Terrorism and Immigration - Risk Analysis

[-Nurot]

As far as I am aware the President can't stop US Citizens from being in/going to the US, so the argument "What about the terrorists here?" is not really relevant.

We have domestic terrorists, therefore we shouldn't discriminate against foreign terrorists - is not really much of an argument, ideally you combat both at some point, domestic terrorists typically are harder to stop entering your nation, for obvious reasons.

But, we can crack down on these sycophants that post on social media, and stage rallies and make their intentions and delusions of grandeur known here at home. Countries that have been no threat in the past though they're the priority?

Yes, domestic terrorists are already here, but they are a problem too (greater than those 7 countries so far), why all the sudden focus on the boogeymen that might eventually one day leave their own countries and might possibly become a threat? How can you discriminate against terrorists when they have yet terrorized anyone here? Yet, why should we not discriminate against domestic terrorists, because we're paranoid of countries abroad. I know this administration is waist deep in incompetence, but nonetheless.

Is that what Republicans are worried about? 8 year old refugees entering the country, only to attack us 12 years later, after being radicalized within our country? How exactly do you vet that?

But you're not looking at the larger picture. Immigrants and refugees that enter the country through our current vetting process are not a serious terrorist threat. Do you disagree?

Americans and legal immigrants that become radicalized later on are included in your figures posted, but it's a great example of an act that would still have happened, like the rest (9/11 included), even with Trump's EO in place.

If they really want to complain about injuries not included in your figure though, I genuinely want to know why we're afraid of Muslims in principle, but ring-wing radicals who have committed their fair share of injuries, don't even get discussed. Hello Oklahoma Bombing 168 dead 680 injured. Is it because it was 6 years before 9/11 people can't remember that far back, or because he didn't use a plane? Our 2nd worst terrorist attack (Pearl harbor I'm including in WWII and as an act of war not terrorism) gets lost in history and these whack jobs get a free pass because their ideology isn't Muslim?

[xChurch]

Virtually every threat is an overblown one. The threats we have the most to fear in regard to the daily degradation of our lives almost exclusively come from men in suits, not the ones wearing explosives.

That's the sad part. We know that terrorism was largely used as a way to manipulate the public into ongoing wars in the ME and yet people still act as if it's some legitimate fear while ignoring all the things we actually should be afraid of.

[Kalis]

Unless we're going to try an go back to 1776, virtually all data analysis on this subject can be reduced to 'cherry-picking'. Starting after 9/11 makes sense, considering that we've drastically changed security measures in many ways.

It looks remarkably like a deliberate attempt to downplay Islamic terrorism in the US.

That said, including the 9/11 attack only makes the nations on the ban list that much more laughable.

That I agree with. Saudi should be top of the list.

[bergmann620]

It isn't lies though. Trying to pretend that Mohammed wasn't a military leader, is going to prove fruitless when you look at what he did and said. It was arguably the most effective implementation of an intentionally martial religion in history, off the top of my head I can't think of a more successful one.

Christianity was a non-martial religion that has been co-opted for martial reasons, but Islam started out that way and has carried on in that vein.

That would almost be believable if the Bibles my Christian friends carry didn't have that really long prologue called "The Old Testament".

[Kalis]

Just because we do it all the time does not mean it's acceptable or that it works. There is a huge list of terrorist attacks on the US from 2000 - present, not all of them muslims, and those that were were not all from the middle east, they are from various countries, some born in the us, how did profiling help out there? How would you even know if profiling works when there are this many attacks/attempts that happen? How would you know if you stopped more than actually occurred?

Profiling is not just used in terrorism, it is both logical, practical and effective. No system will be 100% when you have 300-odd million people in it.

Honestly, that is often the best course of action. There's this belief that legislators need to constantly be legislating in order to do their jobs. I believe that less is usually more.

That is all very well and good until a bomb goes off and you could have done something fairly simple to prevent it, but chose to do nothing.

