deserve all the same rights that you and I do?

You may disagree with Obama's approach towards fighting ISIS(although, it's very similar to many of the Republican proposals minus a tweak or two), but to insinuate that he sides with the enemy more than America is flat out insane. It's warped. There's just no evidence to validate it. It's a fear mentality.

Trump's rhetoric is way more comforting to ISIS than anything that Obama has done. At least Obama's approach is killing terrorists (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/10/financial-times-us-says-isis-financial-minister-killed.html), while Trump is doing whatever he can to help them recruit (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/the-medias-new-line-on-donald-trump-hes-the-recruiter-in-chief-for-isis/).

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a good portion(not a majority) of this nation wants an all-out religious war, where it's not a fight against extremism. When you see polls that say that people are accepting of American on American crime and gun violence (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-71-say-shooting-violence-now-normal-part-american-life-n479601), but want to ban all Muslims, it's hard not to come with that belief.

I'd like for people to start telling me that is NOT the case.

[CitizenBBN]

Stu, I don't know if it will help (and I have to say re Obama he's the first President I really think does have a split loyalty b/c he is an apologist for America and doesn't see it as that shining beacon on the hill), but the issue of American on American crime versus terrorism isn't about racism, it's about basic psychology.

People need to feel safe, and they will tend to rationalize and evaluate threats based on their own sense of personal safety. So when they see a report of crime what they want most is to feel that it doesn't impact them or pose a threat to themselves or their family.

So if it's some shooting in some bad neighborhood but they don't live there they say it's not a threat to them b/c they don't live there, or if it's a gang shooting they say it's OK b/c they aren't in a gang. Those crimes aren't a threat to them.

What scares people aren't the everyday crimes, b/c those crimes have a reason, a connection, and if they aren't in those groups they feel unaffected. What scares people is RANDOM crime, where they feel they have no control and it could happen to them at any time no matter what neighborhood they live in or what activities they avoid. So random shootings, terrorism, drunk drivers, those things scare people a lot more than a report of a gang war in some area they don't intend to visit.

Statistically far more people died from everyday crime in that same day than the 14 killed in San Bernadino, but those others don't scare people like some lunatic out to just kill anyone.

It's not personal, or racism, it's simply the need for people to mentally distance themselves from threats. They can't distance themselves from terrorism the way they can some shooting over a drug deal gone bad.

Which of course is what "terrorism" is all about, and why it is effective far beyond its actual physical impact. It doesn't work by killing enough people, it works by scaring enough people into thinking they may be killed.

[suncat05]

1)The current AG of the USA, Loretta Lynch who said that she would prosecute anyone for hate speech towards Muslims. Strange though, she didn't say that about Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus, or any other religious denominations.......just that she intends to protect Muslims. Sorry, but if I as a Roman Catholic can't get any protection from religious persecution, then the Muslims shouldn't either. At this point, my rights as an American under the Constitution are being violated.......by the very person who is in charge of protecting MY RIGHT as an American citizen.
2)In his book, "Dreams of My Father". Don't remember which chapter it was. I'm sure your copy will be more readily available than mine.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

1)The current AG of the USA, Loretta Lynch who said that she would prosecute anyone for hate speech towards Muslims. Strange though, she didn't say that about Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus, or any other religious denominations.......just that she intends to protect Muslims. Sorry, but if I as a Roman Catholic can't get any protection from religious persecution, then the Muslims shouldn't either. At this point, my rights as an American under the Constitution are being violated.......by the very person who is in charge of protecting MY RIGHT as an American citizen.
2)In his book, "Dreams of My Father". Don't remember which chapter it was. I'm sure your copy will be more readily available than mine.

That's not what she said and it's not what he said.

I didn't think you had any proof.


Here is her quote on the subject, "We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action, and that violent action is what we have to deal with". That was a clarification of the "edge of violence" comment that I believe that you and others are trying to relate to the topic at hand, that if you are to call the police to you're at risk to prosecution. That's about as far as a stretch that you can make. She also went on to say, ""Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words". My source for all of these quotes is Newsmax.

I believe the "any group in America" is inclusive to Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus and so on as you pointed out of her failing not to mention, again proving that you are incorrect. Might I add to, that her original comments were made at a Muslim Advocates(we have to remember that Muslims are Americans too) where of course she's going to make a comment directly towards them, and leave it to the right wing to isolate these comments to create a fictional depiction. Then, once she clarifies them, it's too late, you're going to believe what you want.

Facts are optional.

Please feel free to set me straight if these aren't the comments to which you're referring to.

