Why do Hillary and Obama want more refugees?

[Elmer]

6 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

 

Can you show me where anyone has argued this point?

I made a generalization!
But you called me out on my first point, but did not address the second.

We are soo worried about "refugees", more so if they are "Muslim"!
But non concerned about violence from our own people, less concerned the more pale they are.

The only conclusion I can gather, is we don't mind mass shootings or bombings as long as they are perpetrated by white Americans!

If the Bundy Stand off in Oregon had been perpetrated by a bunch of Muslim-Syrian refuges, would it have been so non violent?

[mcanadiens]

3 minutes ago, Elmer said:

I made a generalization!
But you called me out on my first point, but did not address the second.

We are soo worried about "refugees", more so if they are "Muslim"!
But non concerned about violence from our own people, less concerned the more pale they are.

The only conclusion I can gather, is we don't mind mass shootings or bombings as long as they are perpetrated by white Americans!

If the Bundy Stand off in Oregon had been perpetrated by a bunch of Muslim-Syrian refuges, would it have been so non violent?

It's not really the same thing. Native-born criminals have always been a problem and there was never any avoiding it. Potential criminals that may or may not be in a group of would-be refugees have yet to become our responsibility. 

The police and their handling of various situations is certainly a major question of the day. In the case of the Bundy situation, it helps that they were isolated and largely away from other people. That took away a sense of urgency. I believe I'm correct that those guys are behind bars now and figure to stay there for quite a while.  

To suggest that some concern over the further acceptance of refugees equals a lack of concern of the crimes of white Americans is just plain wrong.

 

[Groucho Valentine]

13 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

It's not really the same thing. Native-born criminals have always been a problem and there was never any avoiding it. Potential criminals that may or may not be in a group of would-be refugees have yet to become our responsibility. 

The police and their handling of various situations is certainly a major question of the day. In the case of the Bundy situation, it helps that they were isolated and largely away from other people. That took away a sense of urgency. I believe I'm correct that those guys are behind bars now and figure to stay there for quite a while.  

To suggest that some concern over the further acceptance of refugees equals a lack of concern of the crimes of white Americans is just plain wrong.

 

Dude had a point. If the people in that bundy standoff weren't a bunch of white dudes that lodge would have been firebombed. We were joking about that while it was going on. There was a benefit of doubt and a measure of empathy given to those people there that a muslim or other ethnic minority in the US wouldnt have received. It would have equaled a death sentence for them. 

[Gunther]

39 minutes ago, Elmer said:

I made a generalization!
But you called me out on my first point, but did not address the second.

We are soo worried about "refugees", more so if they are "Muslim"!
But non concerned about violence from our own people, less concerned the more pale they are.

The only conclusion I can gather, is we don't mind mass shootings or bombings as long as they are perpetrated by white Americans!

If the Bundy Stand off in Oregon had been perpetrated by a bunch of Muslim-Syrian refuges, would it have been so non violent?

I guess you didn't see my admittedly cursory research.  Less than 10% of deaths resulting from domestic terrorist attacks in the US since 1995 were caused by white people.  I specifically went back that far so as to include the McVeigh bombing.

If I were to extrapolate that figure world-wide, it would be less than 1%.  

Not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims.  Wishing that weren't the case is not helping matters as the number of deaths is growing.

[mcanadiens]

1 minute ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Dude had a point. If the people in that bundy standoff weren't a bunch of white dudes that lodge would have been firebombed. We were joking about that while it was going on. There was a benefit of doubt and a measure of empathy given to those people there that a muslim or other ethnic minority in the US wouldnt have received. It would have equaled a death sentence for them. 

I allowed for the idea that police handling of different situations is very much in question. It would be a cleaner example however, if Bundy had tried to commandeer a bus station in an urban environment instead of an isolated tract of land in southeastern Nevada. 

Either way. This is a very separate issue than the refugee situation or white people's attitudes towards white criminals.