[bergmann620]

That's the sad part. We know that terrorism was largely used as a way to manipulate the public into ongoing wars in the ME and yet people still act as if it's some legitimate fear while ignoring all the things we actually should be afraid of.

That's because the 'we' in there is people that take the time to educate themselves and actively fight against the idiocy of our lizard brains.

Even then, half of us will never let our kid walk home a few blocks alone from a park because we've seen 100 more episodes of SVU than is healthy.

[Zan15]

It looks remarkably like a deliberate attempt to downplay Islamic terrorism in the US.



That I agree with. Saudi should be top of the list.

that same deliberate ability to label every attack by a Muslim a terrorist attack and every school, movie theater, church attack, mass killing done by a non muslim as just a "crazy dude" or a "lone wolf" or "unstable person"

talk about a seriously under reported number of non Muslim "terrorist" attacks.

[Kalis]

That would almost be believable if the Bibles my Christian friends carry didn't have that really long prologue called "The Old Testament".

Christianity was in large part a way for a sect of Jews to reject the Old Testament. The New one is supposed to supercede the Old where they contradict, unfortunately people have a tendancy to pick the bits they like regardless, such is the way of man.

Plus the Old Testament is primarily defensive in its martial scope, Judaism has never really liked non-Jews and tried to be apart from them where possible, whereas Islam is expansionist.

They are very different religions in their intent.

[Machismo]

Profiling is not just used in terrorism, it is both logical, practical and effective. No system will be 100% when you have 300-odd million people in it.



That is all very well and good until a bomb goes off and you could have done something fairly simple to prevent it, but chose to do nothing.

The issue is how much freedom someone is willing to give up (and take from others) in the name of security. There are far bigger threats in this country than Islamic terrorism, but most supporters of the travel ban would be up in arms if people were to ban or restrict them. Imagine how outrages American conservatives would get if liberals actually banned guns. And shootings are objectively a far bigger threat in this country than Islamic terrorism, and it's not even close. If this was really about security, why are they not trying to rein in guns? Why don't they ban cigarettes and alcohol, both of which kill far more people than terrorism does in this country. The answer is simple, they don't care about taking someone else's freedoms to feel more safe, but will be outraged if someone tries to to the exact same to them.

[Kalis]

that same deliberate ability to label every attack by a Muslim a terrorist attack and every school, movie theater, church attack, mass killing done by a non muslim as just a "crazy dude" or a "lone wolf" or "unstable person"

talk about a seriously under reported number of non Muslim "terrorist" attacks.

That's nice, but what has that got to do with me, or anything I've said?

[Vyxn]

The figures below apply to the United States:

• The annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is 1 in 3.6 billion.

• Since 9/11, an average of 9 people per year have been killed by Muslim Extremists in the United States.

• Foreigners from countries included in the Presidents temporary travel ban have killed Zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.

I believe foreign and domestic policy should be evidence-based. Looking at the number of deaths each year is only one way to measure risk. Would anyone like to present addition evidence analyzing the risk between immigration and terrorism in the United States?


Sources:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o.../pa798_1_1.pdf

https://www.cato.org/blog/little-nat...er-immigration

shark attacks are very rare also we only have about 16 a year on average. That being said does it then make it safe to stock your swimming pool with sharks?

[Aehl]

Every goddamn time someone uses the "WE WON!" argument.

Yes well....

A visibly frustrated President Obama delivered a blunt message to Republicans with whom he had feuded over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling over the past month on Tuesday: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

Funny how the standard suddenly changes.

Innit?

[Machismo]

shark attacks are very rare also we only have about 16 a year on average. That being said does it then make it safe to stock your swimming pool with sharks?

No, but it does mean you shouldn't be too terrified to go to the beach.