As far as the Obama myth. I have to think that you're relying on the many lies and distortions that have been debunked (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/) ad nauseum. I'm pretty sure that you didn't read any of Obama's books, so you must be relying on the filth that people want to make up, and you just keep eating it up, like so many others that fall for it hook, line and sinker.

I don't care when people disagree with politicians, but it's really a shame when people just blindly believe what they read and see. I know it happens on both sides and it's wrong any time it does happen. It's so easy to fact check these days. That's why I asked for your examples. I was able to fact check and come to the conclusion that your conclusions are a lot of BS.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, I don't know if it will help (and I have to say re Obama he's the first President I really think does have a split loyalty b/c he is an apologist for America and doesn't see it as that shining beacon on the hill), but the issue of American on American crime versus terrorism isn't about racism, it's about basic psychology.

People need to feel safe, and they will tend to rationalize and evaluate threats based on their own sense of personal safety. So when they see a report of crime what they want most is to feel that it doesn't impact them or pose a threat to themselves or their family.

So if it's some shooting in some bad neighborhood but they don't live there they say it's not a threat to them b/c they don't live there, or if it's a gang shooting they say it's OK b/c they aren't in a gang. Those crimes aren't a threat to them.

What scares people aren't the everyday crimes, b/c those crimes have a reason, a connection, and if they aren't in those groups they feel unaffected. What scares people is RANDOM crime, where they feel they have no control and it could happen to them at any time no matter what neighborhood they live in or what activities they avoid. So random shootings, terrorism, drunk drivers, those things scare people a lot more than a report of a gang war in some area they don't intend to visit.

Statistically far more people died from everyday crime in that same day than the 14 killed in San Bernadino, but those others don't scare people like some lunatic out to just kill anyone.

It's not personal, or racism, it's simply the need for people to mentally distance themselves from threats. They can't distance themselves from terrorism the way they can some shooting over a drug deal gone bad.

Which of course is what "terrorism" is all about, and why it is effective far beyond its actual physical impact. It doesn't work by killing enough people, it works by scaring enough people into thinking they may be killed.


I don't disagree with everything your saying, but I again question the rationality of it. I think everybody needs to question what makes them fearful of something and take personal responsibility for accountability of those fears. Very few people want to do so

The first thing that I set in bold, I feel a little differently. I feel that people prioritize their fears based on their personal values. They are scared of the unknown. They are scared of people that are not like them. The anti-Muslim rhetoric has spiked since San Bernadino, but it didn't with the Planned Parenthood killings, the Oregon shootings, Charleston, Newtown, Sandy Hook, and on and on, and you have to ask why?

All of these killers were "radicalized", at least in my view, but it's the Muslim killers that have "everybody" scared.

It IS personal, racism and bigotry(among other emotions) that are factoring in how people are mentally distancing themselves from threats. What else can it be? If people can't rationally assess risk of threats to their safety it's coming from some other emotion. As I've said several times, there are WAY more things that pose a risk to our safety than radical Islam. If we're talking about radical religion, "radical" Christianity is just a greater threat domestically. To me, though, it should never be a religious conversation.

It may not be known to each person individually, but they are acting in racist, bigoted ways. It's reminds me of sitting around with my sister-in-law, who isn't racist, but made a statement about a girl in her class feeling very down about herself that she wasn't pretty like all of the other girls, and as she's telling us the story, she tells us that the girls was "pretty for a black girl". She's made statements like that quite a bit over the years, but once she realized that it's actual hurtful to people and is racist, she's changed her ways.

[CitizenBBN]

Of course it's not rational. In the 1970s polls indicated people thought New York had ten times the crime rate it actually had due to all the crime dramas based in New York showing crime.

No doubt part of being threatened by any group that can be readily identified by some criteria will lead to issues with that group, but it's not inherently racism. In this case it's not race anyway, it's religious discrimination by and large since we're talking about multiple ethnic groups (though I know most Americans don't know there are multiple ethnicities in the Middle East) across the Muslim world. In WWII slurs like "kraut" were used despite Germans having been fully integrated into the US for a century.

But that's not the cause, it's the symptom. The cause is feeling threatened, and people feel threatened b/c terrorism is random and is focused on bringing the threat to random innocent people going about their lives, and that's exactly why it works.

No it's not rational, but it works. The chances of being killed by a terrorist are nearly nil compared with all the ways to die in a given day, but people perceive it to be a threat that needs to be addressed. We are at war, people expect us to take that level of action.

