A choice has already been made. Racial profiling is wrong. Although every terrorist who has perpetrated an act of terror in the name of Islam looks eeerily similar, we have chosen to ignore that common trait for fear of being politically incorrect. We have chosen to allow people to die rather than take a closer look at a person who believes all infidels should die. Hope is the only thing we have left that we will not be the target of the next terrorist who has been identified as a possible threat, but because racial profiling is more important than the lives of innocent people, we just need to have the audacity to hope.
2
It's about guns and gun violence. Whenever we start making secret lists, and potentially violating the 4th amendment among others, we are trying to narrow the problem to a point where the bigger picture is lost and there are unintended consequences. The 2nd amendment does not say that people have a right to own guns to defend themselves. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders of the country did not believe in a standing army, and so citizens needed to be called upon to defend their towns against enemies to the nation. The debate about guns has been twisted by the NRA and its narrow vision of gun ownership as an inalienable right. It is not.
It's even more futile than the authors of this piece realize. For every would be jihadist who does something to bring himself to the attention of the police, there are no doubt dozens who never have but are just thinking about killing us "infidel" And they may be just as likely to murder us as those whom the police are watching. So "rounding up the usual suspects" (i.e, just about anybody with an arabic name), won't help. What might help is "hardening the target", keeping ANYBODY with a gun out of crowded venues such as airports, nightclubs, sports arenas, etc. Install, first of all, metal detectors at every entry to such places.. And, for godsake, ban assault weapons NOW!
2
Might be useful to learn what the British experience was using internment, viz. preventive detention, with domestic IRA terrorists.
3
We have long since arrived at the point
where the notion of a true 'Thought Police'
force is technologically possible.
Face it, we already live in a surveillance
state. All that is needed to go over the edge
is ruthless political will.
Of course, any illusions of privacy and freedom
will go the way of the Dodo bird.
I have no answers.
where the notion of a true 'Thought Police'
force is technologically possible.
Face it, we already live in a surveillance
state. All that is needed to go over the edge
is ruthless political will.
Of course, any illusions of privacy and freedom
will go the way of the Dodo bird.
I have no answers.
1
May be the solution is to not be terrorized!
I think everyone needs to remind themselves that USA is not Switzerland. US is the largest defense spender in the world, with Military presence in lot of places around the world and engagement in active conflicts. Couple that with easy access to guns here and that is really your answer!
It would be just impossible to eliminate all the risk unless we change our ways and I don't think US is going to disengage from the world or people in this country are going to give up on their "high capacity guns for hunting or self-defense". What we can do is prepare ourselves and not be terrorized! Because by not being Terrorized by these tragedies is the ultimate answer to Terrorists!
I think everyone needs to remind themselves that USA is not Switzerland. US is the largest defense spender in the world, with Military presence in lot of places around the world and engagement in active conflicts. Couple that with easy access to guns here and that is really your answer!
It would be just impossible to eliminate all the risk unless we change our ways and I don't think US is going to disengage from the world or people in this country are going to give up on their "high capacity guns for hunting or self-defense". What we can do is prepare ourselves and not be terrorized! Because by not being Terrorized by these tragedies is the ultimate answer to Terrorists!
While sunnis and shiites are readily killing each other over a technicality of a religious dogma on behalf of the same prophet, something tells me something is not right with their whole muslim culture.
Please, dear liberal NYT commentators, stop deluding yourself that religious fanatics are the same people as you, as it might be you among other innocent victims, disarmed and waving your civil liberties for all, absorbing shrapnel, when they blow up another public place.
Please, dear liberal NYT commentators, stop deluding yourself that religious fanatics are the same people as you, as it might be you among other innocent victims, disarmed and waving your civil liberties for all, absorbing shrapnel, when they blow up another public place.
6
Our society is not powerless to act against belief systems that hurt the greater good. Yes as a liberal democracy we should not impinge on another's right to free thought, so the answer lies not with law enforcement but rather with the socially acceptable attitudes we value! For example, a little over a decade ago, our society failed to openly, proudly, publicly respect differences in sexual orientation among citizens, yet now it's well understood as a societal norm that unequal treatment due to such differences amounts to discrimination. What changed was our attitude for tolerance of discrimination against the gay community. Likewise, we must now route out those among us who teach intolerance and supremacy by casting those teachings as unfair, unequal and un-American. Ideologies that teach violence as a means to their biased ends should be exposed as such!
4
Fear-mongering much? The perpetrators of these deeds are not terrorists with an underlying political purpose. They are not soldiers, not foreign agitators. They have not been radicalized by "outside forces".
They are nothing more than violent, mentally ill self-aggrandizing fame seekers, and their pledges to "ISIS" are no more meaningful than pledges to "Satan" back in the 60's. The violence is a product of their own sick minds, and a signal that we can keep our society safer by limiting access to deadly weapons and increasing access to mental health care.
They are nothing more than violent, mentally ill self-aggrandizing fame seekers, and their pledges to "ISIS" are no more meaningful than pledges to "Satan" back in the 60's. The violence is a product of their own sick minds, and a signal that we can keep our society safer by limiting access to deadly weapons and increasing access to mental health care.
4
ask ourselves-
-Why are sunnis and shiites readiily killing each other.
-Is US supporting a side in that conflict.
-Who is to benefit from US military involvement
-Why are sunnis and shiites readiily killing each other.
-Is US supporting a side in that conflict.
-Who is to benefit from US military involvement
3
How do people get "radicalized?" 1) internet sites spewing hatred and falsehoods, 2) preachers at radical mosques, storefronts, and streetcorners, 3) travel to places to visit people actively plotting terrorist acts and training people for it, andf then being allowed to return. Can we really not take any steps against any of these? I don't believe it. Why don't we? Maybe it might hurt the tech giants we seem to worship. Maybe it's unfavorable in the long term for the "defense" industry and hence our whole economy. Maybe we mistake free speech for absolute unfettered speech. Disagreeing with our country's policies is not the same as calling for our country's violent demise, and issuing threats of violence against innocent individuals is rightly a crime. We can and should be making it a lot harder for terrorists to become terrorists or to carry out terrorist acts.
4
This is such a fine line, but at the same time a very, very important line. Let's be very clear, until someone puts words into action, they are not a terrorist. At the same time it is also our responsibility to know about those who plan horrible acts, yet to take action based on words or thoughts is to cross the line into totalitarianism, where we arrest someone as a 'future criminal.'
This tension between rights and safety lies at the heart of our democracy. People who give up their freedom never do so in one fell swoop, they do so, one step at a time and always in the name of safety.
This tension between rights and safety lies at the heart of our democracy. People who give up their freedom never do so in one fell swoop, they do so, one step at a time and always in the name of safety.
For the past twenty years we have tried to impress Terrorists with our shock and awe treatments when we should have been fighting their erroneous beliefs with logic and understanding. So now we decide to ask how to stop terrorists who think our beliefs are hypocritical and false and prefer their own mistaken hatreds.
We need to stop making huge profits by war industries and start talking to our terrorist foes about how we can take the best from each of our belief systems and live with brotherhood. Beheadings, drone strikes, stonings, and shock and awe are all the tools of lunatics and will never do more than give us another 20 years of failure.
We need to stop making huge profits by war industries and start talking to our terrorist foes about how we can take the best from each of our belief systems and live with brotherhood. Beheadings, drone strikes, stonings, and shock and awe are all the tools of lunatics and will never do more than give us another 20 years of failure.
Do not let someone into the US who believes sharia should be the law of the land. Wait, you mean we are not even allowed to ask the question?
4
In a world without "Precogs" (reference to Minority report), we need to turn to analytics and data. It is true that the number of people has gotten too large for people to analyze. We need good studies about what are the best indicators of future attacks. I unfortunately think that we are ultimately walking toward more and more surveillance of everyone instead of "smarter surveillance" of the most at risk people.
“I want to be able to take preventive action.” Sentiments uttered in strident tones by many, along with criteria and thresholds for taking action. The thresholds are sometimes themselves frightening, especially around elections.
Could we establish criteria and thresholds for taking action against adults who are more likely than most to leave loaded guns for children to find and use, we'd save many more people than are killed each year by terrorist attacks in the US.
Terrorism: It's only what you FEAR most, not what is ACTUALLY your biggest threat.
Could we establish criteria and thresholds for taking action against adults who are more likely than most to leave loaded guns for children to find and use, we'd save many more people than are killed each year by terrorist attacks in the US.
Terrorism: It's only what you FEAR most, not what is ACTUALLY your biggest threat.
1
All the gun control comments are thought provoking but ultimately futile. Guns are functional for decades so there is already an endless supply out there in society. But there is only a finite amount of ammunition available. Wouldn't it make more sense to control the distribution of ammunition? It might even be able to clear second amendment legal challenges since technically bullets aren't guns.
3
Just wondering - what are the laws against animal brutality and murder? It has long been known that a person that abuses, tortures, and/or murders animals is more than likely to commit illegal acts against human beings.
So, if France has no laws, they'd better get some on the books. Not just for the sake of fighting terrorists, but the sake of civilians that will be the next target.
If they do have laws on the books, use them.
So, if France has no laws, they'd better get some on the books. Not just for the sake of fighting terrorists, but the sake of civilians that will be the next target.
If they do have laws on the books, use them.
4
Thought doesn't occur in a vacuum. pcfreetees.com
1
What does Israel do ? Profiling, something we in the West find abhorrent. Yet, we might learn something from Israel?
11
Before you go praising the idea of pre-crime enforcement, go watch Minority Report again. Its a great film.
Right now the FBI finds people they think may be terrorist someday, then talks them into committing crime, than pats themselves on the back for stopping a crime that probably never would have happened.
A better idea is to find people that show signs of violent behavior from a young age and get them the mental health care that they need to control themselves. The investment would pay for itself many times over.
Another thing that we can do is stop making distinctions between aggression by the sane and the insane.
Because we want to wage wars on other countries to "protect our interests" (i.e. force them to let global corporations use them as cheap labor and take their resources at rock bottom prices, which they are now doing to us by the way) we define killers as "insane" only if they don't know the difference between right and wrong. Isn't it more insane to know that it is wrong to kill someone for their stuff and do it anyway? "Just war" theology has made it sane to get the police to take someone's home in an eminent domain case, to give it to a global corporation. It makes it sane for Kissinger to help overturn the democratically elected president of Chile, and tell Pinochet that its good to murder as many people as he needs to, and the US will turn a blind eye.
Most humans do not engage in aggressive violence, unless they trained to do it. It is insane.
Right now the FBI finds people they think may be terrorist someday, then talks them into committing crime, than pats themselves on the back for stopping a crime that probably never would have happened.
A better idea is to find people that show signs of violent behavior from a young age and get them the mental health care that they need to control themselves. The investment would pay for itself many times over.
Another thing that we can do is stop making distinctions between aggression by the sane and the insane.
Because we want to wage wars on other countries to "protect our interests" (i.e. force them to let global corporations use them as cheap labor and take their resources at rock bottom prices, which they are now doing to us by the way) we define killers as "insane" only if they don't know the difference between right and wrong. Isn't it more insane to know that it is wrong to kill someone for their stuff and do it anyway? "Just war" theology has made it sane to get the police to take someone's home in an eminent domain case, to give it to a global corporation. It makes it sane for Kissinger to help overturn the democratically elected president of Chile, and tell Pinochet that its good to murder as many people as he needs to, and the US will turn a blind eye.
Most humans do not engage in aggressive violence, unless they trained to do it. It is insane.
2
I find it curious that the comments related to this piece have morphed into a call for gun control, when the original topic - stopping future terrorists in France - occurs in a country where firearms are ALREADY REGULATED, and where the incidence of gun-related deaths is approx. 1/10 the incidence of gun-related deaths in the US.
Personally, I am also in favor of regulation of gun ownership. However, since such regulation *already* exists in France, proposing gun regulation as a solution to the French terrorism problem shows an astounding lack of logic.