[Golfingdad]

57 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I guess you didn't see my admittedly cursory research.  Less than 10% of deaths resulting from domestic terrorist attacks in the US since 1995 were caused by white people.  I specifically went back that far so as to include the McVeigh bombing.

If I were to extrapolate that figure world-wide, it would be less than 1%.  

Not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims.  Wishing that weren't the case is not helping matters as the number of deaths is growing.

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

Counting 9/11 as 3 separate attacks, according to that list, there have been 14 acts of terrorism in the US by "Islamic Extremists" since 1995.  In that same time frame there were 37 acts of terrorism attributable to either White Supremacy (3), Antisemitism (3), Right-Wing Extremism (6), or Anti-Abortion Violence (25).  Without going through the effort of checking on every single person, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of those were "psychotic with dudes."

Also worth note is that the psychotic white dudes that didn't seem to have a particular political agenda (the Colorado theater guy, various school shooters, etc) aren't included in the list.

So, no ... virtually all terrorism is NOT perpetrated by Muslims.  Not even a majority.

[Gunther]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

Counting 9/11 as 3 separate attacks, according to that list, there have been 14 acts of terrorism in the US by "Islamic Extremists" since 1995.  In that same time frame there were 37 acts of terrorism attributable to either White Supremacy (3), Antisemitism (3), Right-Wing Extremism (6), or Anti-Abortion Violence (25).  Without going through the effort of checking on every single person, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of those were "psychotic with dudes."

Also worth note is that the psychotic white dudes that didn't seem to have a particular political agenda (the Colorado theater guy, various school shooters, etc) aren't included in the list.

So, no ... virtually all terrorism is NOT perpetrated by Muslims.  Not even a majority.

Mmm, 2016 not counted here I see but regardless, my review focused on deaths attributable to US domestic terror and then I extrapolated to world-wide.  Don't see anything here that would have me change my claim, although it could be here and I'm missing it.  The reason I focus on deaths is because I think there is some license in classifying these things domestic terror, e.g., not sure the guy who killed the cops in Dallas in July would be classified as domestic terror, although I think it should.  Using deaths as the metric gets a little closer to true intent, at least that's how I see it.

[Golfingdad]

5 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Mmm, 2016 not counted here I see but regardless, my review focused on deaths attributable to US domestic terror and then I extrapolated to world-wide.  Don't see anything here that would have me change my claim, although it could be here and I'm missing it.  The reason I focus on deaths is because I think there is some license in classifying these things domestic terror, e.g., not sure the guy who killed the cops in Dallas in July would be classified as domestic terror, although I think it should.  Using deaths as the metric gets a little closer to true intent, at least that's how I see it.

Using deaths as a metric allows the scales to be tipped in favor of your point because of the absurdly high "success" of the attacks on the WTC on 9/11.

Would you be less afraid of Muslims (relative to crazy white guys) if the buildings held up and the death toll was 1,000 instead of 3,000?  Or would you be less afraid of Muslims if those pilots were less competent and they all missed their targets resulting in only the deaths of a couple of hundred?  You're suggesting that if they were less competent then that means their intent wasn't as bad?

Not to make light of this, but by saying that more deaths = greater intent, you're making that same Dan Plan, talent vs. drive, argument that "all you have to do is want it bad enough."

[boogielicious]

24 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Mmm, 2016 not counted here I see but regardless, my review focused on deaths attributable to US domestic terror and then I extrapolated to world-wide.  Don't see anything here that would have me change my claim, although it could be here and I'm missing it.  The reason I focus on deaths is because I think there is some license in classifying these things domestic terror, e.g., not sure the guy who killed the cops in Dallas in July would be classified as domestic terror, although I think it should.  Using deaths as the metric gets a little closer to true intent, at least that's how I see it.

Did you mean, "Hmmm."? 

[Gunther]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Using deaths as a metric allows the scales to be tipped in favor of your point because of the absurdly high "success" of the attacks on the WTC on 9/11.