But that's not inherently racist. It's a simple truth that the highest risk group for terrorism are Muslims and it's not close, so they bear the most scrutiny.

The emotion it comes from is fear. Fear creates racism, not the other way around.

As for "radical Christianity" being a greater threat, that's a joke and a half. In 20 years in this country organized Christian religion will be in tatters thanks to the increasingly agnostic social mores of the country and the onslaught of reverse discrimination that is driving traditional faith out of every aspect of our daily lives unless you go out of your way to find it.

And btw I don't consider myself to be particularly religious. I am however particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.

[KeithKSR]

Stu, try watching some national news. The video clip showed Lynch saying if people said anything about the Muslims they would be prosecuted.

[Darrell KSR]

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/704897

[suncat05]

Then if a great amount of what is said in Obama's book has been 'debunked', then those things are lies. Are they not?
And so, if he said that, but doesn't mean it, then it's a lie too. Isn't it?
So what is his truth then?

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Then if a great amount of what is said in Obama's book has been 'debunked', then those things are lies. Are they not?
And so, if he said that, but doesn't mean it, then it's a lie too. Isn't it?
So what is his truth then?

It's not what Obama said in his books, it's what people have said he has said that has been debunked. Much like what you have said that has been proven over and over again not to be true.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/704897

That was exactly the same article from which I was quoting from that absolutely says nothing about prosecuting people for saying anything about Muslims. It certainly doesn't say anything to the effect of the point that I was making that if you see something you can call the police without retribution. That is a point that people are in complete error on. As I've pointed out several times, nobody can show an instance where this has happened, so it's just another irrational fear.

If Lynch were going to prosecute anybody for speaking a negative word on Muslims, Trump would currently be up for multiple lifetime sentences, possibly treason charges for what he's done. He's free to discriminate, incite violence without impunity.

I just can't understand how people can't see the difference in taking a stance against those who want to incite violence against any group and what is allowance for free speech or even something as simple as notification of your local law enforcement.

I know where people are going to head next, but I'm going to let that organically evolve instead of putting in my two cents worth right now.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, try watching some national news. The video clip showed Lynch saying if people said anything about the Muslims they would be prosecuted.

Wrong. I don't need to watch national news. The internet works just fine. I've laid out the timeline, the audience and the quotes and NEVER has she said that if anybody says ANYTHING about Muslims, they face prosecution.

[Darrell KSR]

That was exactly the same article from which I was quoting from that absolutely says nothing about prosecuting people for saying anything about Muslims. It certainly doesn't say anything to the effect of the point that I was making that if you see something you can call the police without retribution.

I'm more in line with you than you think, but you're being too cute parsing words here, or you're just wrong.

Lynch was criticized by free speech advocates after saying to a Muslim Advocates Dinner in Arlington, Va. on Thursday, "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action."


She was stupid. But she said what they are saying she said. It's one sentence, and taking the action first, she said, "we will take action ....for "anti-Muslim rhetoric"....or violence.

Are you arguing that "take action" doesn't mean prosecute?
Are you arguing that "anti-Muslim rhetoric" doesn't mean speech?

Your best argument is that a) it IS ridiculous, but she said it, and b) she was clumsy by including anti-Muslim rhetoric in with the violence (along with a reference to "free speech, but..." which clearly reinforced the idea that she intended speech to be part of her attention.)

[suncat05]

It's not what Obama said in his books, it's what people have said he has said that has been debunked. Much like what you have said that has been proven over and over again not to be true.

Stu, all you can see is what blinds you to the truth right in front of you. I hope you see the light some day, my friend.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I'm more in line with you than you think, but you're being too cute parsing words here, or you're just wrong.

Lynch was criticized by free speech advocates after saying to a Muslim Advocates Dinner in Arlington, Va. on Thursday, "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action."


She was stupid. But she said what they are saying she said. It's one sentence, and taking the action first, she said, "we will take action ....for "anti-Muslim rhetoric"....or violence.

Are you arguing that "take action" doesn't mean prosecute?
Are you arguing that "anti-Muslim rhetoric" doesn't mean speech?

Your best argument is that a) it IS ridiculous, but she said it, and b) she was clumsy by including anti-Muslim rhetoric in with the violence (along with a reference to "free speech, but..." which clearly reinforced the idea that she intended speech to be part of her attention.)

It's close to what I'm saying. First of all, what I'm saying is that it's irrational, or even idiotic, for someone not to make a call to local law enforcement if they see something and use the excuse that they're afraid of targeted prosecution.

