Muslim refugees become terrorists at a lower rate than Americans become murderers. And here is Alex on jellybeans.
This article suggests you are more likely to be killed by falling furniture than by a terrorist.
Somewhere in my Twitter feed I saw a claim that an American is more likely to be shot by a toddler than by a terrorist.
By a variety of metrics, European terror attacks were worse in the 1970s and 1980s than today.
Matt Yglesias argues American society is pretty robust to a bunch of people getting shot.
Nonetheless many American (and European) citizens seem to think that a murder by a foreign terrorist is much worse than a murder by a domestic nutcase, and that murder by a foreign terrorist is a major deal, these days at least. What might be the reasons for that view?
The passport the Frenchman used to pass through was a copy of a Syrian soldier. In any asylum procedure he would've fallen through in days.
The reason he didn't is because since April there has been no border control in the EU. The south eastern states are not stopping people on purpose, because if they look away and never make official contact the Dublin treaty allows the refugees to flee on to different, richer and more welcoming countries.
So nobody checks anything on purpose beyond the quickest write down of a passport number, and this guy just travels on.
Most EU proceedings I aware off (I work in the Dutch system but you pick up things about surrounding countries) would not be quite so strict as that tweeted story above.
Note that as of today Turkey is actively prevent refugees from entering boats to reach Greece. The EU will pay up to €3B to make refugee camps near the Turkish / Syrian border and improve conditions in existing camps.
my stance has been clear from the start - the concern that taking in syrian refugees will lead to security issues resonates with me. it resonates with me both because of paris and because i do not have faith in our vetting process. you state that there have been 0 attacks by refugees since we've accepted 800k of them over the past 15 years, but google tells me that there haven't been any attacks by refugees because we thwarted them, not because our vetting process was great. i'm not sure why i should feel comforted by the statements you've been making.
You stated that you were concerned that Syrian refugees were a potential threat because terrorists could sneak in too. I cited a statistic that no attacks have been conducted by the nearly 800,000 refugees accepted by the US since 9/11.
You then moved the goalposts by broadening your focus to the children of refugees (who were born here), people arrested outside of the country, and pointing out that approximately 0.0015% of post 9/11 refugees were arrested on suspicion of involvement in foiled terrorist plots. You're moving goalposts.
i'm not moving goalposts. your soundbite was setting an arbitrary goalpost, which i questioned.
honestly, you don't have to try to attack my logical theory. just get right to the substance of my position. my goal posts have always been clear - the security of the american people.
all of that being said, looking over the info everyone has provided, i am understanding better why most of you aren't worried about accepting refugees. to be honest, i actually feel relatively convinced.
i will watch the video after i get off work.
Mohammed Atta - the man who performed the on-the-ground organization for the 9/11 attacks, and who himself flew one of the aircraft - was in America on a tourist visa. The same visa anyone can get at any time so long as they have a valid passport.
I'll have to double check, but I'm reasonably sure the same is true of the rest of the hijackers.
The idea of attempting to get into a country to conduct an attack by applying for asylum rather than just using a tourist visa is fucking retarded. They're not looking to move in. They don't need a green card for any reason. If they're Jihadists, they'll be long dead before their visa expires or anyone has an opportunity to suspect a damn thing.
You can't realistically hope to stop terrorist attacks from happening. We can probably mitigate them in the long term by improving conditions in the Persian Gulf, but if someone decided tomorrow that they're going to go die for the cause, you're very unlikely to halt them with any given anti-asylum measure in the first place; you'll be targeting entirely the wrong group of people (not much different, as many have said, from targeting Japanese civilians in WWII who had moved away from Japan specifically because they rejected the imperial court & xenophobic culture).
I suppose you can always dream-up some incredibly draconian security state that will be able to reliably protect itself from sporadic terrorist attacks, but such a state couldn't really resemble anything like a modern democracy.
my stance has been clear from the start - the concern that taking in syrian refugees will lead to security issues resonates with me. it resonates with me both because of paris and because i do not have faith in our vetting process. you state that there have been 0 attacks by refugees since we've accepted 800k of them over the past 15 years, but google tells me that there haven't been any attacks by refugees because we thwarted them, not because our vetting process was great. i'm not sure why i should feel comforted by the statements you've been making.
You stated that you were concerned that Syrian refugees were a potential threat because terrorists could sneak in too. I cited a statistic that no attacks have been conducted by the nearly 800,000 refugees accepted by the US since 9/11.