Personally, I am also in favor of regulation of gun ownership. However, since such regulation *already* exists in France, proposing gun regulation as a solution to the French terrorism problem shows an astounding lack of logic.
4
Investigation of the November incidents revealed that at least one of the semi-automatic weapons used in Paris had its origins from a gun dealer in Florida. The dealer was the last legally registered owner. How it got across the ocean and into the hands of terrorists has not yet been determined.
Most of the other weapons used in that event were obtained by the terrorists in eastern European countries that have much more lax gun control laws. They were then easily smuggled across borders throughout Europe, due to the Schengen policy.
This is a major point of discussion now in the Eu. It has made it clear that the security net is only as strong as its weakest threads.
There is a similar problem in the USA. Many of the weapons used in crimes in high gun control areas such as Chicago and NY are brought in from areas with much more lax laws, such as Georgia (to NY) and Indiana (to Chicago). NY Times did a feature on this around last November.
Most of the other weapons used in that event were obtained by the terrorists in eastern European countries that have much more lax gun control laws. They were then easily smuggled across borders throughout Europe, due to the Schengen policy.
This is a major point of discussion now in the Eu. It has made it clear that the security net is only as strong as its weakest threads.
There is a similar problem in the USA. Many of the weapons used in crimes in high gun control areas such as Chicago and NY are brought in from areas with much more lax laws, such as Georgia (to NY) and Indiana (to Chicago). NY Times did a feature on this around last November.
Under many circumstances, I would be violating the law if I yelled and swore at a law enforcement officer. Similarly, attacking a person by spewing racist, homophobic, anti-religion or similar vitriol is a crime. So, how is it not a crime to swear allegiance to a terrorist organization that is actively hostile and proven dangerous to not only a person or specific group of people, but entire nations, regions, religion, genders, races and ethnicities? Detention camps are beginning to sound like a realistic if temporary solution.
2
Right, bring back Dachau. Then, a final solution.
1
While it may not be possible to identify and neutralize future terrorists, we can significantly reduce the threat. Terrorism is attractive because it lets individuals or groups inflict serious damage at minimal cost. Unfortunately, it's the response to terrorism that often does most of the damage.
Security expert Bruce Schneier has suggested a better approach: "Refuse to be terrorized." Officials should respond to attacks by seeking to minimize the impact, reduce the panic and fear, and quickly return to normal. Reducing the ability to terrorize should make terrorism less attractive, and less likely.
Our approach to terrorism seems just the opposite, magnifying its harm beyond the initial victims and unintentionally encouraging terrorists. One reason is the natural inclination of officials to "Do Something"; but a more sinister reason is opportunism. The Bush administration exploited 9/11 to justify their ideological dreams of "liberating" Iraq's oil and creating a "Unitary Executive" unfettered by law or constitution.
The TSA unintentionally continues the damage al-Qaeda began on 9/11. The shoe bomber, the liquid bombers, and the underwear bomber failed to wreak mass destruction, but they succeeded in inflicting lasting mass disruption through TSA responses that now contribute to the vulnerability of large crowds waiting for screening.
Affirming and strengthening our values and liberties would be more effective than letting terrorists frighten us into discarding them.
Security expert Bruce Schneier has suggested a better approach: "Refuse to be terrorized." Officials should respond to attacks by seeking to minimize the impact, reduce the panic and fear, and quickly return to normal. Reducing the ability to terrorize should make terrorism less attractive, and less likely.
Our approach to terrorism seems just the opposite, magnifying its harm beyond the initial victims and unintentionally encouraging terrorists. One reason is the natural inclination of officials to "Do Something"; but a more sinister reason is opportunism. The Bush administration exploited 9/11 to justify their ideological dreams of "liberating" Iraq's oil and creating a "Unitary Executive" unfettered by law or constitution.
The TSA unintentionally continues the damage al-Qaeda began on 9/11. The shoe bomber, the liquid bombers, and the underwear bomber failed to wreak mass destruction, but they succeeded in inflicting lasting mass disruption through TSA responses that now contribute to the vulnerability of large crowds waiting for screening.
Affirming and strengthening our values and liberties would be more effective than letting terrorists frighten us into discarding them.
2
Way more of these NYT picks need to be about restricting access to weapons. It's the only logical choice, as most of your commenters and recommenders understand.
Obviously by keeping people from nations that we are in reality at war with - that financially support worldwide terrorism (Saudi Arabia) or have large areas of their countries controlled by terrorist groups (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan et al) out of the USA. Obviously individuals from national cultures (who our liberals insanely tell they don't have to assimilate) when they fail in our society are highly likely to compensate by the seeking fame/recognition they can't get by moral means, hard work ... by seeking murderous celebrity by killing innocents & bragging about it on Face book and by internet video Jihadi declarations. Now we of course could begin a national political and media campaign demanding that those that come here totally accept majority rule of law secular values or leave, but that would deprive the Democrats of the criminals and borderline criminal illegal and legal immigrant millions they cultivate to support and vote for them. So .... the only solution Democrats offer us is trying to eliminate from the society any means either these or other criminals have of acting out, dramatically revealing the failures of liberal policies via piles of bodies in Chicago every week, 70% teen pregnancies rates in black and Hispanic communities, jails full of children of single teens. So distracting scapegoats are guns, next knives, then cars that can mow down dozens, fertilizer and kitchen chemicals that can make bombs, most chemicals that are also poisons and on and on.
1
The world is driven by what it sees in television and on the web.
It's a battle of principles, on all sides, right or wrong.
The key to stopping the oxygen that feeds the flames of radical ISIS is to make friends with as many nations in the region as we can and more importantly, addressing the roots that nourish the Islamic revolts; the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Maintaining relationships in the middle and south Asia including resolving the standoff with Iran are steps in the right direction. The single biggest success in denying radical Islam a purpose or cause is to force Israel and Palestine to make peace. As long as that decades long standoff takes place, radicals will succeed in recruiting new blood.
Remove the reasons for Islamic discord. Spread Peace, not war.
It's a battle of principles, on all sides, right or wrong.
The key to stopping the oxygen that feeds the flames of radical ISIS is to make friends with as many nations in the region as we can and more importantly, addressing the roots that nourish the Islamic revolts; the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Maintaining relationships in the middle and south Asia including resolving the standoff with Iran are steps in the right direction. The single biggest success in denying radical Islam a purpose or cause is to force Israel and Palestine to make peace. As long as that decades long standoff takes place, radicals will succeed in recruiting new blood.
Remove the reasons for Islamic discord. Spread Peace, not war.
"Forcing" someone to "make peace" is a contradiction in terms.
Why not "force" ISIS to make peace? Why only Israel and Palestine?
Why not "force" ISIS to make peace? Why only Israel and Palestine?
3
I don't think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the reason why the Taliban are killing people right and left in Pakistan, nor for that matter the reason Boko Haram is killing non-Muslims in Nigeria, nor the reason why members of Abu Sayyaf murder their Christian compatriots in the southern Philippines.
4
How do you stop someone with a clean record? You don't. ....
1
The answer to the question posed by the headline is that one should instead stop those who are encouraging the ‘future-terrorist’ to become a terrorist, nurturing the ideology which produces terrorists - namely radical Islamic preachers. Trying to stop a ‘silent’ terrorist is obviously impossible, we need to go after the preachers, not the innocent young men swayed by them from childhood, and then ‘radicalized’. One can't stop terrorism without controling the information-flow, if one has no handle on the historical narrative believed by most Muslims. Kids are taught alternative-history, conspiracy theories, that the West has been at war with Islam for generations. Some grow up to be preachers of hatred of the West,of conspiracy-theory interpretations of current-events, and to be agitators ranting for anti-West holy war; some incite to actual violence, and some are thereby influenced to set up terror organizations. There’ll be many eager young men to fulfill their 'religious duty' to stop 'the war against Islam'.
To stop terror one cannot wait until terrorists are produced. One needs to 1.fight the alternate-history conspiracy-theory teachings and 2. take action against the preachers of hate. Judge the potential danger of specific preachers not only by whether they incite to actual terror, but by the degree to which their teachings inspire anti-Western rage on the part of their young listeners.
To stop terror one cannot wait until terrorists are produced. One needs to 1.fight the alternate-history conspiracy-theory teachings and 2. take action against the preachers of hate. Judge the potential danger of specific preachers not only by whether they incite to actual terror, but by the degree to which their teachings inspire anti-Western rage on the part of their young listeners.
3
Yes!
The preaching of hatred and encouragement of radical-jihadi action should be considered as serious as the actions of the terrorist foot soldiers.
The preaching of hatred and encouragement of radical-jihadi action should be considered as serious as the actions of the terrorist foot soldiers.
3
isn't the stockpiling of arms to fight our government, as projected via the NRA to its members, violation of the sedition act? why is the arms trade in military style semi automatic weapons not aiding and abetting terrorism?
1
Read the Declaration of Independence lately? The answer is clearly stated in there.
1
The Sedition Act was repealed in 1920.
2
It is still illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
The main civil right of the public: the right to be alive, should supersede any claims of a minority group about extra rigorous immigration screening or being profiled as the generator of terrorism.
5
Would you agree that the right to being alive supersedes the right to own semi-automatic weapons?
The NRA's resistance to most recent legislation was that there are some 800,000 people on the terrorism and no-flight watch lists. Most of these people have not committed a crime. To deprive them of their right to own a gun is wrong. People who have committed crimes should be punished and should lose certain rights. But people who have committed NO crimes should not. Frankly, there is logic and reason to their argument. I do NOT support them and I think we need to find a way to control the proliferation of weapons. But, as much as we'd like it to be a simple issue, it is not. Laws that deprived 800,000 law abiding citizens of a fundamental constitutional right certainly would never stand up in front of the Supreme Court. Some more focused solution must be devised.
The NRA's resistance to most recent legislation was that there are some 800,000 people on the terrorism and no-flight watch lists. Most of these people have not committed a crime. To deprive them of their right to own a gun is wrong. People who have committed crimes should be punished and should lose certain rights. But people who have committed NO crimes should not. Frankly, there is logic and reason to their argument. I do NOT support them and I think we need to find a way to control the proliferation of weapons. But, as much as we'd like it to be a simple issue, it is not. Laws that deprived 800,000 law abiding citizens of a fundamental constitutional right certainly would never stand up in front of the Supreme Court. Some more focused solution must be devised.
1
i mean the 'muslim community' who are bent on maintaining their medieval culture and views here.
You control the production and manufacturing rather than the user$.
1
It seems bizarre to me that govts seem to be just throwing up their hands and saying in a defeatist manner: "We don't have the resources to keep track of all these potential terrorists". Why not ask for more money?
To fund these efforts I think a special tax on Internet-based social media companies should be enacted. We are in a new world now where Internet-based communication makes it easy for unhinged people to find each other and to be radicalized by unfiltered, uncensored, and sophisticated propaganda created by external groups who encourage people to commit mass murder. The tech companies proclaim 1st Amendment privileges for all communications they enable while raking-in billions of profit. They should put their money where their mouths are: If they feel the 1st Amendment is the highest of all priorities, the bedrock of our democracy, then they should willingly pay a special tax for the inevitable side-effects. That would be the responsible thing to do. Somebody's got to pay for all these cops & FBI agents to track potentially radicalized people--why shouldn't it be the companies who are making billions of profit from the new communication technologies that now enable homicidal maniacs to find each other & commit murder?
To fund these efforts I think a special tax on Internet-based social media companies should be enacted. We are in a new world now where Internet-based communication makes it easy for unhinged people to find each other and to be radicalized by unfiltered, uncensored, and sophisticated propaganda created by external groups who encourage people to commit mass murder. The tech companies proclaim 1st Amendment privileges for all communications they enable while raking-in billions of profit. They should put their money where their mouths are: If they feel the 1st Amendment is the highest of all priorities, the bedrock of our democracy, then they should willingly pay a special tax for the inevitable side-effects. That would be the responsible thing to do. Somebody's got to pay for all these cops & FBI agents to track potentially radicalized people--why shouldn't it be the companies who are making billions of profit from the new communication technologies that now enable homicidal maniacs to find each other & commit murder?