I'll start off by saying, what leaders have not made a clumsy, irrelevant statement or even erroneous statement at some time? Have we forgotten the Bush administration? I can list hundreds of statement he or his people have said, taken out of context that had no meaning to the actual message. It doesn't mean it's factual. Is this not an example of holding people accountable of a different level? There's a term for that.

My argument was that she made a mistake speaking to a Muslim group without realizing the trickle down effect of specifically referring to that one group, even though that was the intended audience. However, she had the opportunity to clarify her remarks and I believe did so clearly enough. At a minimum, I can't fathom the link that some in the group here are making.

"Take action" doesn't totally equate to prosecution. It can be the end result, but not only result of action. The responsibilities of the AG go way beyond prosecution.

You can call her stupid all you want, and that's not an argument that I'm making, but in my view, it's stupid to take one sentence that somebody said and create a whole new context around that when she has since clarified her position when pressed further. She obviously made a mistake but the strategy is clear.

I'm debating statements like(paraphrased), like people that notify law enforcement will be prosecuted, that she hasn't ever mentioned other groups, isolating Muslims, that's a debate that I clearly win.

We should be thankful that they're trying to take a proactive approach with Islamophobia. It spread to an innocent plumber (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/terror-truck-lawsuit/index.html). Islamophobia and actions towards innocent Muslims is getting out of control. It's spreading rampant throughout my city, and I'm sure it is all over the country is well. I guess that I'm in the minority that feels if there is a targeted group, who are law abiding American citizens, at the top of the risk list that they deserve extra attention. It doesn't mean that they are the only primary focus, as some here are alluding to.

Back to my original point that started this all, that I will expand upon, if you see something and don't call out of a fear of something that has never happened, that simply makes you an idiotic coward.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, all you can see is what blinds you to the truth right in front of you. I hope you see the light some day, my friend.

When you show me truth, I'll see it, but all you've shown me is recycled bunk.

[suncat05]

Okay Stu. If you say so.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Of course it's not rational. In the 1970s polls indicated people thought New York had ten times the crime rate it actually had due to all the crime dramas based in New York showing crime.

No doubt part of being threatened by any group that can be readily identified by some criteria will lead to issues with that group, but it's not inherently racism. In this case it's not race anyway, it's religious discrimination by and large since we're talking about multiple ethnic groups (though I know most Americans don't know there are multiple ethnicities in the Middle East) across the Muslim world. In WWII slurs like "kraut" were used despite Germans having been fully integrated into the US for a century.

But that's not the cause, it's the symptom. The cause is feeling threatened, and people feel threatened b/c terrorism is random and is focused on bringing the threat to random innocent people going about their lives, and that's exactly why it works.

No it's not rational, but it works. The chances of being killed by a terrorist are nearly nil compared with all the ways to die in a given day, but people perceive it to be a threat that needs to be addressed. We are at war, people expect us to take that level of action.

But that's not inherently racist. It's a simple truth that the highest risk group for terrorism are Muslims and it's not close, so they bear the most scrutiny.

The emotion it comes from is fear. Fear creates racism, not the other way around.

As for "radical Christianity" being a greater threat, that's a joke and a half. In 20 years in this country organized Christian religion will be in tatters thanks to the increasingly agnostic social mores of the country and the onslaught of reverse discrimination that is driving traditional faith out of every aspect of our daily lives unless you go out of your way to find it.

And btw I don't consider myself to be particularly religious. I am however particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.

A) We ARE at war, but not with a religion, but an ideology.
B) That statement is what's wrong with the term terrorism. I consider ALL mass killings acts of terrorism. Those are not predominantly Muslim attacks. We are selectively calling acts terrorism.
C) I couldn't disagree more with your statement that fear creates racism. There's no way to declare either of us correct, but I'm a firm believer that racism creates fear, but not all fears. It takes that one match to light the fire, but once it's roaring, it causes people to react in irrational ways, and some of those ways are extremely harmful.
D) I don't even know how 'radical Christianity' should be defined, but I know it when I see it, and I've seen a lot of it. I know it's convenient for people to sweep it under the rug, especially in the wake of San Bernadino, but those that have killed in the US in the past and will in the future have not been 'radical Muslims' with few exceptions. Since 9/11, there have been two high profile radical 'Islamic' attacks. I can go on and on with what I view to be 'Radical Christianity' to be the motives. I know many people like to simplify it as a mental issue, which brings me to my final point,
E) I am also particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.