Would you be less afraid of Muslims (relative to crazy white guys) if the buildings held up and the death toll was 1,000 instead of 3,000?  Or would you be less afraid of Muslims if those pilots were less competent and they all missed their targets resulting in only the deaths of a couple of hundred?  You're suggesting that if they were less competent then that means their intent wasn't as bad?

Not to make light of this, but by saying that more deaths = greater intent, you're making that same Dan Plan, talent vs. drive, argument that "all you have to do is want it bad enough."

That's an interesting analogy.  My rationale is based on the seriousness of the intent of the terrorism, which I think would translate into success, for lack of a better term. 

Of the 25 abortion incidents you cite, there were 10 deaths associated. While the people who commited the acts are no doubt deranged, they are typically unsuccessful which I would translate into perhaps a lack of conviction.  Hard for me to classify that a terrorist act, especially when also considering these are often 1 on 1 interactions, which happen every day in the inner city.

Omar Mateen, on the other hand, was deathly committed to his cause, knew he was going to die and be rewarded for his service.  That shows true terror, again, as I see it.

And, it's a stretch to think I'm afraid of Muslims.  Far from it, in fact.  Most that I know and most of the terrorists I've seen, I would snap in half, although the NJ guy would be tough, he was a fat little fkr.  (I would also add that I have some Muslim friends and coworkers but that would sound a little, um, cliche?)  I will say, however, that I lived in Turkey for over a year and grew to love the culture.  So my viewpoint doesn't come from bigotry, and most people who feel as I do are the same.  I know that's hard for many to grasp because that's all they hear and it's an easy, if not cowardly, counter.

To me it boils down to common sense.  When ISIS tells you they're embedding soldiers with the refugees and you know it's true because some have been discovered in Europe, I mean, it's time to tap the brakes and figure out some stuff.

[boogielicious]

Curious as to why we don't feel the same way about the IRA? There are no Irish refugee per se, but they certainly have and seemingly are still performing terrorist acts.

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

 

[Golfingdad]

57 minutes ago, Gunther said:

That's an interesting analogy.  My rationale is based on the seriousness of the intent of the terrorism, which I think would translate into success, for lack of a better term. 

Of the 25 abortion incidents you cite, there were 10 deaths associated. While the people who commited the acts are no doubt deranged, they are typically unsuccessful which I would translate into perhaps a lack of conviction.  Hard for me to classify that a terrorist act, especially when also considering these are often 1 on 1 interactions, which happen every day in the inner city.

Omar Mateen, on the other hand, was deathly committed to his cause, knew he was going to die and be rewarded for his service.  That shows true terror, again, as I see it.

And, it's a stretch to think I'm afraid of Muslims.  Far from it, in fact.  Most that I know and most of the terrorists I've seen, I would snap in half, although the NJ guy would be tough, he was a fat little fkr.  (I would also add that I have some Muslim friends and coworkers but that would sound a little, um, cliche?)  I will say, however, that I lived in Turkey for over a year and grew to love the culture.  So my viewpoint doesn't come from bigotry, and most people who feel as I do are the same.  I know that's hard for many to grasp because that's all they hear and it's an easy, if not cowardly, counter.

To me it boils down to common sense.  When ISIS tells you they're embedding soldiers with the refugees and you know it's true because some have been discovered in Europe, I mean, it's time to tap the brakes and figure out some stuff.

Sorry, when I say "afraid," I don't mean in the personal sense of whether or not you could beat them up.  I mean it in the broader sense of fear, the one that people use to justify grouping all Muslims as terrorists.

Maybe I should have said ... "Would you be less inclined to be so against the possibility of admitting Muslim refugees if the buildings held up and the death toll was 1,000 instead of 3,000?  Or would you be less inclined to be so against the possibility of admitting Muslim refugees if those pilots were less competent and they all missed their targets resulting in only the deaths of a couple of hundred?  You're suggesting that if they were less competent then that means their intent wasn't as bad?"