9
Maybe for starters we can impose a period of at least 5 years time for all recent immigrants and if they show even the slightest inclination towards anti-government sentiment or activity related to it, (including returning to their homelands), they AND their families get immediately booted out of country. No questions asked, no second chances.
It is the responsibility of our federal gov't to protect us, the American citizens, from the enemy from abroad AND from enemies within our borders.
It is the responsibility of our federal gov't to protect us, the American citizens, from the enemy from abroad AND from enemies within our borders.
7
The problem with that is if they are female and give birth, that child is a US citizen, and their ticket to staying in the US no matter what..
1
It will be the literal end of the world when electronics are used to hear human thoughts. I have no doubt.
The article makes fun of prevention of terrorist attacks using a shoplifting example. Following that logic, terrorists are free to go, until they blow up in public. When discussing mass murder prevention, many NYT commentators seem to make little distinction between general crime and terrorism/mass murder.
The FBI has to apply more aggressive profiling methods. Any reasonable person would say that this guy is suspicious if: 18-40 yo, prone to rage, mental instability, interested in islamist propaganda, attended radical mosques( why are they still open?), traveling or having friends who travel to terrorist regions, owning weapons or chemicals, (2nd generation from middle east/north africa- an extra red flag).
Why isn't NYT reporting about about "young somalian americans" who temporarily left US to go fight for ISIS. Are they gonna get "welcome home" at the US border checkpoint?
Those guys are the agents of alien enemy culture, intent on murdering innocents and making this land their land. Since their culture is not capable to create prosperity, they want to reap a bit of ours.
Our laws and administrative rules need to be adjusted accordingly to that threat, at the very least disarming the men with suspicious behavior/ profile.
Stop whining about liberty here, its the same as your driver's license or a credit card gets declined because of past minor incidents that did not have to be in the criminal justice system, pure administrative level action.
The FBI has to apply more aggressive profiling methods. Any reasonable person would say that this guy is suspicious if: 18-40 yo, prone to rage, mental instability, interested in islamist propaganda, attended radical mosques( why are they still open?), traveling or having friends who travel to terrorist regions, owning weapons or chemicals, (2nd generation from middle east/north africa- an extra red flag).
Why isn't NYT reporting about about "young somalian americans" who temporarily left US to go fight for ISIS. Are they gonna get "welcome home" at the US border checkpoint?
Those guys are the agents of alien enemy culture, intent on murdering innocents and making this land their land. Since their culture is not capable to create prosperity, they want to reap a bit of ours.
Our laws and administrative rules need to be adjusted accordingly to that threat, at the very least disarming the men with suspicious behavior/ profile.
Stop whining about liberty here, its the same as your driver's license or a credit card gets declined because of past minor incidents that did not have to be in the criminal justice system, pure administrative level action.
6
Simple - round them up and watch them. If they don't do anything wrong, let them out in 40 years. Or, let them leave for wherever and DON'T LET THEM COME BACK! Either Americans will say what they see and investigations begin, or we are doomed.
1
First question, who slaughters rabbits, for practice? That should be enough to STAY on a list until the next century anyway. What inhumane, sick minds. That story alone is enough to get moving on the genocide actions. The world does not owe these killers -- there is no other word for them -- any more time or two-stepping. Brings up next question, why was he removed from the watch list? If in prison for terrorism, why was there ever an argument to remove him from a watch list, period? And third, only two years in prison? There are non-violent drug addicts doing more time than that. Sauveur and his ilk are not fooling anyone. There is no high road there. Defending terrorists in a courtroom is equal to defending them on a battle field; there may be that occasional reason to do so but overall, why would you? I completely understand/support the call to keep govt in check, but in this case, it doesn’t seem the right fit.
I’m just done with trying to figure them out; they’ve made their intentions crystal clear. Just ask that brave Yezidi woman Nadia Murad (ex-ISIS slave who testified before Congress). They are engaged in genocide and have lost any right to any defense. The UN needs to make this categorization, and these choices will become clearer.
I’m just done with trying to figure them out; they’ve made their intentions crystal clear. Just ask that brave Yezidi woman Nadia Murad (ex-ISIS slave who testified before Congress). They are engaged in genocide and have lost any right to any defense. The UN needs to make this categorization, and these choices will become clearer.
13
American military trainers slaughtered rabbits during a final training lesson before sending troops to Vietnam. It was called the 'Rabbit Lesson'.
Glen - Terrible. What did the American military learn from that Rabbit Lesson? Or from the lesson of Vietnam?
It is described on page 43 of a book by Robert Jay Lifton entitled 'Home From the War'.
It was part of the training of what Marines were to expect once they arrived in Vietnam. The official mission in Vietnam was to kill as many of the enemy as possible. It was not a war to take territory, like in previous wars. My Lai was only the most publicized example. Such missions were common in Vietnam.
It was part of the training of what Marines were to expect once they arrived in Vietnam. The official mission in Vietnam was to kill as many of the enemy as possible. It was not a war to take territory, like in previous wars. My Lai was only the most publicized example. Such missions were common in Vietnam.
Most violent terrorists have a history of violence and disordered behavior. We should punish violent crimes with much more severity, including domestic violence and cruelty to animals. In addition, any such violent behavior should be grounds for immediate deportation, for non-citizens, and lifelong restrictions on weapon ownership. Access needs to be restricted as well. Assault weapons should be banned, and the total numbers of weapons should be restricted. Finally, all mental illness is not created equal. While there should be increased support and help for all mentally ill people, we need early and intense intervention for children and teens who exhibit anger management and explosive behavior.
1
Obviously the only way to have some limited control over the "needles" is to eliminate the ownership of machine-gun type weapons! But apparently that's not the "American Way!"
I'd agree, except that the loser in the UK bought a book from an American group on how to make your own gun, and that is how he killed Jo Cox. English loser, who gave to and was part of American right wing groups.
You cannot control thoughts. But you can help shape and guide their direction. The only prerequisite is superior moral authority and everything that it entails.
Start by correcting wrongs in public policy, foreign policy, and international relations. Shape and guide a future generation to focus on common good for everyone on this finite planet.
Start by correcting wrongs in public policy, foreign policy, and international relations. Shape and guide a future generation to focus on common good for everyone on this finite planet.
2
Yes, but to achieve that everyone has to have some skin in the game. That's why we need a national service program in which every citizen and applicant for permanent residency invests one year to serve the country and the people. Nothing breeds allegiance better than being part of a community with a common goal.
Ironically, that is pretty much the ONLY thing ISIS is providing to these lost souls. WE could do that easily and so much more! It really is our government here that is failing us.
Ironically, that is pretty much the ONLY thing ISIS is providing to these lost souls. WE could do that easily and so much more! It really is our government here that is failing us.
2
There are a few thing we should do:
(1) Prevent them from buying guns, ammunition, large volume of fertilizers, biochemical lab supplies, and drones.
(2) Edward Snowden was absolutely correct. Besides being a blatant violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, NSA's collect all strategy is simply not working. We need to do more targeted human intelligence, and focus on more likely suspects.
(3) Political correctness is really not suitable for security. It shouldn't make me sound like me a racist to suggest that a white family of kids, parents, and grandparents wearing Disney T-shirt heading to Orlando probably doesn't not deserve the same scrutiny at airports as a single muslim man.
(4) Stop waging stupid wars against muslim countries, or any country. Nothing radicalizes a people more immediately than killing their families.
(1) Prevent them from buying guns, ammunition, large volume of fertilizers, biochemical lab supplies, and drones.
(2) Edward Snowden was absolutely correct. Besides being a blatant violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, NSA's collect all strategy is simply not working. We need to do more targeted human intelligence, and focus on more likely suspects.
(3) Political correctness is really not suitable for security. It shouldn't make me sound like me a racist to suggest that a white family of kids, parents, and grandparents wearing Disney T-shirt heading to Orlando probably doesn't not deserve the same scrutiny at airports as a single muslim man.
(4) Stop waging stupid wars against muslim countries, or any country. Nothing radicalizes a people more immediately than killing their families.
14
Control the production and distribution of those things.
Single Muslim man.
Hmmm. . .
How do you know? I suppose you can ask, but think about the outrage when authorities begin asking who's a Jew or who's a Seventh Day Adventist, etc.
Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Some of them are even white. How do you know who to stop and query? What about the billion or so Indian Hindus and Christians? Many of them look awfully similar to Muslims. Are you going to start chatting people up in Urdu? Hindi? Arabic? Farsi? Pushto? Bahasa Indonesia? Or any of the dozens of languages spoken in the near east, south Asia, and Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population?
Sure, sure, I can see the appeal of racial/national/etc. profiling. And as much as authorities claim not to do this, we all know they do. But that is a very slippery slope. And while the Supreme Court seems not to have a problem with slippery slopes, we as a nation, as Americans, should, and many of us do. Even if he hasn't been this explicit, you know that Donald Trump would like to see Muslims forced to wear the equivalent of the yellow Star of David with Juden sewn in its center.
Hmmm. . .
How do you know? I suppose you can ask, but think about the outrage when authorities begin asking who's a Jew or who's a Seventh Day Adventist, etc.
Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Some of them are even white. How do you know who to stop and query? What about the billion or so Indian Hindus and Christians? Many of them look awfully similar to Muslims. Are you going to start chatting people up in Urdu? Hindi? Arabic? Farsi? Pushto? Bahasa Indonesia? Or any of the dozens of languages spoken in the near east, south Asia, and Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population?
Sure, sure, I can see the appeal of racial/national/etc. profiling. And as much as authorities claim not to do this, we all know they do. But that is a very slippery slope. And while the Supreme Court seems not to have a problem with slippery slopes, we as a nation, as Americans, should, and many of us do. Even if he hasn't been this explicit, you know that Donald Trump would like to see Muslims forced to wear the equivalent of the yellow Star of David with Juden sewn in its center.
if Sikhs or Buddists were mounting the attacks, same suspicion would apply to them, however this particular 'religion of peace' and a particular cleric type (imam) appears to be the foundational factor behind the actions of the lunatics coming from those hot lands.
The irony is they believe in an eternal bliss in heaven- surprise surprise, darkness and nothing.
The irony is they believe in an eternal bliss in heaven- surprise surprise, darkness and nothing.
SPOTTING TERRORISTS If you use the characteristics of the population of past terrorists, most have been young, unmarried males with some connection with Islam and Muslim communities. One factor that elevates the risk is whether the potential terrorist has been in contact with or involved with publicly self-promoted radical groups of jihadis or others who promote unending suicide bombing as the sole response to their grievances. There is a number of people in that population who have additional characteristics that would predispose them to a high probability of instability and violence. As with the murderer in Orlando. The FBI needed to have done more background checks, as with his ex wife who said that she was glad to get out of the marriage alive. And the educators and educational records of the murderer since early childhood. He had a consistent history of explosive physical aggression and violence. Also, he made frequent inappropriate remarks publicly about sex. He showed, plainly put, prime symptoms of being a victim of domestic violence, sexual abuse (probably physical, emotional and sexual) and severe, chronic PTSD, as small stimuli in school triggered intensely violent responses that did not respond to supportive intervention. Probably traumatic memories and physical sensations contributed to his symptoms being difficult to treat. The murderer in Orlando did not just have terrorist imaginings. He had a clearly recorded history of violence and abuse.
2
The most direct way to deal with this right away is to BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!.
ISIS has co-opted disturbed angry young men, just as extremists groups like those in the extreme Christian right have done to do their bidding. ( Oklahoma City Bombing )
The most direct way to deal with this right away is to BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!