[KeithKSR]

D) I don't even know how 'radical Christianity' should be defined, but I know it when I see it, and I've seen a lot of it. I know it's convenient for people to sweep it under the rug, especially in the wake of San Bernadino, but those that have killed in the US in the past and will in the future have not been 'radical Muslims' with few exceptions. Since 9/11, there have been two high profile radical 'Islamic' attacks. I can go on and on with what I view to be 'Radical Christianity' to be the motives. I know many people like to simplify it as a mental issue, which brings me to my final point,
E) I am also particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.

Radical Muslim attacks off the top of my head since 9/11.

Ft. Hood
Chatanooga
Moore, Oklahoma
Boston
DC Sniper
The thwarted Texas attack

[CitizenBBN]

A) We ARE at war, but not with a religion, but an ideology.
B) That statement is what's wrong with the term terrorism. I consider ALL mass killings acts of terrorism. Those are not predominantly Muslim attacks. We are selectively calling acts terrorism.
C) I couldn't disagree more with your statement that fear creates racism. There's no way to declare either of us correct, but I'm a firm believer that racism creates fear, but not all fears. It takes that one match to light the fire, but once it's roaring, it causes people to react in irrational ways, and some of those ways are extremely harmful.
D) I don't even know how 'radical Christianity' should be defined, but I know it when I see it, and I've seen a lot of it. I know it's convenient for people to sweep it under the rug, especially in the wake of San Bernadino, but those that have killed in the US in the past and will in the future have not been 'radical Muslims' with few exceptions. Since 9/11, there have been two high profile radical 'Islamic' attacks. I can go on and on with what I view to be 'Radical Christianity' to be the motives. I know many people like to simplify it as a mental issue, which brings me to my final point,
E) I am also particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.

A) That "ideology" is based wholly in Islam. We aren't at war with the entire faith, but we are with that segment of it. it's a version used for the ends of these fascists, but fascists who absolutely sincerely believe the are acting in the name and command of their faith. They're the ones making this about faith, not us.

b) I can consider all dinnerware to be "spoons", doesn't make me right. Terrorism has a pretty standard accepted definition and it includes not just the act but the motive being to make political or sociological change. So if a determined person attacks a place to effect some kind of change it's terrorism, but if it's just some mentally insane person lashing out randomly it's not. San Bernadino is terrorism, carried out by people following an ideology and a leader to take action for political purposes. Sandy Hook isn't, it was just a troubled kid who lashed out at his perceived persecutors. One is personal, one is political or social.

You can call them the same thing, but you'd be misusing the language and standard definition of the term.

c) I can post on this more later, but I'm right and there's actually a large body of research to back it up. That's why you don't see racism against groups that aren't economic or sociological threats. Most of the fear that drives racism is in fact economic, not physical, as proven by the fact that most research shows that racism is inversely correlated with economic status. If you're a poor white person but you believe all white people are better than blacks then you aren't the lowest on the totem pole.

Likewise that person doesn't go around hating Russians. Why? B/c no Russian is at risk of taking his job or displacing him socio-economically. There is no threat, so no racism. Numerous studies show that racism is driven by those threats, largely economic but in this case physical in the form of being an enemy.

Same thing in any war. Go to war, prejudice against the enemy's race or faith or whatever will shoot straight up. They're now a threat, and between that and the need to demonize the enemy (not hard when ISIS is killing babies and gay people in the streets), that's what we get.

d) Please list all the terrorist incidents in the last 10 years done in the name of Christianity. Going to be be a short list, which is why "radical Christianity" is some kind of myth, one of the more delusional ones I've heard in a while.

from what I can tell you are inferring that killings where people are mentally ill is actually some kind of radical Christianity based terrorism. Other than the complete lack of them having manifestos or social media posts or anything else indicating they are doing it in the name of Christ and to further Christendom you've got a heck of a case. Which is to say you have no case at all.

[jazyd]

Radical Muslim attacks off the top of my head since 9/11.

Ft. Hood
Chatanooga
Moore, Oklahoma
Boston
DC Sniper
The thwarted Texas attack

Plus San Bernadino. And those that have been stopped, which I think the shoe bomber was since 9/11. I think there was one in Little Rock or that area.

Throw in Paris, and so many world wide all by radical Islam terrorists.

Since 9/11 how many have been murdered in Chicago, I don't know of any that were Christian based.
I don't know of any place in the New Testament that says all non Christians/ non believers should be killed if they don't accept the Bible such as the Quran. God nor Jesus says that and those that claim they were told that are truly mentally unstable

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Radical Muslim attacks off the top of my head since 9/11.

