There are a lot of poor people out there. It’s a lot easier to get them to sign up if you a least pretend to offer them hope.
I saw this on Facebook: “If your reaction to terrorism is to be terrified, maybe you’re not leadership material.”
Totally comparable. BTW, the second biggest source of terrorist attacks in this country, after Islamic extremists, is far-right white groups and gun-nuts.
Is it really only the second biggest?
Five of those detained by Border Patrol were Pakistani and one was Afghan. From the article:
Can we get a cite for that?
Big claim, please point to the part of my post which is bullshit
You didn’t read what I said at all did you? You merely got a general feeling that I’m not in complete agreement with you and then extrapolated from there.
I said it isn’t racism, bigotry or Islamaphobia to suggest ISIS will try to sneak it’s people through in groups of refugees. Do you agree with that statement or not?
Depends on the time span. Right now, probably first. Include the last 20 years, definitely the second. Go back to lynching and it takes the trophy back.
It has comparable qualities, inherent in stupid positions, they share a common factor.
From the National Counterterrorism Center: Annex of Statistical Information (“Perpetrators” section)
It is widely considered to be good form to point to the specific part of your citation that you imagine supports your position.
The whole point is you waste time digging and finally give up.
Probably this:
This is what he imagines constitutes the left in this country.
Thanks. This is interesting. I would note that the report identifies 10,283 attacks in 2011. About 5700 were attributed to “Sunni extremists” (comprising 70% of fatalities). The second largest category of perpetrators were “Secular, political, and anarchist groups… conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities”. I presume that attackers across the political spectrum are represented in that category. The report says:
It’s unclear from the summary what groups were responsible for the other ~1400 attacks in the category. So, about 878 attacks out of 10,283 definitively attributed to far left groups.
Guerrilla Marxist-Leninist, Commie, Commie, leftist militant.
Strictly and pedantically, devoid of context, the point’s supported. Just. With Bayard’s adroit caveat about what constitutes the remainder of the “secular, political, and anarchist” violence.
.
Perhaps a Paris-style attack could simply be designated a “mass shooting” since those don’t seem to bother Republicans so much.
And when they say “But it’s terrorism”, remind them that they have typically said, at least in hate-crime legislation debate, that the motivation of an attacker doesn’t matter.
I don’t think you can look at 10,283 - you need to subtract out the 5,700 and consider the what could be the biggest category from the remainder.
I’m not sure your presumption about “attackers across the political spectrum” being reprepresented is accurate. If you look at the fuller report (page 11) you’ll see that “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist” is a separate category (with 77 deaths).
But I agree that there’s some wriggle room.
I am at the point that if you’re one of the "“let’s not let any Muslims in” people, thaen you’re a fucking supporter of ISIS.
ISIS does not want us to let refugees in. They specifically have said this. They commit terrorist acts to frighten us into keeping refugees out. They publish propaganda lies about how they infiltrate refugees.
If you repeat these lies and cave in to the terrorists desires… then you are a fucking terrorist supporter. You might just as well get your orders directly from the ISIS leadership, and obey everything they tell you.
I think there is a concrete effect beyond the abstract “we’re making them hate us”. If we do not take in refugees, an non-zero number of them will remain in refugee camps, where a non-zero number of them will decide to return home rather than stay in the camps, where they will at the very least help Isis by paying taxes to them.
Problem is, if you choose paint people who raise concerns as bigots, racists and “islamaphobes” (a bullshit, non-term anyway) then you can feel justified in just hand-waving away anything they say instead of actually taking the time to consider if there is an issue to deal with.
You think that the possibility of ISIS terrorists within the population of Syrian terrorists is a stupid position? Stupid to even consider it? Pointless to screen for it?
Yes, it’s pointless to screen for ISIS terrorists within the population of Syrian terrorists. Both groups can be ethically denied refugee status.
Oops, that should of course read “Syrian refugees”