After that, the long term approach to all the displaced anger is to create a society which is inclusive for all and gives everyone a place. The never ending wars and policies created by the west have given many reasons for the disenfranchised to be taken in by extremists to do their bidding.
There is no end to this in our current models for societies with austerity measures, societies which are set up for the 1% and not for the 99% and for the perpetual wars which create suffering, chaos and utter destruction the the nations targeted.
It all seems so obvious and has played out many times through-out history!
Why is it so hard to see?
ISIS has co-opted disturbed angry young men, just as extremists groups like those in the extreme Christian right have done to do their bidding. ( Oklahoma City Bombing )
The most direct way to deal with this right away is to BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!
After that, the long term approach to all the displaced anger is to create a society which is inclusive for all and gives everyone a place. The never ending wars and policies created by the west have given many reasons for the disenfranchised to be taken in by extremists to do their bidding.
There is no end to this in our current models for societies with austerity measures, societies which are set up for the 1% and not for the 99% and for the perpetual wars which create suffering, chaos and utter destruction the the nations targeted.
It all seems so obvious and has played out many times through-out history!
Why is it so hard to see?
1
Clearly, someone who raises so many red flags should not be allowed to purchase a firearm without further scrutiny. That means blocking the sale, but at the same time giving the individual the right to judicial recourse. Pretty much what Susan Collins proposes.
I like her position on this, because it would also shed light on why someone is on this mysterious no-fly list. Arguably, not allowing someone on a plane is as much of an assault on our civil liberties for all practical purposes as it is to deny Second Amendment rights. By challenging the denial to buy a firearm, the government would be forced to make its case in public in front of a judge. For the life of me, I can't figure out what in the world is supposed to be so secret that it justifies putting an American citizen on the no fly list that cannot be revealed in court proceedings.
Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list, for Christ's sake, and it literally took an act of Congress to get him off!
I like her position on this, because it would also shed light on why someone is on this mysterious no-fly list. Arguably, not allowing someone on a plane is as much of an assault on our civil liberties for all practical purposes as it is to deny Second Amendment rights. By challenging the denial to buy a firearm, the government would be forced to make its case in public in front of a judge. For the life of me, I can't figure out what in the world is supposed to be so secret that it justifies putting an American citizen on the no fly list that cannot be revealed in court proceedings.
Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list, for Christ's sake, and it literally took an act of Congress to get him off!
3
There is "a professor of criminology at the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts in Paris" ???
3
This one is real easy.
Simply urge Wayne LaPierre of National Rifle Association fame to smoke 'em out. He's got a gun, he knows how to stop bad guys.
Next?
Simply urge Wayne LaPierre of National Rifle Association fame to smoke 'em out. He's got a gun, he knows how to stop bad guys.
Next?
1
"In effect, he was calling for rapid prioritization of the S List, and he said the bill would be aimed at immediately detaining hundreds of those deemed to pose the highest risk, placing them under house arrest or in a detention center."
This is precisely the reaction sought for by terrorists. It's one of the basic principles of terrorism. The point of the terroristic act is to cause a reaction. Then more acts are carried out and then the reaction is further compounded by subsequent reactions that then cause the situation to be intolerable to the citizens who then overthrow or destabilize the country, which is the ultimate strategic goal of terrorism. How is it that so-called "terror experts" don't understand this most basic privilege of terrorism?
In the US, the terrorists won when the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo detentions were put into place.
Only by holding to our core principles and trying to root out and fix the causes of terrorism can we overcome these acts.
By reacting in such a manner, we only further their cause.
This is precisely the reaction sought for by terrorists. It's one of the basic principles of terrorism. The point of the terroristic act is to cause a reaction. Then more acts are carried out and then the reaction is further compounded by subsequent reactions that then cause the situation to be intolerable to the citizens who then overthrow or destabilize the country, which is the ultimate strategic goal of terrorism. How is it that so-called "terror experts" don't understand this most basic privilege of terrorism?
In the US, the terrorists won when the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo detentions were put into place.
Only by holding to our core principles and trying to root out and fix the causes of terrorism can we overcome these acts.
By reacting in such a manner, we only further their cause.
1
The first step is to acknowledge that we are in a war. Someone who kills bunnies fur fun should probably go to jail for a couple of years or, better still, get some mental health treatment.
Someone who kills bunnies in preparation for a terrorist act is an enemy of the state. That person should be incarcerated as a prisoner of war- i.e. held until the war is over and some treaty orchestrating the exchange of prisoners is arranged.
In a war you don't just randomly decide to stop your surveillance of a spy or infiltrator. You wait patiently, you determine if his beliefs have changed- not just conclude "well, he has behaved for the last 18 months so forget him."
There is a war being waged all around us- only ostriches can not see it.
Someone who kills bunnies in preparation for a terrorist act is an enemy of the state. That person should be incarcerated as a prisoner of war- i.e. held until the war is over and some treaty orchestrating the exchange of prisoners is arranged.
In a war you don't just randomly decide to stop your surveillance of a spy or infiltrator. You wait patiently, you determine if his beliefs have changed- not just conclude "well, he has behaved for the last 18 months so forget him."
There is a war being waged all around us- only ostriches can not see it.
5
How do you stop a future terrorist? It's not that complicated. Thoughts lead to actions. If a person living in a free country expresses thoughts that involve hurting others, they don't belong and should be booted out. It goes without saying that you wouldn't bring somebody like that into your country in the first place. Living in a free country is a privilege.
5
Great idea. That would get rid of all our gangs at the same time. Question is, where do you boot them out to? Another problem is the mind reading. I have serious problems even with reading the mind of my wife of 20+ years. Reading the mind of a future terrorist seems even more intimidating to me.
1
Is there any one among us who can honestly say they have never, not once, entertained a racist or violent thought?
" the penal code is based on proving that an individual is not just talking or thinking about committing an act of terrorism, but has taken steps toward carrying out the act." It seems to me that if we are not to become the thought police--and throw out everything we believe in as regards freedom of speech and thought--we need to re-examine what "steps toward carrying out the act" means. It has to be more than talk.
"Pledging alliegiance" is more than talk. It is an act of affirmation and intent. It is materially different from listening to a radical imam or visiting radical websites--it is an oath, just as a citizenship oath is, or the oath taken by inductees to our military forces. In pledging allegiance to an Emir who has declared war on our country, a person renounces their citizenship and makes of themselves an enemy combatant. Recognizing that is a first step toward distinguishing between trying to control thoughts and trying to identify terrorists. It's a first step we need to take.
" the penal code is based on proving that an individual is not just talking or thinking about committing an act of terrorism, but has taken steps toward carrying out the act." It seems to me that if we are not to become the thought police--and throw out everything we believe in as regards freedom of speech and thought--we need to re-examine what "steps toward carrying out the act" means. It has to be more than talk.
"Pledging alliegiance" is more than talk. It is an act of affirmation and intent. It is materially different from listening to a radical imam or visiting radical websites--it is an oath, just as a citizenship oath is, or the oath taken by inductees to our military forces. In pledging allegiance to an Emir who has declared war on our country, a person renounces their citizenship and makes of themselves an enemy combatant. Recognizing that is a first step toward distinguishing between trying to control thoughts and trying to identify terrorists. It's a first step we need to take.
9
Good idea! I am all for taking the pledge of allegiance (to our Constitution) before any church or mosque services. Make it mandatory. Then watch anyone who may be hesitating. Those are the ones to go after.
How do you identify "potential risks" and constrain them before they break any laws? In a free country, you don't. And you don't make thinking about doing bad things illegal, either.
There are risks we cannot take down to zero. We don't stop driving because some people die in car accidents. We can't give up our Bill of Rights because some people die from terrorist attacks.
There are risks we cannot take down to zero. We don't stop driving because some people die in car accidents. We can't give up our Bill of Rights because some people die from terrorist attacks.
1
Block the websites of so called Islamic State
to prevent self radicalization. Monitor
those who have been to Syria,Iraq, Libya
and Pakistan on a priority basis. These
individuals are most likely to commit act of terrorism. Monitor the purchases of
explosives and guns ( in Europe). Individual
acts of terrorism,particularly by those born and live in the west, will be difficult to stop. However, the number of terrorist acts can be reduced significantly.
to prevent self radicalization. Monitor
those who have been to Syria,Iraq, Libya
and Pakistan on a priority basis. These
individuals are most likely to commit act of terrorism. Monitor the purchases of
explosives and guns ( in Europe). Individual
acts of terrorism,particularly by those born and live in the west, will be difficult to stop. However, the number of terrorist acts can be reduced significantly.
1
are you familiar with term "dark web"?
Not a new dilemma. See Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass.
---
'Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a careless tone. 'For instance, now,' she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster on her finger as she spoke, 'there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'
'Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice.
'That would be all the better, wouldn't it?' the Queen said, as she bound the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon.
Alice felt there was no denying that. 'Of course it would be all the better,' she said: 'but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished.'
'You're wrong there, at any rate,' said the Queen. 'Were you ever punished?'
'Only for faults,' said Alice.
'And you were all the better for it, I know!' the Queen said triumphantly.
'Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for,' said Alice: 'that makes all the difference.'
'But if you hadn't done them,' the Queen said, 'that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!' Her voice went higher with each 'better', till it got quite to a squeak at last.
---
'Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a careless tone. 'For instance, now,' she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster on her finger as she spoke, 'there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'
'Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice.
'That would be all the better, wouldn't it?' the Queen said, as she bound the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon.
Alice felt there was no denying that. 'Of course it would be all the better,' she said: 'but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished.'
'You're wrong there, at any rate,' said the Queen. 'Were you ever punished?'
'Only for faults,' said Alice.
'And you were all the better for it, I know!' the Queen said triumphantly.
'Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for,' said Alice: 'that makes all the difference.'
'But if you hadn't done them,' the Queen said, 'that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!' Her voice went higher with each 'better', till it got quite to a squeak at last.
3
I'm sorry. I believe in freedom, and in all the amendments, but if a person expresses interest in killing people, they should be prevented from buying guns.
3
What about education?
It seems to me these men and women who turn to extremism have a skewed sort of view of what it is to be a modern human being. They seem to think of old stories that describe avarice for power (ability to abuse/control people at will) and money as if they are legitimate and desirable goals for any person to want let alone a citizen of a Democratic Nation whose very premise of existence is the acceptance of ones fellow man as having rights of his own that one cannot violate. The two things are incompatible POV's.
I think that should be the focus.
This whole "debate" about trying to predict or pretending to know prior to the crime after the fact of the crime and thereby justifying future violations of different peoples rights has already been fought and the principles of our western democracy are the result.
There is no conundrum, there is the problem of not having a rational mind allowing one to ignore the fact that you can never know what a person is thinking and they cannot legitimately be arrested and held to account for something they might do. If you understand that you already have the answer, try accepting it or face that you do not believe in Western Democratic Principles of how people, to include their government, should interact.
It seems to me these men and women who turn to extremism have a skewed sort of view of what it is to be a modern human being. They seem to think of old stories that describe avarice for power (ability to abuse/control people at will) and money as if they are legitimate and desirable goals for any person to want let alone a citizen of a Democratic Nation whose very premise of existence is the acceptance of ones fellow man as having rights of his own that one cannot violate. The two things are incompatible POV's.
I think that should be the focus.
This whole "debate" about trying to predict or pretending to know prior to the crime after the fact of the crime and thereby justifying future violations of different peoples rights has already been fought and the principles of our western democracy are the result.
There is no conundrum, there is the problem of not having a rational mind allowing one to ignore the fact that you can never know what a person is thinking and they cannot legitimately be arrested and held to account for something they might do. If you understand that you already have the answer, try accepting it or face that you do not believe in Western Democratic Principles of how people, to include their government, should interact.