Ft. Hood
Chatanooga
Moore, Oklahoma
Boston
DC Sniper
The thwarted Texas attack

A couple on this list are skeptical at best and motives were never proven, such as the DC Sniper(which was mostly domestic related) and Chattanooga(which motive has still yet to be determined), but I'll give those to you. Here's a pretty good scorecard (http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html) that illustrates my point. The killing count is 48 for right wing extremists - 45 for Jihadists/Islamic extremists. The count of incidents are dramatically skewed towards the right wing extremists. I guess that when those on the right are radicalized, they're way more skilled in murder.

Let's not forget that the 2nd largest terrorist attack in the US was also perpetrated by 'Radicalized Christians'.

As I mentioned, we all have different definitions of what "Radical Christianity" may mean, but any denial that radicalization can not happen outside the name of Islam is completely insane. To think that their threat isn't real is just as insane.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

A) That "ideology" is based wholly in Islam. We aren't at war with the entire faith, but we are with that segment of it. it's a version used for the ends of these fascists, but fascists who absolutely sincerely believe the are acting in the name and command of their faith. They're the ones making this about faith, not us.

b) I can consider all dinnerware to be "spoons", doesn't make me right. Terrorism has a pretty standard accepted definition and it includes not just the act but the motive being to make political or sociological change. So if a determined person attacks a place to effect some kind of change it's terrorism, but if it's just some mentally insane person lashing out randomly it's not. San Bernadino is terrorism, carried out by people following an ideology and a leader to take action for political purposes. Sandy Hook isn't, it was just a troubled kid who lashed out at his perceived persecutors. One is personal, one is political or social.

You can call them the same thing, but you'd be misusing the language and standard definition of the term.

c) I can post on this more later, but I'm right and there's actually a large body of research to back it up. That's why you don't see racism against groups that aren't economic or sociological threats. Most of the fear that drives racism is in fact economic, not physical, as proven by the fact that most research shows that racism is inversely correlated with economic status. If you're a poor white person but you believe all white people are better than blacks then you aren't the lowest on the totem pole.

Likewise that person doesn't go around hating Russians. Why? B/c no Russian is at risk of taking his job or displacing him socio-economically. There is no threat, so no racism. Numerous studies show that racism is driven by those threats, largely economic but in this case physical in the form of being an enemy.

Same thing in any war. Go to war, prejudice against the enemy's race or faith or whatever will shoot straight up. They're now a threat, and between that and the need to demonize the enemy (not hard when ISIS is killing babies and gay people in the streets), that's what we get.

d) Please list all the terrorist incidents in the last 10 years done in the name of Christianity. Going to be be a short list, which is why "radical Christianity" is some kind of myth, one of the more delusional ones I've heard in a while.

from what I can tell you are inferring that killings where people are mentally ill is actually some kind of radical Christianity based terrorism. Other than the complete lack of them having manifestos or social media posts or anything else indicating they are doing it in the name of Christ and to further Christendom you've got a heck of a case. Which is to say you have no case at all.

a) There are a whole lot of people in the U.S. That are completely comfortable with treating it as a war on Islam. It's rhetoric being used in the campaigns. At best, it's a mutual religious war. 99% of Islam has no interest in a war against Christianity. Their ideology casts the bait and we gobble it right up. It's why they are capable of recruiting.

B) One of my biggest issues with how we act as a nation is what we call terrorism. There maybe a generic and accepted definition that seems to be religious based, but for people without a religious affiliation, the accepted definition is very disheartening. Any crime where weapons of mass destruction(another term not adequately defined) is certainly an act of terror. It's crazy to think that survivors of mass shootings weren't terrorized.

C) there is no right or wrong answer, just perception.

D) I included a list in another response, but as I said, it's obvious that we're not going to agree on the definition. You see these incidents as mental health issues. I see them as radicalization. However, I think practically all instances of radicalization is a mental health issue. Not all, but most. There is pure evil, but that's not what most of these people once were.

[KeithKSR]

A couple on this list are skeptical at best and motives were never proven, such as the DC Sniper(which was mostly domestic related) and Chattanooga(which motive has still yet to be determined), but I'll give those to you. Here's a pretty good scorecard (http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html) that illustrates my point. The killing count is 48 for right wing extremists - 45 for Jihadists/Islamic extremists. The count of incidents are dramatically skewed towards the right wing extremists. I guess that when those on the right are radicalized, they're way more skilled in murder.

Let's not forget that the 2nd largest terrorist attack in the US was also perpetrated by 'Radicalized Christians'.