[Gunther]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

Sorry, when I say "afraid," I don't mean in the personal sense of whether or not you could beat them up.  I mean it in the broader sense of fear, the one that people use to justify grouping all Muslims as terrorists.

Maybe I should have said ... "Would you be less inclined to be so against the possibility of admitting Muslim refugees if the buildings held up and the death toll was 1,000 instead of 3,000?  Or would you be less inclined to be so against the possibility of admitting Muslim refugees if those pilots were less competent and they all missed their targets resulting in only the deaths of a couple of hundred?  You're suggesting that if they were less competent then that means their intent wasn't as bad?"

I think my last paragraph kinda sums up how I feel even if there hadn't been a 9/11.  They're embedding soldiers into the refugee population, we cannot vet them, it's common sense to me to keep em out until we come up with a way to accurately background check them.  

[newtogolf]

Radical Islamic Terrorists come in all colors, it seems anyone can be converted.  As for refugees, terrorists have embedded themselves into the groups of refugees so that they may gain access to countries they might not be able to otherwise.  Most people just want proper vetting of these refugees and priority given to refugees that are traveling with wives and children over single 18-35 males.  

[Ernest Jones]

Weird, I wrote a response to The Gunthman this morning and it seems to have disappeared, or I ****ed up the post. Strange, because usually non-posted post will sit in the text box but its not there either. In anycase, others have this well in hand. 

[Rainmaker]

In my opinion . .the best and only way to stop radicalism is to take away the conditions that foster it.  The conditions that foster radicalism are poverty, oppression, lack of educational and economic opportunity, etc.  Then, in certain countries in the Middle East, the lack of government infrastructure and ability to police the population  . .as well as more oppression and poverty . . allows it to grow and fester. 

Letting the refugees in makes us safer than keeping them out.  In my opinion.  Keeping them out puts them into a humanitarian crisis.  It makes it easier for them to hate us.  It makes us the hypocrites the radicals say we are. 

[Abu3baid]

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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

Counting 9/11 as 3 separate attacks, according to that list, there have been 14 acts of terrorism in the US by "Islamic Extremists" since 1995.  In that same time frame there were 37 acts of terrorism attributable to either White Supremacy (3), Antisemitism (3), Right-Wing Extremism (6), or Anti-Abortion Violence (25).  Without going through the effort of checking on every single person, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of those were "psychotic with dudes."

Also worth note is that the psychotic white dudes that didn't seem to have a particular political agenda (the Colorado theater guy, various school shooters, etc) aren't included in the list.

So, no ... virtually all terrorism is NOT perpetrated by Muslims.  Not even a majority.

Agree.

I try so hard to stay out of these discussions and I'm not getting into this one.  I do want to point out the huge discrepancy in how violent acts are categorized as well.  If a Muslim commits a crime of passion he is a terrorist, if someone else does it he's deranged.  

Let's look at it from a world view for a second, a UN convoy was bombed the other day by fighter jets (the US says it has evidence it is Russian jets) and no one blinks an eye or would even consider this an act of terrorism, not sure why.  In fact, even after the UN started making calls to all the parties to stop bombing their convey the bombing continued for a couple more hours.  

Omar Mateen, a dirtbag wife beater alcoholic druggie.. Yeah, you guessed it, a terrorist act instead of a mentally deranged act of someone who was emotionally unstable looking to fit in.

The problem I have with "Terrorism" is that not even the experts agree as to what is an act terrorism.. Other than it is one if a Muslim is envolved.  Heck, I'd like to find the last time an incident involving a Muslim wasn't called a terrorist act.  

Thus, the statement.. Hey not all Muslims are terrorist, but most terror acts are committed by Muslims.

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, Abu3baid said:

Thus, the statement.. Hey not all Muslims are terrorist, but most terror acts are committed by Muslims.

You are mostly correct, but I don't think many would deny that Timothy McVee was a terrorist.

Edit: by "correct" I meant in describing how some people feel towards Muslims.

Edited September 21, 2016 by JonMA1