I read a book about the man who massacred all those people in Oslo. He grew up in a society that looked after people and took great pains to see that all were given what they needed to succeed in life, a society that was not dysfunctional with poverty nor crime, and that sought to provide a safe place to live for citizens and visitors, alike. Yet, there was friction based upon differences between people and injustices because of people being different, bigotry and class prejudices. Children were neglected even when the state took great pains to protect them. Guns were not easy to get, there were barriers to gun ownership. Yet, the man got the guns, legally, and he got the components to make a bomb that destroyed a government building, and labored for months to make his bomb and to prepare his murderous deeds. He was a man who was out there discussing his bigotry and vitriol on the internet, and living life as a stranger in the middle of a modern city, but nobody could see what he might do. What he did was so out of the mind of people that authorities were slow to react, allowing him to do far more damage than had they planned to deal with something like he intended. The entire incident proved that authorities just cannot address terrorism like they would play a game of chess. Anything might happen and the best that can be done is to remain in touch with what people do and what people are doing, which barring a 1984 scenario means keeping society free and open.
6
Your post is contradictory. The ending does not follow what preceded which was an advocacy of 1984 like "protections".
The faith in their ideals that lead to a slow reaction is not to be faulted. The fault is entirely with the criminal.
I admonish you of Benjamin Franklin's quote; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
He was dead right then as he is now and forever. Freedom is not free or for the cowardly.
The faith in their ideals that lead to a slow reaction is not to be faulted. The fault is entirely with the criminal.
I admonish you of Benjamin Franklin's quote; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
He was dead right then as he is now and forever. Freedom is not free or for the cowardly.
I pointed out that the perpetrator was not detected by society at any level and what he planned and did never anticipated at any level in Norway, which in the imaginary world of 1984 the state did by continually watching everyone and by means of artistic license could effectively do so. In the real world this perpetrator showed how hard it is to anticipate what anyone may do so establishing a regime that could keep track of all and anticipate bad acts is a dubious proposition.
This sentence I quote below is the contradiction that gives the whole post a tone that I thought you intended but maybe misspoke a little at the end. I honestly am even more confused by your reply as the “state ion 1984 was not anticipating a problem no government whom has done that was trying to protect anyone but themselves from the people they were abusing with this constant monitoring. The point of such monitoring is to control the people not to prevent terrorism, Hence the state of constant war and the mantra “War is peace, Freedom is slavery”. I think you might want to reread the book as its more detailed than the movie (John Hurt) which is excellent.
The part of it before the comma is saying a total control Big Brother is the solution;
“Anything might happen and the best that can be done is to remain in touch with what people do and what people are doing,”
Then you follow it with this contradiction;
“which barring a 1984 scenario means keeping society free and open.”
I’m sorry you can’t be “in touch with” or tracking everyone in a free and open society, the fact of it makes the society not free or open. Pay attention to Google and Apple and the telcoms whom have captured the FCC and Mr Comey at the FBI. There is the source of the destruction of our society not some mutter who might kill a bunch of people in an attack. Those folks intend to destroy the fabric of our system one to “protect” us the others to exploit us.
The solution is not more monitoring.
The part of it before the comma is saying a total control Big Brother is the solution;
“Anything might happen and the best that can be done is to remain in touch with what people do and what people are doing,”
Then you follow it with this contradiction;
“which barring a 1984 scenario means keeping society free and open.”
I’m sorry you can’t be “in touch with” or tracking everyone in a free and open society, the fact of it makes the society not free or open. Pay attention to Google and Apple and the telcoms whom have captured the FCC and Mr Comey at the FBI. There is the source of the destruction of our society not some mutter who might kill a bunch of people in an attack. Those folks intend to destroy the fabric of our system one to “protect” us the others to exploit us.
The solution is not more monitoring.
We need to learn to live with the threat described in the
article. Maybe most angry young men who commit mass mayhem justify
it in the name of some toxic ideology. But most who espouse that
ideology never commit mayhem. In other words, the rage that incites
a perpetrator is unlikely to come from ideology itself.
The single most efficient way to reduce the magnitude of the threat
-- and protect civil liberties -- isn't surveillance of all who
espouse violent action, but only of those who also purchase
a combat firearm.
article. Maybe most angry young men who commit mass mayhem justify
it in the name of some toxic ideology. But most who espouse that
ideology never commit mayhem. In other words, the rage that incites
a perpetrator is unlikely to come from ideology itself.
The single most efficient way to reduce the magnitude of the threat
-- and protect civil liberties -- isn't surveillance of all who
espouse violent action, but only of those who also purchase
a combat firearm.
Such simple answers to complex problems.
You don't let them in in the first place.
You deport them if they commit a crime.
Put them away for beating their wives.
What about the perpetrator who is an American citizen? Can't deport them. What about things like evidence? Killing bunnies or other such actions. Sure, the police know exactly what's going on, but there's not enough to prosecute, and certainly not enough to imprison bunny-killers for life. In the case of domestic abuse, what if the victim doesn't take action? Look, I don't have an answer to this, but simplistic answers don't really move us forward.
You don't let them in in the first place.
You deport them if they commit a crime.
Put them away for beating their wives.
What about the perpetrator who is an American citizen? Can't deport them. What about things like evidence? Killing bunnies or other such actions. Sure, the police know exactly what's going on, but there's not enough to prosecute, and certainly not enough to imprison bunny-killers for life. In the case of domestic abuse, what if the victim doesn't take action? Look, I don't have an answer to this, but simplistic answers don't really move us forward.
1
Cause and effect?
Laying blame to the cause is a complex circle argument based on your ideology, and there is no one simple answer. As for the reality of the effect, that is here to stay and something we will be dealing with way past any of our life time. As for how we deal with it that will be the engine that drives the effect. While it is a theory of physics Newtons "for every action there is a equal or opposite reaction" will be the norm!
As for the so called war on terror, when you fought a sovereign nation on the battlefield you battled till you broke their ability to wage war and then went to the table to discuss the terms of surrender and peace. We are no longer fighting a sovereign nation and there is no way to discuss terms of peace!
Laying blame to the cause is a complex circle argument based on your ideology, and there is no one simple answer. As for the reality of the effect, that is here to stay and something we will be dealing with way past any of our life time. As for how we deal with it that will be the engine that drives the effect. While it is a theory of physics Newtons "for every action there is a equal or opposite reaction" will be the norm!
As for the so called war on terror, when you fought a sovereign nation on the battlefield you battled till you broke their ability to wage war and then went to the table to discuss the terms of surrender and peace. We are no longer fighting a sovereign nation and there is no way to discuss terms of peace!
1 American dies due to terrorism WORLDWIDE (including USA), for every 750 Americans murdered in non-political violence here in the USA.
Once we've spent another few hundred billion dollars trying to do something about terrorism (huge NSA, TSA, Military and Defense Contractor budgets) maybe we can put some of our precious taxpayer dollars towards doing something about those 750X larger number of murders happening the good old fashioned way.
Once we've spent another few hundred billion dollars trying to do something about terrorism (huge NSA, TSA, Military and Defense Contractor budgets) maybe we can put some of our precious taxpayer dollars towards doing something about those 750X larger number of murders happening the good old fashioned way.
1
It is never the gun, but the man behind the gun.
Has anyone considered this highly probable scenario. In a fit of emotional frenzy we ban all guns, populace becomes unarmed. The criminals will still get guns - steal them, buy them underground, make them, or have them made if they want. They will be armed, and the gun-less population more helpless than now.
A better bet is a more just society – give each his due. This novel idea was put forward by Socrates. In lieu of Law and Order Democracy, where the Demos, the 5% moneyed males rule over the rest (95% women, plebs, slaves) he offered a govt. of the people, for the people, by the people, led by the learned.
Starting with Magna Carta giving rights to the moneyed nobility Europe chose Democracy. America, tired of coercive Prime Minister Frederick Lord North 2 centuries ago chose Republic. Lincoln saved the Republic but we morphed it back into Democracy under the corrupt rules of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, oilmen who set up SOCAL and defined the global oil policy. In 1920s our two Parties also switched roles – Republicans now push for Democracy at home and abroad (Moneyed Demos is easier to manipulate than public at large), while the Democrats opt for Justice.
Time for another Revolution. Anyone ready? I guess that is what Sanders and Trump are all about.
Has anyone considered this highly probable scenario. In a fit of emotional frenzy we ban all guns, populace becomes unarmed. The criminals will still get guns - steal them, buy them underground, make them, or have them made if they want. They will be armed, and the gun-less population more helpless than now.
A better bet is a more just society – give each his due. This novel idea was put forward by Socrates. In lieu of Law and Order Democracy, where the Demos, the 5% moneyed males rule over the rest (95% women, plebs, slaves) he offered a govt. of the people, for the people, by the people, led by the learned.
Starting with Magna Carta giving rights to the moneyed nobility Europe chose Democracy. America, tired of coercive Prime Minister Frederick Lord North 2 centuries ago chose Republic. Lincoln saved the Republic but we morphed it back into Democracy under the corrupt rules of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, oilmen who set up SOCAL and defined the global oil policy. In 1920s our two Parties also switched roles – Republicans now push for Democracy at home and abroad (Moneyed Demos is easier to manipulate than public at large), while the Democrats opt for Justice.
Time for another Revolution. Anyone ready? I guess that is what Sanders and Trump are all about.
1
Watch out, here comes the thought police.
Think happy thoughts or a psychiatrists will determine you may or may not be a danger to society. And once the psycho places you in the blackballed list, you can forget flying, or human rights, you are fair game to the government.
Think happy thoughts or a psychiatrists will determine you may or may not be a danger to society. And once the psycho places you in the blackballed list, you can forget flying, or human rights, you are fair game to the government.
1
We often feel that we need to put people in prison that do something wrong. Putting people in prison for what think they have thought. This is a chilling idea. The truth is if police picked up anyone with wrong thoughts. It may be the shady neighbor or you.
Terrorism thrives on publicity and media created fear. Reporting of their acts of violence dresses the stage for their performances.
Most civilized countries have stronger protections to prevent people with histories of violence, paranoia, and crime from obtaining mass murdering semiautomatic weapons.
According to The Daily Beast report 5 days ago, since the Orlando massacre 125 Americans have already died from gun violence . That number has gone up since then.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/17/guns-have-killed-at-lea...
Most civilized countries have stronger protections to prevent people with histories of violence, paranoia, and crime from obtaining mass murdering semiautomatic weapons.
According to The Daily Beast report 5 days ago, since the Orlando massacre 125 Americans have already died from gun violence . That number has gone up since then.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/17/guns-have-killed-at-lea...
2
The justice system is designed to punish and it is therefore only reactive. Until someone has committed an act there is little evidence to hold or prosecute an individual and as shown here, even if you could apprehend an individual on lower charges, you cannot hold them long enough to sufficiently deter this type of behavior.
This probably means we have to find alternative routes to deter these acts and one is making it more difficult to purchase guns. That being said, a good portion of this country feels strongly about their access to guns and it is protected by the 2nd amendment. What we need to do is reassure the gun-lovers that no one is going to take away their guns. Instead, we must create a new narrative.
Instead of “if you see someone suspicious” posters on a train or a post office, put them in gun shops. If someone buying a weapon seems suspicious, report the behavior. Encourage gun salespeople to be our front line, our eyes and ears. Since there is a knee jerk NRA reaction to regulation, let’s try incentives; gun salesmen could receive generous rewards for reporting suspicious patrons when it leads to a prosecution or conviction and then slip in there that those on the terrorist watchlist can’t purchase guns. Doesn’t that sound different? By offering the rewards, we can rewrite the narrative about guns and get both parties on the same page and working towards bipartisan solutions again.
This probably means we have to find alternative routes to deter these acts and one is making it more difficult to purchase guns. That being said, a good portion of this country feels strongly about their access to guns and it is protected by the 2nd amendment. What we need to do is reassure the gun-lovers that no one is going to take away their guns. Instead, we must create a new narrative.