As I mentioned, we all have different definitions of what "Radical Christianity" may mean, but any denial that radicalization can not happen outside the name of Islam is completely insane. To think that their threat isn't real is just as insane.

The examples you cite are far from radical Christianity, crazy people doing crazy stuff has nothing to do with Christianity.

[dan_bgblue]

Chattanooga (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/us/chattanooga-shooting-terrorist-inspiration/index.html)

[suncat05]

The guy in Chattanooga was a Muslim. Period. He attacked a military recruiting office with military personnel therein. For the express purpose of killing United States military members. In Tennessee, in the United States of America.
I don't care how you try to frame that Stu, that is a terrorist attack on a U.S. military installation by a Muslim terrorist. Period.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The examples you cite are far from radical Christianity, crazy people doing crazy stuff has nothing to do with Christianity.

In your opinion. Not mine.

As I've mentioned, I find real problems when it's from the far right extremists, it's a mental issue, or as you say "crazy people doing crazy stuff", but if it's a Muslim that it's radicalization and terrorism. I don't, and will never, see a difference.

But, hey, that's just me.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The guy in Chattanooga was a Muslim. Period. He attacked a military recruiting office with military personnel therein. For the express purpose of killing United States military members. In Tennessee, in the United States of America.
I don't care how you try to frame that Stu, that is a terrorist attack on a U.S. military installation by a Muslim terrorist. Period.

I said I'd give it in the discussion. He may be Muslim, but there isn't clear evidence that he was radicalized, at least in the terms of what people are considering radicalized. Even with it's inclusion, the numbers still fall short of the right wing/Christian extremism.

[suncat05]

Stu, I respectfully disagree. That guy was radicalized, only a radical or a moron would do something like that. He may have been both, AFAIC.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, I respectfully disagree. That guy was radicalized, only a radical or a moron would do something like that. He may have been both, AFAIC.

Your statement here, we actually do agree, mostly.

It's my opinion that all(well, mostly all. I do believe that some are pure evil) mass shooters are "radicalized", by whatever belief, whether it be a skewed version of Islam, being a baby warrior, anti-government, racism or whatever various factors.

It's just not in what the general population defines as radicalized. Radicalization shouldn't be confined to apply to Muslims. That's where there seems to be a disconnect with so me and many people on this board and the right wing.

Muslims=radicalization; Non-Muslim=mental illness. IMO, radicalization is a mental illness and all perpetrators should be treated and feared equally, with the assumption that people are U.S. citizens.

[CitizenBBN]

In your opinion. Not mine.

As I've mentioned, I find real problems when it's from the far right extremists, it's a mental issue, or as you say "crazy people doing crazy stuff", but if it's a Muslim that it's radicalization and terrorism. I don't, and will never, see a difference.

But, hey, that's just me.

There's a pretty objective standard one can apply. Did the person in question say they were doing it in the name of some ideology or faith? If so then there you go, and if not then you have your answer there too.

The definition of "terrorism" isn't about religion, but it is about using random, shocking violence to effect some kind of change. That's the textbook definition, and that's what distinguishes it from other forms of violence. You may not like it, but that's what terrorism means. You can call it "puppies" but that doesn't make it so.

So at Sandy Hook there is no ideology, no desire to send a message or effect change. there is simply desire to somehow get even with perceived personal persecutors in the minds of a mentally ill boy. Certified mentally ill btw.

But in San Bernadino we have a shooting not to get back at someone who hurt them personally, or someone they thought did so, but simply a plan based on a call by an organization with which they affiliate to kill Americans in order to effect a change in US foreign policy.

As for you tacking "christian" to any "right wing extremist" killing, you are engaging in an impressive level of hypocrisy. You call anyone who even hints at grouping Muslims in with these extremists a racist, yet you pin the Christian tag on attacks where there was NO reference whatsoever to religion on the part of the attacker.

So in your world there are questions about the motives of the Chattanooga attack but any other non-Muslim attack in the US, even by the mentally ill, is "Christian radicalism".

[CitizenBBN]

BTW it's critical to maintain that distinction for "terrorism", b/c the way we combat violence is all about WHY there was violence. If we start seeing all mass attacks as the same we lose the ability to counter them.

For example better mental health procedures can work to address things like Sandy Hook, it won't do a thing to stop a terrorist. Likewise shutting down ISIS' internet access wont' stop the next picked on kid with mental issues from stealing grandpa's guns and going on a rampage (or his car, there was one of those attacks last year in California where multiple pedestrians were killed, or making a bomb, etc.).

