Explosions at Arianna Grande concert in UK
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Syrian refugee/former ISIS fighter is my guess.
Anyone want to bet against that?
Anyone want to bet against that?
not feeling the need to politicize or
monday morning qb this just yet
monday morning qb this just yet
It's not politicizing. I'm a father of three teenage girls and I'm F'ing horrified. Two of my girls were at her show at the BOK. It's easy to imagine being those parents.
This has got to stop and we know goddamn well who did it.
Right, this might be just some pissed off, jealous Katy Perry fan.
Hopefully is a mentally disturbed lone wolf and not a large organized terror network who has now decided to start targeting children.
They crucify Christian children in Iraq and Syria, you really think blowing up kids is/was off limits?
Targeting children has been off limits as far as attacks in the West to date. This would be a somewhat new method to spread terror for them if they were indeed the perps.
It hasn't been off limits. It was just not at the top of the menu. Now it is.
the mike cernovich text/tweet was certainly both politicizing and monday morning quarterbacking
which is mutually exclusive from your feeling for the victims and outrage at the terrorists
Fair enough. I guess the truth is I don't really give a shit if my reaction is perceived as politicized. Better?
True they haven't targeted children, but not because it's off limits, and children have certainly died in the terrorist attacks Europe is experiencing.
Has anyone ever noticed that pictures of dead children are used when the media wants to stir up favor for military action. Photo after photo of dead and maimed children from Syria or even Hussein in the 90's. They know it's how you piss off a nation real damn fast. To date they haven't showed them in regard to the terrorist attacks in Europe. No war to drum up support for there. Also doesn't help their argument for mass importation of Immigrants. Be interesting to see if some of those that scream islamaphobe will change positions if this ends up being Islam.
Maybe they noticed our reactions to dead children and decided that targeting our children would hurt us most. This is scary, could be the new modus operandi.
I remember being in the U.K. a gazillion years ago and seeing IRA/anti-IRA graffiti. Don't think they are the culprit this time.
Not really. You just seemed to be really sure that it would turn out to be a Syrian refugee and I was wondering what was driving your feeling that way. I thought maybe you were going off of precedent and that Syrian refugees had proven to be responsible for other attacks. I couldn't remember whether or not that was the case.
Since you stated that you have "no idea", It now appears that the narrative that terrorists are going to sneak into countries disguised as Syrian refugees is working. I'm not trying to say that the narrative is false, as it may well turn out to be accurate (may already have happened for all I know, because I don't remember the country of origin of all other terror attacks in Europe). But, there has definitely been a conservative agenda to paint Syrian refugees as a Trojan horse filled with terrorists, and our current vetting process as not being up to the task of keeping those individuals out of the country. Whether it is an accurate portrayal or hyperbole remains to be seen, IMO.
It does appear that you have bought in fully. I'm just not sure yet.
The CIA person who developed the waterboarding techniques used on a few of the AQ prisoners said he was told during interrogations that going after crowds and children was high on terrorists' targets. He said they believed it would force citizens to give up the normal things populations do in their daily activities. Going after children keeps them from growing up and coming after the terrorists. It's all about changing normal behavior in civilized society through terrorism.
Isis has already claimed responsibility. I said "my giuess is refugee / former Isis fighter". As either, or - or some combo of both.
Is my semantics really the discussion to be had about this? Kind of misses the point.
Good one Mega. What does whether is was "Syrian refugee/former ISIS fighter " matter to her family?
It is an important distinction because policy response is different if it was an immigrant/refugee/foreign fighter vs homegrown radicalized by the internet.
I see now. I read your post as that you were willing to bet that it was perpetrated by a Syrian refugee who was also a former Isis fighter. Apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying and taking this thread in a different direction.
Your semantics matter at least in part from a policy perspective on how you fight the threat and what the most effective refugee policy might be.
An English native home grown non-refugee inspired by ISIS on-line activity/popoganda poses a very different challenge than a refugee and/or former ISIS fighter. An immigration ban isn't gonna address the former in any meaningful way and could even exacerbate the issue.
ISIS needs to be stopped. The discussion, for me, really centers around both how you do that and how you make your citizens as safe as possible while doing so.
That being said, I am all for greater border security and vetting. Not convinced a complete or even temporary ban being pursued is the best policy decision or even really feasible.
ISIS controlled and directed foreign actor/refugee absolutely does pose a different challenge than an ISIS inspired citizen.
I have asked this, on this board, multiple times. What does a temporary ban even accomplish? I just can't see any reason for it at this point.
I see. Not sure if you know this but I have nothing to do with policy. I'm a parent who is horrified and sick to freaking death of seeing the same absurd story play out over and over again. Lecture me all you want. Don't care.
I'm out. I don't have anymore time for this this morning. You guys figure out who did this and who it's OK to be mad at and let me know later OK?
A temporary ban lets you evaluate your procedures and shore up any short comings.
You have to put exacly zero thought to see no benefit.
You have to put exacly zero thought to see no benefit.
Why can't you evaluate your procedures without the ban? If you need a 120 day/90 day ban, why wouldn't the vetting have been fully evaluated by now? What part of the evaluation procedure can only be done while the ban is in force?
You seemed like a very concerned parent when you were pushing your preferred narrative.
I've always questioned why are we wanted to ship people who historically don't assimilate well into western culture half way across the world to live. Their core beliefs and way of life are in stark contrast to what they find here. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to relocate them somewhere in the middle east where they share cultures, language, religion, etc...
I do think the travel ban is a little silly. Many of the terrorist do seem to travel back to the middle east prior to committed their terrorist act but I'm not even sure a travel ban would prevent such travel. I also assume they are likely to carry out the act with or without such a ban due to internet connections and networks.
Uh because we could be endangering Americans.
You say you've asked. The problem is it's been answered every fn time and you breeze right over it because it isn't happening in your neighborhood so it's not really a problem.
Leave your bubble. How long has it been since you left our borders?
You say you've asked. The problem is it's been answered every fn time and you breeze right over it because it isn't happening in your neighborhood so it's not really a problem.
Leave your bubble. How long has it been since you left our borders?
Don't get me wrong. I am not on some crusade to get more immigrants/refugees into our country. That is a different topic entirely. I just can't figure out why the proposed ban makes any kind of logical sense.
Start evaluating the vetting procedures immediately (as in over 100 days ago). After the evaluation, shore up weaknesses if weaknesses are found. It seems simple to me. What am I missing?
It's okay to be mad at whomever you want to be mad at....the world is a good starting point. It is certainly a fvxed up place in general.
I sympathize with and have the same emotional reaction as you.
That's your answer? You are usually pretty smart and a logical thinker. You are clearly stating that our current vetting procedures are not good enough and are allowing terrorists into this country (thus "endangering Americans"). If that is the case, what kind of sense does it make to fight the ban in court for over 4 months while not addressing the vetting issues or even starting the ball rolling on evaluating the vetting?
Why can the vetting not be evaluated before the ban is in place? What magical change takes place when the ban starts, that allows investigators to step in and study the current vetting procedures?