Instead of “if you see someone suspicious” posters on a train or a post office, put them in gun shops. If someone buying a weapon seems suspicious, report the behavior. Encourage gun salespeople to be our front line, our eyes and ears. Since there is a knee jerk NRA reaction to regulation, let’s try incentives; gun salesmen could receive generous rewards for reporting suspicious patrons when it leads to a prosecution or conviction and then slip in there that those on the terrorist watchlist can’t purchase guns. Doesn’t that sound different? By offering the rewards, we can rewrite the narrative about guns and get both parties on the same page and working towards bipartisan solutions again.
2
You can't. That's what it means, to be a law abiding citizen. But for starters, let's standardize the definition of "terrorist" so that it doesn't apply just to Muslims.
1
The actual laws on terrorism do not apply just to Muslims, it involves a set of conditions and actions. Peoples opinions and usage, on the other hand, are just that - and you can't regulate it.
2
Once again fear is the mind killer. Nobody who is mortal can see into the future, nobody. Human behavior is very complex and diversified. It is because we are all different organisms with a lot in common, and we have different experiences of life from the instance we have become conscious of being. One child will be hurt and focus upon the hurt while another will not be distracted by it. Some people will let their emotions carry them away and others will not. We can guess about things very intelligently and very skeptically and we can come up with forecasts which represent what we have found and we can sometimes anticipate how many cases will turn out one way and how many otherwise, but we seldom can anticipate how any individual will end up. There is no chance of creating a world in which we can prevent terrorist events by anticipating who will and will not become a terrorist. Trying to do so could produce a society that is so intolerably restrictive as to generate more to become inclined to rebel against it and the anti-terrorism regime that directs it.
In America we calm the masses with comprehensive market research, demographic studies, etc. and create a television program that captures the imaginations of the target audience with edgy creative programming.
1
Yes how do u stop someone with a clean record? You don't, next idiotic statement?
3
It doesn't seem very likely that it will be possible to be sure who is going to suddenly become a killer. It also doesn't seem likely that we will give up our civil rights to the extent that people can be detained based on suspicions. Therefore, we had better be ready for more attacks, probably one or more a year, for the indefinite future. Sometimes they will be stopped, as happened in Texas, sometimes not, as also happened in Texas (at an army base). One more risk in life.
6
detention is not an answer, its prevention- which does not have to trample your precious civil rights. i'd hope most people in this country would like to be proactive about terrorism rather than just 'oh'well' like you described.
1
Univision has a very different narrative about Omar and his motive. Not discounting what he said to 911, their source says it was significant that he did this on "Latin Night" at the club. He was specifically targeting Latino gay men.
The reason is he had sexual contact with two men from Puerto Rico, one of whom was HIV positive. While Omar's first test came back negative, he decided to kill gay Latinos in retaliation.
Might be nonsense, but Univision is definitely painting a much different story.
The reason is he had sexual contact with two men from Puerto Rico, one of whom was HIV positive. While Omar's first test came back negative, he decided to kill gay Latinos in retaliation.
Might be nonsense, but Univision is definitely painting a much different story.
2
The question is how to stop War Mongers from creating endless wars of which creates not terrorists, but in those so called 'terrorists' designated by the West are in fact freedom fighters to rid of their nation of Western invaders. The British Red Coasts called American Revolutionist 'terrorists' but in fact we all know that they were freedom fighters to get rid of British invaders from their nation.
There already is a system in place and it's called profiling. Law enforcement agencies have been doing this for quite some time now, and very effectively. But for some reason, a tried and true method of predicting crime and catching criminals has become a dirty word. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this newspaper's editorial board has a problem with a Middle East terrorism profile when the very large majority of terrorism is originating from that region. When looking for an Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorist, I probably would not start in the Italian neighborhoods...
3
Clinton's solution: let's make the haystack bigger.
4
There is never a 100% solution to any problem. We must reason and do what appears suitable to control a dangerous situation while we prepare to adjust to an amorphous result. The answers are forever changing as we learn more about our threats.
1
No easy answers, though big data analytics and predictive science are a must.
Those who consume vast quantities of online jihadist propaganda clearly represent a greater threat. Factor in travel habits, gun ownership status, social media activity, etc and assign a risk profile. Monitor those who are the highest risk.
Yes, this requires a certain level of domestic surveillance, but modern threats require a modern response. It's a brave new world.
Those who consume vast quantities of online jihadist propaganda clearly represent a greater threat. Factor in travel habits, gun ownership status, social media activity, etc and assign a risk profile. Monitor those who are the highest risk.
Yes, this requires a certain level of domestic surveillance, but modern threats require a modern response. It's a brave new world.
2
Rights are rights. Thoughts are not crimes.
6
Repeal the Second Amendment.
More helpful than mere suspicion.
More helpful than mere suspicion.
4
Repeal the First Amendment first. Without FaceBook and internet agitation, none of those idiots would radicalize in the first place.
No need to give up essential freedoms.
No need to give up essential freedoms.
The Constitution has been amended before: Prohibition.
Surrendering the right to firearms protects the right to safety, security, and freedom of expression.
The Second Amendment is a relic of an agrarian past, an echo the wars of the 17th century Europe in 18th century America.
The Second Amendment should DIE in the 21st Century.
Surrendering the right to firearms protects the right to safety, security, and freedom of expression.
The Second Amendment is a relic of an agrarian past, an echo the wars of the 17th century Europe in 18th century America.
The Second Amendment should DIE in the 21st Century.
The prospect of living in a surveillance state scares me more than a terrorist attack.
We all want to preserve our lives and live in a peaceful society. But I think living in a surveillance state as for example the former Soviet Union or the GDR is scary.
There is a fine line between spying on our own citizens and monitoring terrorism suspects. Let's err on the side of preserving civil liberties and thus accept casualties that could have been prevented.
We all want to preserve our lives and live in a peaceful society. But I think living in a surveillance state as for example the former Soviet Union or the GDR is scary.
There is a fine line between spying on our own citizens and monitoring terrorism suspects. Let's err on the side of preserving civil liberties and thus accept casualties that could have been prevented.
6
tell that to the 49 people in FL, or 3000 in NYC
How do you know the person is a terrorist if s/he hasn't done anything?
2
What are the triggers for moving from thinking about the crime to doing it? And how do we distinguish between disaffection and the intent to carry out a crime in the name of the Islamic State? If we decide that someone is on the verge of doing this what measures do we take that are not violating their rights? Furthermore, how do we, as a country, help them that they have a stake in America, that their contributions are important? It's tough for most of us to believe that we're heard. It's not any easier when a person is treated as a suspect because of their religion or skin color or name.
Finding the one person or one group that may be moving from just talk to action isn't a simple task. People and groups do not always wave neon colored flags signalling their intent to do harmful things. Afterwards things might be clear but until it happens, no. A zero tolerance policy doesn't help. In the end there may not be an answer because there will always be people who are willing to kill and die for causes the rest of us do not understand. I'd hope however that we could find a way to track them and take some action while they are still in a phase of considering what to do.
Finding the one person or one group that may be moving from just talk to action isn't a simple task. People and groups do not always wave neon colored flags signalling their intent to do harmful things. Afterwards things might be clear but until it happens, no. A zero tolerance policy doesn't help. In the end there may not be an answer because there will always be people who are willing to kill and die for causes the rest of us do not understand. I'd hope however that we could find a way to track them and take some action while they are still in a phase of considering what to do.
Maybe we should clean up our own house first. In Chicago alone, we have had 312 killed with firearms and 1,542 wounded since the first of the year. We have the equivalent of a Paris Style attack every 10 days and nobody cares. The amount of people killed by terrorists in the US is a minuscule, compared to the number of ordinary Americans killed by other Americans each year. So, lets fix our problem at home first, then we will have plenty of available resources to combat terrorism....
43
Another thoughtless comment on 'gun control'. Who do you think you are going to control, criminals or terrorists who could care less about gun laws? As long as there is a desire to kill innocent people, terrorists will find a way. Just as they are now, laws restricting the ownership of guns would impact only the law abiding and therefore would have no impact at all on gun related violence. Use your common sense people!
3
with your logic there's a 9/11 every year in Chicago, which is no different from the real 9/11?
1
Yeah this WAS an ordinary American killing other Americans.
1
To counter the mindset one who contemplates imitating what a terrorist
could do...is to play the same counter terrorism psychological game that
those that recruit terrorists do:
Simple vividly show what it would take to deter even an inkling of the
thought to become a terrorist...Counter the propaganda messages with truth:
Show what destruction and lack of glory a terrorists deserves to know:
and do so using Graphic true images and actions of a terrorist....on Facebook...on TV...so that that the potential
terrorists would see how reviled and repulsive he would become ...just as
vile as say any NAZI ....who are reviled forever in the minds of everyone
world-wide...This is a job for counterterrorism in the governments who are
members of the United Nations not just the USA.
could do...is to play the same counter terrorism psychological game that
those that recruit terrorists do:
Simple vividly show what it would take to deter even an inkling of the
thought to become a terrorist...Counter the propaganda messages with truth:
Show what destruction and lack of glory a terrorists deserves to know:
and do so using Graphic true images and actions of a terrorist....on Facebook...on TV...so that that the potential
terrorists would see how reviled and repulsive he would become ...just as
vile as say any NAZI ....who are reviled forever in the minds of everyone
world-wide...This is a job for counterterrorism in the governments who are
members of the United Nations not just the USA.
1
We need to start 'looking' a lot earlier, and make sure mental health services are in place for kids. The Orlando shooter was struggling hard by grammar school. This is the time and place to intervene... when HIS life can be saved A troubled hostile child ought to be cared for and treated. If we leave the troubled hostile children to fend for themselves, some percentage will be shooters. Most will just be miserable, addicted, incarcerated.
The ide is not just prevent shootings-- let's prevent SHOOTERS.
The ide is not just prevent shootings-- let's prevent SHOOTERS.
4
The justice system is designed to punish and it is therefore only reactive. Until someone has committed an act there is little evidence to hold or prosecute an individual and as shown here, even if you could apprehend an individual on lower charges, you cannot hold them long enough to sufficiently deter this type of behavior.
This probably means we have to find alternative routes to deter these acts and one is making it more difficult to purchase guns. That being said, a good portion of this country feels strongly about their access to guns and it is protected by the 2nd amendment. What we need to do is reassure the gun-lovers that no one is going to take away their guns. Instead, we must create a new narrative.
Instead of “if you see someone suspicious” posters on a train or a post office, put them in gun shops. If someone buying a weapon seems suspicious, report the behavior. Encourage gun salespeople to be our front line, our eyes and ears. Since there is a knee jerk NRA reaction to regulation, let’s try incentives; gun salesmen could receive generous rewards for reporting suspicious patrons when it leads to a prosecution or conviction and then slip in there that those on the terrorist watchlist can’t purchase guns. Doesn’t that sound different? By offering the rewards, we can rewrite the narrative about guns and get both parties on the same page and working towards bipartisan solutions again.
This probably means we have to find alternative routes to deter these acts and one is making it more difficult to purchase guns. That being said, a good portion of this country feels strongly about their access to guns and it is protected by the 2nd amendment. What we need to do is reassure the gun-lovers that no one is going to take away their guns. Instead, we must create a new narrative.
Instead of “if you see someone suspicious” posters on a train or a post office, put them in gun shops. If someone buying a weapon seems suspicious, report the behavior. Encourage gun salespeople to be our front line, our eyes and ears. Since there is a knee jerk NRA reaction to regulation, let’s try incentives; gun salesmen could receive generous rewards for reporting suspicious patrons when it leads to a prosecution or conviction and then slip in there that those on the terrorist watchlist can’t purchase guns. Doesn’t that sound different? By offering the rewards, we can rewrite the narrative about guns and get both parties on the same page and working towards bipartisan solutions again.
A gun shop did report Omar Mateen to the FBI. The FBI took no action.