You then moved the goalposts by broadening your focus to the children of refugees (who were born here), people arrested outside of the country, and pointing out that approximately 0.0015% of post 9/11 refugees were arrested on suspicion of involvement in foiled terrorist plots. You're moving goalposts.
i'm not moving goalposts. your soundbite was setting an arbitrary goalpost, which i questioned.
honestly, you don't have to try to attack my logical theory. just get right to the substance of my position. my goal posts have always been clear - the security of the american people.
all of that being said, looking over the info everyone has provided, i am understanding better why most of you aren't worried about accepting refugees. to be honest, i actually feel relatively convinced.
i will watch the video after i get off work.
Mohammed Atta - the man who performed the on-the-ground organization for the 9/11 attacks, and who himself flew one of the aircraft - was in America on a tourist visa. The same visa anyone can get at any time so long as they have a valid passport.
I'll have to double check, but I'm reasonably sure the same is true of the rest of the hijackers.
The idea of attempting to get into a country to conduct an attack by applying for asylum rather than just using a tourist visa is fucking retarded. They're not looking to move in. They don't need a green card for any reason. If they're Jihadists, they'll be long dead before their visa expires or anyone has an opportunity to suspect a damn thing.
You can't realistically hope to stop terrorist attacks from happening. We can probably mitigate them in the long term by improving conditions in the Persian Gulf, but if someone decided tomorrow that they're going to go die for the cause, you're very unlikely to halt them with any given anti-asylum measure in the first place; you'll be targeting entirely the wrong group of people (not much different, as many have said, from targeting Japanese civilians in WWII who had moved away from Japan specifically because they rejected the imperial court & xenophobic culture).
I suppose you can always dream-up some incredibly draconian security state that will be able to reliably protect itself from sporadic terrorist attacks, but such a state couldn't really resemble anything like a modern democracy.
There's one sure way to stop all terrorist attacks forever. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea needs to be committed. Now.
my stance has been clear from the start - the concern that taking in syrian refugees will lead to security issues resonates with me. it resonates with me both because of paris and because i do not have faith in our vetting process. you state that there have been 0 attacks by refugees since we've accepted 800k of them over the past 15 years, but google tells me that there haven't been any attacks by refugees because we thwarted them, not because our vetting process was great. i'm not sure why i should feel comforted by the statements you've been making.
You stated that you were concerned that Syrian refugees were a potential threat because terrorists could sneak in too. I cited a statistic that no attacks have been conducted by the nearly 800,000 refugees accepted by the US since 9/11.
You then moved the goalposts by broadening your focus to the children of refugees (who were born here), people arrested outside of the country, and pointing out that approximately 0.0015% of post 9/11 refugees were arrested on suspicion of involvement in foiled terrorist plots. You're moving goalposts.
i'm not moving goalposts. your soundbite was setting an arbitrary goalpost, which i questioned.
honestly, you don't have to try to attack my logical theory. just get right to the substance of my position. my goal posts have always been clear - the security of the american people.
all of that being said, looking over the info everyone has provided, i am understanding better why most of you aren't worried about accepting refugees. to be honest, i actually feel relatively convinced.
i will watch the video after i get off work.
Mohammed Atta - the man who performed the on-the-ground organization for the 9/11 attacks, and who himself flew one of the aircraft - was in America on a tourist visa. The same visa anyone can get at any time so long as they have a valid passport.
I'll have to double check, but I'm reasonably sure the same is true of the rest of the hijackers.
The idea of attempting to get into a country to conduct an attack by applying for asylum rather than just using a tourist visa is fucking retarded. They're not looking to move in. They don't need a green card for any reason. If they're Jihadists, they'll be long dead before their visa expires or anyone has an opportunity to suspect a damn thing.
You can't realistically hope to stop terrorist attacks from happening. We can probably mitigate them in the long term by improving conditions in the Persian Gulf, but if someone decided tomorrow that they're going to go die for the cause, you're very unlikely to halt them with any given anti-asylum measure in the first place; you'll be targeting entirely the wrong group of people (not much different, as many have said, from targeting Japanese civilians in WWII who had moved away from Japan specifically because they rejected the imperial court & xenophobic culture).
I suppose you can always dream-up some incredibly draconian security state that will be able to reliably protect itself from sporadic terrorist attacks, but such a state couldn't really resemble anything like a modern democracy.
There's one sure way to stop all terrorist attacks forever. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea needs to be committed. Now.