[Kalis]

The issue is how much freedom someone is willing to give up (and take from others) in the name of security. There are far bigger threats in this country than Islamic terrorism, but most supporters of the travel ban would be up in arms if people were to ban or restrict them. Imagine how outrages American conservatives would get if liberals actually banned guns. And shootings are objectively a far bigger threat in this country than Islamic terrorism, and it's not even close. If this was really about security, why are they not trying to rein in guns? Why don't they ban cigarettes and alcohol, both of which kill far more people than terrorism does in this country. The answer is simple, they don't care about taking someone else's freedoms to feel more safe, but will be outraged if someone tries to to the exact same to them.

What has this got to do with gun control? Entry to the US, or any other state, should be up to the state itself to decide. 6 of those 7 nations bar entry to anyone with an Israeli passport, not just temporary bans either, you are not talking banning people from havens of liberal values here, these are people from extremist and/or failed nations.

[-Nurot]

shark attacks are very rare also we only have about 16 a year on average. That being said does it then make it safe to stock your swimming pool with sharks?

I see what you did there. You just assumed that every refugee, and citizen from those 7 countries is suddenly a terrorist. You're right clearly no one should ever swim in the ocean again.

[Neliah]

The figures below apply to the United States:

• The annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is 1 in 3.6 billion.

• Since 9/11, an average of 9 people per year have been killed by Muslim Extremists in the United States.

• Foreigners from countries included in the Presidents temporary travel ban have killed Zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.

I believe foreign and domestic policy should be evidence-based. Looking at the number of deaths each year is only one way to measure risk. Would anyone like to present addition evidence analyzing the risk between immigration and terrorism in the United States?


Sources:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o.../pa798_1_1.pdf

https://www.cato.org/blog/little-nat...er-immigration

So.... What exactly was the attack on Boston in 2013...?

[Vyxn]

I see what you did there. You just assumed that every refugee, and citizen from those 7 countries is suddenly a terrorist. You're right clearly no one should ever swim in the ocean again.

not all sharks attacks humans either but do you jump into the ocean when you see a fin sticking out of the water?

[-Nurot]

So.... What exactly was the attack on Boston in 2013...?

An attack that killed 3 people............

not all sharks attacks humans either but do you jump into the ocean when you see a fin sticking out of the water?

So in this case, what is the fin? Being a Muslim, being from one of those 7 countries, or a combination of the two?

[Machismo]

What has this got to do with gun control? Entry to the US, or any other state, should be up to the state itself to decide. 6 of those 7 nations bar entry to anyone with an Israeli passport, not just temporary bans either, you are not talking banning people from havens of liberal values here, these are people from extremist and/or failed nations.

It's the exact same premise, restricting freedoms in the name of "security."

I'm not sayign that they are not legally allowed to bar travel, I'm saying they are hypocrites for doing it, then whining about liberals trying to ban guns.

[Zan15]

That would almost be believable if the Bibles my Christian friends carry didn't have that really long prologue called "The Old Testament".

God > Marriage even in the NT


“The one given in marriage does well, but the one not given in marriage does better” (1 Co. 7:38).
Jesus declared, “It is better not to marry” (Mt. 19:10).

Familial ties were not as important as being a follower of Christ, where the prerequisite for discipleship was to “hate one’s father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk. 14:26).

To be a true Christian came to be understood as permanent celibacy, for abstinence was an outward expression of an inward freedom from the corruptible flesh. Marriage, according to Paul, was for those overwrought with sexual desires and unable to submit the flesh to the spirit by living a celibate life

“But if they lack self-control,” Paul advised, “let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Co. 7:9).
According to Paul, “It is better for a man and a woman not to touch, but because of fornication, let each have his own wife and each her own husband” (1 Co. 7:1-2).


but they knew they had to procreate, so they added "rules" about marriage since marriage was better then carnal sexual promiscuity


https://baptistnews.com/article/marr.../#.WJJTFhsrKUk

good little opinion piece i always share with people.


There are also many passages where they suggest you leave your family behind and give full devotion to God and forget all about them.