1
“My profound conviction is that unfortunately we need to get used to living with this new threat". - Why?
“A man is in a shop and thinks about stealing an object” “What do you do? You put him in jail?” -
You have a shop with security guards at the entrance. People wearing red-dotted shirts rob your store from time to time, and the organized group openly proclaims its goal to attack your store in the future, and is planning right now to commit more and more robberies. And you know definitely that robbers will come in red-dotted shirts. Isn't there an obvious behavior suggested for your security guards at the entrance?
“A man is in a shop and thinks about stealing an object” “What do you do? You put him in jail?” -
You have a shop with security guards at the entrance. People wearing red-dotted shirts rob your store from time to time, and the organized group openly proclaims its goal to attack your store in the future, and is planning right now to commit more and more robberies. And you know definitely that robbers will come in red-dotted shirts. Isn't there an obvious behavior suggested for your security guards at the entrance?
3
When are the moments when they can be stopped?
1. When their plans are fully formed and intelligence/surveillance or an informant has revealed their plans to authorities.
2. At the outset of their planning, through the use of informants, sometimes planted by authorities themselves.
3. When they are first being taught the ideology of violence.
1 is what we think of most often. It's risky because plans are advanced and could come to fruition faster than expected. It provides the most evidence for prosection.
2 is being done a fair amount by the FBI already. Often it toes the line with entrapment. Since individuals may not have fully developed specific plans its harder to get enough evidence for prosecution.
3 is critical, and an area that is most overlooked. Stopping them before they start. We need to identify the teachers of people like Mateen or the Tsarnaev brothers. They didn't come up with these ideas out of the blue. The teaching and encouraging of terrorist ideas needs to be made a serious a crime as the execution of these ideas. We also need to devote resources to providing a counter-influence, to teaching the values of peaceful political activism to young activists who might be vulnerable to the wrong influences.
1. When their plans are fully formed and intelligence/surveillance or an informant has revealed their plans to authorities.
2. At the outset of their planning, through the use of informants, sometimes planted by authorities themselves.
3. When they are first being taught the ideology of violence.
1 is what we think of most often. It's risky because plans are advanced and could come to fruition faster than expected. It provides the most evidence for prosection.
2 is being done a fair amount by the FBI already. Often it toes the line with entrapment. Since individuals may not have fully developed specific plans its harder to get enough evidence for prosecution.
3 is critical, and an area that is most overlooked. Stopping them before they start. We need to identify the teachers of people like Mateen or the Tsarnaev brothers. They didn't come up with these ideas out of the blue. The teaching and encouraging of terrorist ideas needs to be made a serious a crime as the execution of these ideas. We also need to devote resources to providing a counter-influence, to teaching the values of peaceful political activism to young activists who might be vulnerable to the wrong influences.
I wish there was a way to edit posts. I always find one or two typos after it's too late.
1
Sadly, it is not a problem that can be quickly fixed. It is a long slow process of winning minds, with the given that some minds will not be won, some will be controlled by inner demons or outer forces ie leaders who teach hate.
The terrorists do what they do IN RELATIONSHIP to what we do. They do not just do what they do in a vacuum. We have to realize this and change what we bring to the table. Then, the carnage will lessen, but, still, it will not go away, just as 'ordinary murder' has not gone away just because there are more good people than murderers, religious and legal sanctions against murder, etc. Some people will find a reason to kill if that is what they want to do.
The one thing we cannot do is let them win by abridging everyone's freedom to try to stop them. If we do that, who are we? What are we? Everything we stand for, and many have died for, thrown away, and with no good result.
Long and slow, sadly. The only way. Like making love.
The terrorists do what they do IN RELATIONSHIP to what we do. They do not just do what they do in a vacuum. We have to realize this and change what we bring to the table. Then, the carnage will lessen, but, still, it will not go away, just as 'ordinary murder' has not gone away just because there are more good people than murderers, religious and legal sanctions against murder, etc. Some people will find a reason to kill if that is what they want to do.
The one thing we cannot do is let them win by abridging everyone's freedom to try to stop them. If we do that, who are we? What are we? Everything we stand for, and many have died for, thrown away, and with no good result.
Long and slow, sadly. The only way. Like making love.
According to most of the media, there is no terrorism danger in the U.S.
Terrorism is just a scare tactic used by Republicans. Self-annointed brilliant minds tell us so.
In fact, profiling people is a horrific idea. Had Omar Mateen been held he'd have been a victim of racial profiling, and we can't have that. According to the NYT, Omar Mateen had nothing to do with ISIS.
Loretta Lynch said just this morning that the most effective response to islamic terrorism is love. That, of course, came after she got thrown under the White House bus.
So what's the NYT even reporting on this "story" for? Nothing to see here...la-la-la-la-la...
Terrorism is just a scare tactic used by Republicans. Self-annointed brilliant minds tell us so.
In fact, profiling people is a horrific idea. Had Omar Mateen been held he'd have been a victim of racial profiling, and we can't have that. According to the NYT, Omar Mateen had nothing to do with ISIS.
Loretta Lynch said just this morning that the most effective response to islamic terrorism is love. That, of course, came after she got thrown under the White House bus.
So what's the NYT even reporting on this "story" for? Nothing to see here...la-la-la-la-la...
6
Treat them as murderous common criminals and stop giving them the special status of Radical Islamic Terrorists, Jihadis or ISIS followers because that is what they are hungry for. It gives them the esteem status of Islamic fighters when these alienated angry youths have no status in the society they living in.
2
The real problem remains having " stateless" parts of the world. Bush de-stabilized the Middle East with the Second Iraq war, and its incompetent execution, and Obama has allowed more stateless space to come into existence in what was formerly Libya and Syria. Afghanistan and Yemen do not have states, and Somalia barely has one. A "state" controls the people and land within its borders; otherwise it is just a feudal/warlord piece of the earth.
So, Step One, we need to assist state development in all parts of the world from which terrorists arise.
Step Two, we then hold those states responsible for the terrorists from within their borders who attack us. Saudi Arabia, for example, has exported terror as a way to keep domestic peace. They need to understand that is an act of war.
Step Three, we need to hold organizations responsible for cultivating terror, without showing favoritism to religious organizations. ANY organization (not any "religion," but the pathological, inter-connected variants), even if "religious," needs to be destroyed if it cultivates terror. And a state that refuses to destroy such an organization within its own borders is committing an act of war against us.
In short, the stateless parts of the world are our "root problem," and we need to facilitate states, however savage their acts must be at the outset to create or restore order. There is no other pathway out of this mess.
So, Step One, we need to assist state development in all parts of the world from which terrorists arise.
Step Two, we then hold those states responsible for the terrorists from within their borders who attack us. Saudi Arabia, for example, has exported terror as a way to keep domestic peace. They need to understand that is an act of war.
Step Three, we need to hold organizations responsible for cultivating terror, without showing favoritism to religious organizations. ANY organization (not any "religion," but the pathological, inter-connected variants), even if "religious," needs to be destroyed if it cultivates terror. And a state that refuses to destroy such an organization within its own borders is committing an act of war against us.
In short, the stateless parts of the world are our "root problem," and we need to facilitate states, however savage their acts must be at the outset to create or restore order. There is no other pathway out of this mess.
3
The Middle East ( a term coined by the British at the height of their Empire) was better off before Sykes Picot when Britain and France drew lines in the sand creating states. Yes the Turks through the Ottoman Empire mucked it all up during the First World War. But the nomadic Arab tribes were much easier to deal with.
Step one: The State Department has a poor history of foreign relations lately. Seems that foreign governments, especially in the Middle east do not take us too seriously.
Step two. How are you going to hold them accountable for their own actions? We gave up on sanctioning Iran. Saudi oil is too important. Other nations give us lip service without consequences. They will do what they want to do. Understand that Saudi Arabia and other gulf sttes are largely Sunni Arab. Sunni's are not going to attack Sunni's. In Iran, Shiites are not going to against Shiites. We can't force those states to do anything.
Step three. Much of Sunni Arab terror stems from an Islamic belief of Whahabism. It is the dominant sect in Saudi Arabia. Tell the princes and sultans that they have to destroy their own faith. Same for the ayatollahs in Iran. Good luck with that.
Step one: The State Department has a poor history of foreign relations lately. Seems that foreign governments, especially in the Middle east do not take us too seriously.
Step two. How are you going to hold them accountable for their own actions? We gave up on sanctioning Iran. Saudi oil is too important. Other nations give us lip service without consequences. They will do what they want to do. Understand that Saudi Arabia and other gulf sttes are largely Sunni Arab. Sunni's are not going to attack Sunni's. In Iran, Shiites are not going to against Shiites. We can't force those states to do anything.
Step three. Much of Sunni Arab terror stems from an Islamic belief of Whahabism. It is the dominant sect in Saudi Arabia. Tell the princes and sultans that they have to destroy their own faith. Same for the ayatollahs in Iran. Good luck with that.
Assuming your "step three" was one of my significant, though implicit, points, what follows from that observation if we are to defend ourselves?
As for the general incompetence, Seymour Hersch's January 2016 London Times Book Review article, for example, implies that not everyone is an idiot within our intelligence and military organizations.
Democracy is a mode of changing laws and the direction of the state. Without a state, there is nothing to "democratize," and nothing for democracy to direct.
Historically, logically, and necessarily, the state precedes democracy.
As for the general incompetence, Seymour Hersch's January 2016 London Times Book Review article, for example, implies that not everyone is an idiot within our intelligence and military organizations.
Democracy is a mode of changing laws and the direction of the state. Without a state, there is nothing to "democratize," and nothing for democracy to direct.
Historically, logically, and necessarily, the state precedes democracy.
Presently, we haven't a clue as to the definitive answer to that enigmatic question because we are not mind readers.
2
This is part of the reason for Trump's popularity. His supporters will say that it may be racists but barring Muslims, out of an abundance of caution, is a small price to pay for safety. It's a shame but until we can see the future, I don't know how else you fix something like this.
3
May solve the problem of the at most few dozen terrorist deaths that happen each year. But what about the 13,000 or so murders perpetrated by Americans. Unfortunately there's no place to deport our fellow citizens.
Hey, everyone calm down now...Trump is going to 100% fix this problem just by saying it!!
4
I feel better already. Now I can go back to getting fat while I sit on the sofa watching sports on TV.
2
At the core of this dilemma is the difference between intelligence and law enforcement -- the difference between the FBI and the CIA.
Inside U.S. borders:
The FBI identifies the bad guy and starts to see if it can build a legal case to arrest indict and convict him under the mantel of the U.S. Constitution. The bad guy's right are preserved, and as is the case in Orlando goes free -- until he actually commits the crime.
Outside U.S. borders:
CIA gathers information -- intelligence -- and identifies the bad guy. monitors his activities; analyzes known associates; tracks locations; build an intelligence case on said bad guy. And assessment is made based on this intelligence -- and bad guy is tracked by a Predator drone and eliminated by a Hellfire missile.
Question: which approach do we approve?
Inside U.S. borders:
The FBI identifies the bad guy and starts to see if it can build a legal case to arrest indict and convict him under the mantel of the U.S. Constitution. The bad guy's right are preserved, and as is the case in Orlando goes free -- until he actually commits the crime.
Outside U.S. borders:
CIA gathers information -- intelligence -- and identifies the bad guy. monitors his activities; analyzes known associates; tracks locations; build an intelligence case on said bad guy. And assessment is made based on this intelligence -- and bad guy is tracked by a Predator drone and eliminated by a Hellfire missile.
Question: which approach do we approve?
3
Bingo!
Only in wildly Manichaean fantasies do such "bad guys" exist. The point is that these individuals are no more than suspected "bad guys", concededly innocent of any actual crime. The extralegal assassination of such suspects is itself a murderous and morally indefensible crime, and sets an outrageously dangerous precedent for military action.