Nah, glassing the whole planet is just going to delay terrorism, not stop it, eventually another sentient species will evolve, and commit terrorism.
my stance has been clear from the start - the concern that taking in syrian refugees will lead to security issues resonates with me. it resonates with me both because of paris and because i do not have faith in our vetting process. you state that there have been 0 attacks by refugees since we've accepted 800k of them over the past 15 years, but google tells me that there haven't been any attacks by refugees because we thwarted them, not because our vetting process was great. i'm not sure why i should feel comforted by the statements you've been making.
You stated that you were concerned that Syrian refugees were a potential threat because terrorists could sneak in too. I cited a statistic that no attacks have been conducted by the nearly 800,000 refugees accepted by the US since 9/11.
You then moved the goalposts by broadening your focus to the children of refugees (who were born here), people arrested outside of the country, and pointing out that approximately 0.0015% of post 9/11 refugees were arrested on suspicion of involvement in foiled terrorist plots. You're moving goalposts.
i'm not moving goalposts. your soundbite was setting an arbitrary goalpost, which i questioned.
honestly, you don't have to try to attack my logical theory. just get right to the substance of my position. my goal posts have always been clear - the security of the american people.
all of that being said, looking over the info everyone has provided, i am understanding better why most of you aren't worried about accepting refugees. to be honest, i actually feel relatively convinced.
i will watch the video after i get off work.
Mohammed Atta - the man who performed the on-the-ground organization for the 9/11 attacks, and who himself flew one of the aircraft - was in America on a tourist visa. The same visa anyone can get at any time so long as they have a valid passport.
I'll have to double check, but I'm reasonably sure the same is true of the rest of the hijackers.
The idea of attempting to get into a country to conduct an attack by applying for asylum rather than just using a tourist visa is fucking retarded. They're not looking to move in. They don't need a green card for any reason. If they're Jihadists, they'll be long dead before their visa expires or anyone has an opportunity to suspect a damn thing.
You can't realistically hope to stop terrorist attacks from happening. We can probably mitigate them in the long term by improving conditions in the Persian Gulf, but if someone decided tomorrow that they're going to go die for the cause, you're very unlikely to halt them with any given anti-asylum measure in the first place; you'll be targeting entirely the wrong group of people (not much different, as many have said, from targeting Japanese civilians in WWII who had moved away from Japan specifically because they rejected the imperial court & xenophobic culture).
I suppose you can always dream-up some incredibly draconian security state that will be able to reliably protect itself from sporadic terrorist attacks, but such a state couldn't really resemble anything like a modern democracy.
There's one sure way to stop all terrorist attacks forever. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea needs to be committed. Now.
Nah, glassing the whole planet is just going to delay terrorism, not stop it, eventually another sentient species will evolve, and commit terrorism.
Entertaining the premise that we should not let anyone in the country that would increase risk of bad things happening by any amount at all is an incredible waste of time. It is not a tenable position as there are way too many wacky, undesirable, outcomes of following it. Such outcomes have so far been handwaved away by saying that some risk is acceptable but making a change for any additional risk is unacceptable. But what is the logical reason for stopping there? Why is the current level of risk at all acceptable? Surely if we are at the point where accepting even one Syrian refugee is too many then we are living in a wildly dangerous situation? If not, why is any additional risk somehow too much? The level of additional risk to any one person is negligible given the statistics elsewhere sited. 800,000 refugees and no terrorist incidents and only 12 deportations due to suspicions. Surely variance in your own personal behavior will introduce yourself and your family to far more risk on a daily basis than accepting some pathetic number of refugees. But even then! That isn't an argument against taking in refugees, because no matter what they are an additional .00000 whatever percent of risk. And it's as we go further and further down this route that it becomes obvious that the only time this strict aversion to risk is found is when it comes to accepting refugees.
But all this effort is to contradict a person whose opening statement was, to put it succinctly, "morals schmorals"
So, with that in mind, I don't personally see a need to engage further in the line of discussion.
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
woooow
maybe the article should have read "original story completely fabricated .... sorry. Here is the real one"
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
What's a comma?
It's what happens when you get hit in the head too hard, I think.