[CitizenBBN]

a) There are a whole lot of people in the U.S. That are completely comfortable with treating it as a war on Islam. It's rhetoric being used in the campaigns. At best, it's a mutual religious war. 99% of Islam has no interest in a war against Christianity. Their ideology casts the bait and we gobble it right up. It's why they are capable of recruiting.

While it's a clear minority, sadly there is more than 1% support for more radical versions of Islam, even in the US. Thankfully it's still small, and I"m all for not helping ISIS recruit by overreacting, but disturbingly there are way too many Muslims who are buying way too much of the radical agenda.

Very reminiscent of the last fascist movement. It won't take a very high percentage of people to buy in for it to get very ugly.

[KeithKSR]

While it's a clear minority, sadly there is more than 1% support for more radical versions of Islam, even in the US. Thankfully it's still small, and I"m all for not helping ISIS recruit by overreacting, but disturbingly there are way too many Muslims who are buying way too much of the radical agenda.

Very reminiscent of the last fascist movement. It won't take a very high percentage of people to buy in for it to get very ugly.

Polls have indicated more than 25% of the Muslims in this country support Sharia Law, which is at the heart of the extremism.

[CitizenBBN]

Polls have indicated more than 25% of the Muslims in this country support Sharia Law, which is at the heart of the extremism.

Not to mention those who approve of honor killing and even the use of suicide bombers. The latter is admittedly a low percentage but Pew in 2013 or so put it at 8% in the US.

[jazyd]

While it's a clear minority, sadly there is more than 1% support for more radical versions of Islam, even in the US. Thankfully it's still small, and I"m all for not helping ISIS recruit by overreacting, but disturbingly there are way too many Muslims who are buying way too much of the radical agenda.

Very reminiscent of the last fascist movement. It won't take a very high percentage of people to buy in for it to get very ugly.

I believe the % is much higher! I had a convenience store owner admit if the S... Hit the fan he would side with his brothers. I assure you I never stopped at his place again. While they pretend to love us and our money, many will turn against us

[CitizenBBN]

I believe the % is much higher! I had a convenience store owner admit if the S... Hit the fan he would side with his brothers. I assure you I never stopped at his place again. While they pretend to love us and our money, many will turn against us

Ought to side with us "radical Christians", we're better armed and get more practice.

[suncat05]

I believe the % is much higher! I had a convenience store owner admit if the S... Hit the fan he would side with his brothers. I assure you I never stopped at his place again. While they pretend to love us and our money, many will turn against us

The response we will have to make then will be very clear too. And that disturbs me to no end. I don't want to have to do that ever again, but if it's between me or him, it's going to be him.

[dan_bgblue]

Ought to side with us "radical Christians", we're better armed and get more practice.

:trink39:

I do not think it would work. We are so racialphobic, we would shoot them on sight before asking questions.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Ought to side with us "radical Christians", we're better armed and get more practice.

I didn't realize you were one of them.

[CitizenBBN]

I didn't realize you were one of them.

I was using your definition, which seems to include most everyone not Muslim. :)

I'm a radical from way back. I believe in free minds, free markets and free society. These days that will get you on a government watch list.

[Catonahottinroof]

Folks need to separate the stupid political spin of these topics and just look at the right/wrong and see what is driving it.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I was using your definition, which seems to include most everyone not Muslim. :)

I'm a radical from way back. I believe in free minds, free markets and free society. These days that will get you on a government watch list.

Don't forget the Jews. I'm definitely not lumping them in there. Atheists/Agnostic too(which is my group), among many others. As I mentioned, I can't create a boundary of inclusion, but I know one when I see one.

I believe in free minds, free markets and free society as well, but I also believe that those can't come without limits and regulations. Every freedom and right needs to have this as well as a system to monitor its relevance. That's what I believe our founding fathers had in mind when they said "in order to form a more perfect union".

I would love it if the players in that game(exclusive of govt) were able to police themselves, but in the history of our nation, we've proven quite successfully that we can't do so, at least effectively. It shouldn't mean we should stop trying.

By the way, we're ALL on a government watch list in one way or another. The first time that any of us got a job, we ended up on a watch list called the IRS. There's plenty of watch lists that we're on. If somebody doesn't want to be on a government watch list, then this isn't the country for them.

[CitizenBBN]

stu, on another thread you supported registration of guns, fingerprints and DNA so you could know what your neighbors are doing.

You do not believe in free minds, free markets or free society. Not even close.