Friends,
I have posted regarding this issue once before and believe it worth another read. As you travel during the holidays or any other time, please try to shop and purchase gas and other items at American owned stores. The C stores/tobacco outlets, etc. with the lights around the windows and doors are not owned by God fearing Christians. In large part, these stores are owned by folk that send their profits back to their homeland and then in turn use these funds against our country to create turmoil, fear and in some cases death and destruction. I realize I am “painting with a broad brush” here, but the madness has to stop. Please join me in making the extra effort to never support these stores/shops! I am trying to do my part and I know you will to.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! May God Bless.
Alan Harper
State Representative District 61
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
They work for Fox 2, so probably not.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
to be honest, many cleveland browns fans would welcome this news, as the quick embrace of death provided by a firearm is so much superior than being cast out to the outer darkness by the eternal suckitude of their team
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Yea, when things like Monday night happen, guns are the LAST thing I want in those stadiums.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
And in Detroit, a man bought a new backpack at a Meijer, then left the old one with the cashier to throw away and a customer called the police and said ISIS was planning on blowing up the store. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
Posts
/list
more, and links at the link
relevant, interesting
The reason he didn't is because since April there has been no border control in the EU. The south eastern states are not stopping people on purpose, because if they look away and never make official contact the Dublin treaty allows the refugees to flee on to different, richer and more welcoming countries.
So nobody checks anything on purpose beyond the quickest write down of a passport number, and this guy just travels on.
Most EU proceedings I aware off (I work in the Dutch system but you pick up things about surrounding countries) would not be quite so strict as that tweeted story above.
Note that as of today Turkey is actively prevent refugees from entering boats to reach Greece. The EU will pay up to €3B to make refugee camps near the Turkish / Syrian border and improve conditions in existing camps.
Mohammed Atta - the man who performed the on-the-ground organization for the 9/11 attacks, and who himself flew one of the aircraft - was in America on a tourist visa. The same visa anyone can get at any time so long as they have a valid passport.
I'll have to double check, but I'm reasonably sure the same is true of the rest of the hijackers.
The idea of attempting to get into a country to conduct an attack by applying for asylum rather than just using a tourist visa is fucking retarded. They're not looking to move in. They don't need a green card for any reason. If they're Jihadists, they'll be long dead before their visa expires or anyone has an opportunity to suspect a damn thing.
You can't realistically hope to stop terrorist attacks from happening. We can probably mitigate them in the long term by improving conditions in the Persian Gulf, but if someone decided tomorrow that they're going to go die for the cause, you're very unlikely to halt them with any given anti-asylum measure in the first place; you'll be targeting entirely the wrong group of people (not much different, as many have said, from targeting Japanese civilians in WWII who had moved away from Japan specifically because they rejected the imperial court & xenophobic culture).
I suppose you can always dream-up some incredibly draconian security state that will be able to reliably protect itself from sporadic terrorist attacks, but such a state couldn't really resemble anything like a modern democracy.
There's one sure way to stop all terrorist attacks forever. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea needs to be committed. Now.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Nah, glassing the whole planet is just going to delay terrorism, not stop it, eventually another sentient species will evolve, and commit terrorism.
Ah, yes. 'Reapers'.
But all this effort is to contradict a person whose opening statement was, to put it succinctly, "morals schmorals"
So, with that in mind, I don't personally see a need to engage further in the line of discussion.
http://deadspin.com/off-duty-cops-really-want-to-bring-guns-into-nfl-stadiu-1745403791
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Wow. There's no way this could go horribly wrong.
In the long run this is literally a war that can be won with kindness, if we'd only try it.
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/54912988-story
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
There's no way that wouldn't result in dead Eagles fans.
Oh for fucks sake, I live here
These are the honking geese I have to live with.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Who the fuck wrote this copy? Did they graduate from high school?
woooow
maybe the article should have read "original story completely fabricated .... sorry. Here is the real one"
What's a comma?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It's what happens when you get hit in the head too hard, I think.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
It gets "better":
...stop electing stupid, Alabama.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
They work for Fox 2, so probably not.
to be honest, many cleveland browns fans would welcome this news, as the quick embrace of death provided by a firearm is so much superior than being cast out to the outer darkness by the eternal suckitude of their team
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Yes
Yeah....
Although, I do need that last bit of audio as a new text alert. It's just absolutely perfect.
The article linked to that one is way more gross, to me. He's telling private companies not to do what they do? Fuck him with a cactus.
I read the comments so that you don't have to.
And then post them, so that you...have to...read them?
I haven't thought this through. Anyway:
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Gawker's comment quality saw a marked improvement ever since they took a much more aggressive moderation stance.