Europe may be a different animal than the U.S. But here, let's not kid ourselves. Until we're serious about our weapons problem, we're not really serious about terrorism.
As far as I know, no one in our country as committed a mass killing with knives. It only happens with high powered military style weapons. We don't even have so-called terrorists who are willing to kill themselves with suicide vests. It's apparently easier to access weapons in this country than it is explosives.
Until our legislators are willing to do something about our weapons problem, I won't take them seriously on this issue of "worrying" about home-grown terrorism. It lacks credulity.
As far as I know, no one in our country as committed a mass killing with knives. It only happens with high powered military style weapons. We don't even have so-called terrorists who are willing to kill themselves with suicide vests. It's apparently easier to access weapons in this country than it is explosives.
Until our legislators are willing to do something about our weapons problem, I won't take them seriously on this issue of "worrying" about home-grown terrorism. It lacks credulity.
34
Several years ago near Pittsburgh a 16 year student allegedly stabbed 20 people at his high school, some quite seriously. One of those stabbed with the kitchen knife was a security guard. see
http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/10661977-74/hribal-trial-court
http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/10661977-74/hribal-trial-court
2
France is serious about its 'weapon's problem' and the government actions there did nothing to stop the killing of 130 people and the wounding of many more. Unfortunately, making laws restricting gun ownership only apply to the law abiding, as criminals and terrorists will simply ignore them. And if a terrorist cannot get a gun they can always get a pressure cooker, so all this gibberish about 'gun control' being and answer to anything is absurd. Its only impact would be to take away the rights of law abiding citizens
3
Have you already forgotten the Boston Marathon bombers? Right, not vests, but just as effective. Right, let's ban all forms of explosives, too (damn that Alfred Nobel)..oh wait, over 30,000 deaths a year by vehicle - let's ban vehicles. And don't forget the deaths by all kinds of drugs - narcotics, opioids, etc. Let's ban those, too...oh wait, we already did that...and it's working sooo well.
Domestic terrorism-- either carried out by foreigners or native born individuals -- is inevitable. Terrorism is the new enemy of the 21st century. A natural outcome of a foreign policy based on imperialism and military intervention overseas.
In the past, US enemies -either created or imaginary - were nation states such as the former soviet union. Today, non state entities such as the Islamic state are the enemy. A more insidious and difficult adversary, impossible to be identified, located and destroyed by brute military force alone.
By now, Americans should be used to Islamic terrorism threats as the new normal. A leftover of Middle East foreign policy during the 20th century.
In the past, US enemies -either created or imaginary - were nation states such as the former soviet union. Today, non state entities such as the Islamic state are the enemy. A more insidious and difficult adversary, impossible to be identified, located and destroyed by brute military force alone.
By now, Americans should be used to Islamic terrorism threats as the new normal. A leftover of Middle East foreign policy during the 20th century.
3
"Mr. Abballa was eventually convicted on a terrorism charge and spent more than two years in prison." Goodness, me, more than two years - how harsh and draconian, right? I bet THAT showed him and his pals, huh?
Maybe if we got a bit more serious, especially in Europe, about dealing with the threat things might improve.
Maybe if we got a bit more serious, especially in Europe, about dealing with the threat things might improve.
2
The lone wolf, the one who tells nobody what his intentions are has one weakness. He does not belong to a group that can train him how to make bombs or provide him with bombs. He needs weapons that are easy to obtain, legal, and reliable. The assault rifle is the perfect tool, and more fun to use than a bomb. Take these away. Confiscate them, if necessary. We Americans have to give up some of our freedoms to be able to go the mall without fear of death.
1
There are many components to the "terror problem". One is simply language. One must accurately define terror/terrorist. A person is not a terrorist simply because they have a different ideology than those in power.
Terrorism is violent action with a political/social end in mind. It is instilling so much fear in a people that the majority is cowed into acting as they otherwise would not. I don't find myself terrified by isil or evil actors like the Orlando murderer. They infuriate me and I want to destroy them and those who support them. Are you terrified? What freedoms are you going to give up for the illusion of safety?
The current "war on terror" seems a bit "1984". The government is constantly warning about the boogey-man under my bed (that dude would be in a world of hurt), and state they need "common sense" abrogation of my rights, more of my money, and they need my culture to change. This unending war seems more an internal, national struggle with an enemy within, as opposed to a dangerous external enemy that can be defeated. The war on terror, like the war on poverty is, overall a sham and an attempt to "fundamentally change" America and it's values.
As an internal struggle, the solution SHOULD be simple: you and I need to find commonality, not difference. We need to stand up for each other when it counts. A unified America fought a two front war and crushed both enemies. Islamo-fascists are weak and cowardly...easily defeated by a unified America.
Terrorism is violent action with a political/social end in mind. It is instilling so much fear in a people that the majority is cowed into acting as they otherwise would not. I don't find myself terrified by isil or evil actors like the Orlando murderer. They infuriate me and I want to destroy them and those who support them. Are you terrified? What freedoms are you going to give up for the illusion of safety?
The current "war on terror" seems a bit "1984". The government is constantly warning about the boogey-man under my bed (that dude would be in a world of hurt), and state they need "common sense" abrogation of my rights, more of my money, and they need my culture to change. This unending war seems more an internal, national struggle with an enemy within, as opposed to a dangerous external enemy that can be defeated. The war on terror, like the war on poverty is, overall a sham and an attempt to "fundamentally change" America and it's values.
As an internal struggle, the solution SHOULD be simple: you and I need to find commonality, not difference. We need to stand up for each other when it counts. A unified America fought a two front war and crushed both enemies. Islamo-fascists are weak and cowardly...easily defeated by a unified America.
2
You must first identify your enemy and act accordingly. Calling the Radical Islamist terrorism a JV team and FortHood massacre a workplace violence is stupid, insulting and emboldening. Misleading America that threat did not exist is one of major impediments to defeating the enemy. American President has a foreign policy that is protecting our enemy at the American people's expense. Just to point one case of negative brilliance is trading five top war criminals for an alleged American deserter is beyond belief. Those five enemy leaders will go back to the battle field to kill Americans. Enemy is employing smarter strategy than our own. Why don't we just block enemy's recruitment calls and hit so hard that no recovery is possible?
2
I would like to know how many knife attacks happen every year
I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that terrorism isn't the problem - the problem is disturbed people; today they use terrorism as part of their pathology, but I bet if you go way back to say, 1970, you will find just as many knife attacks....
How come no one talks about the Christian terrorists who kill Doctors providing maternity services ?
I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that terrorism isn't the problem - the problem is disturbed people; today they use terrorism as part of their pathology, but I bet if you go way back to say, 1970, you will find just as many knife attacks....
How come no one talks about the Christian terrorists who kill Doctors providing maternity services ?
3
Curiously, the Uighurs in the Xian Xing Provence of China use knives in their attacks against the Han populations in order to establish an independent Islamic State in western China.
1
The difficulty lies partly in the seemingly infinite patience and discipline of these men. They are radicals of a very paradoxical sort, waiting and biding in the offstage until the radar passes them over. I tend to agree with the the French authority who said we are simply in a new world of threat.
Perhaps the key is not so much looking for ways to prevent the actions of homegrown terrorists, but working harder to eliminate the divisiveness that often leads these young men angrily astray, and building better mechanisms to support and protect our own citizens.
A common theme seems, as in other cases of violence, mental illness and despair. The Orlando shooting, for instance, looks to me less like traditional militant terrorism, and more like a disturbed man whose fuse burnt to its end without anyone trying to put it out.
Perhaps the key is not so much looking for ways to prevent the actions of homegrown terrorists, but working harder to eliminate the divisiveness that often leads these young men angrily astray, and building better mechanisms to support and protect our own citizens.
A common theme seems, as in other cases of violence, mental illness and despair. The Orlando shooting, for instance, looks to me less like traditional militant terrorism, and more like a disturbed man whose fuse burnt to its end without anyone trying to put it out.
1
It seems pretty obvious to me that we should tighten travel restrictions to places where daesh has training camps. People traveling on legitimate business might have to get some extra paperwork and jump through a few hoops (their meeting host might have to , but if it's done correctly we would be able to prevent those who travel to Syria, for example, to train with daesh, from returning to the US. Europe could do the same.
.
This won't prevent lone-wolf type terrorists who are inspired by but never trained with daesh, but it would prevent daesh operatives from carrying out attacks, and it would do so without any thought-policing.
.
This won't prevent lone-wolf type terrorists who are inspired by but never trained with daesh, but it would prevent daesh operatives from carrying out attacks, and it would do so without any thought-policing.
3
First you have to face the fact the 'few' terrorists are altruistic enforcers created for a cultural purpose otherwise they would never come into existence utilising the ethics-beliefs nor methodology they do, as social psychology research tells us they are in relatively few numbers to the whole because fear & importantly the cultural codex justification and authority works to achieve the required tranquility of Silence.
Secondly you have to face the fact these 'few' are created via the cultures 'many' non radicalised. 'moderate', law abiding families, communities and institutions development process infant-child-adolescent-adult imbued with cultural ethics-morals-values-beliefs-motivation and methodology individuals do not make up their own the culture is therefore culpable - the few will be replaced.
Thirdly even with cultures with an inherent cultural terror-genocide construct of Other in their codex there will always be the 'good' in any cultural bounded behavioral variance telling you they want peace and harmony, possibly even believing it to be true, diminishingly reflecting back your own ethics-beliefs within their behavioral variance particularly in and Other dominated political/social space - it is what is systemically occurring in the other part of the same behavioral variance which is the truth of the matter regards the culture.
Remove the cultures codex constructs of Other + development process from societal public and private spheres or change nothing.
Secondly you have to face the fact these 'few' are created via the cultures 'many' non radicalised. 'moderate', law abiding families, communities and institutions development process infant-child-adolescent-adult imbued with cultural ethics-morals-values-beliefs-motivation and methodology individuals do not make up their own the culture is therefore culpable - the few will be replaced.
Thirdly even with cultures with an inherent cultural terror-genocide construct of Other in their codex there will always be the 'good' in any cultural bounded behavioral variance telling you they want peace and harmony, possibly even believing it to be true, diminishingly reflecting back your own ethics-beliefs within their behavioral variance particularly in and Other dominated political/social space - it is what is systemically occurring in the other part of the same behavioral variance which is the truth of the matter regards the culture.
Remove the cultures codex constructs of Other + development process from societal public and private spheres or change nothing.
If violent, hateful thoughts were a crime, I wonder what percentage of the U.S. would be in jail this year and where we would get the guards.
3
All humans are tempted to crime at some point in their lives. We don't convict or jail people based on their thoughts and temptations, but rather their actions.
But, perhaps we can limit access to weapons that cause more damage. A person's first gun licensing should require a 5-hour course. Then re-licensing should be an annual occurrence and include proof of shooting and safety skills, as well as a mental health test. More advanced guns should require more stringent tests. For example, most people of the proper age can get a driver's license for a regular passenger vehicle, but larger vehicles (such as a semi or a bus) require advanced CDL testing/licensing, sometimes even requiring a sponsor.
More levels of checks and filters would not stop upstanding citizens from owning guns, but it would provide additional checks and filters that could prevent people with ill will from making these purchases.
But, perhaps we can limit access to weapons that cause more damage. A person's first gun licensing should require a 5-hour course. Then re-licensing should be an annual occurrence and include proof of shooting and safety skills, as well as a mental health test. More advanced guns should require more stringent tests. For example, most people of the proper age can get a driver's license for a regular passenger vehicle, but larger vehicles (such as a semi or a bus) require advanced CDL testing/licensing, sometimes even requiring a sponsor.
More levels of checks and filters would not stop upstanding citizens from owning guns, but it would provide additional checks and filters that could prevent people with ill will from making these purchases.
34
Most people who want to make Second Amendment rights difficult for us to obtain also object to making people show an ID to vote. I see a disconnect
2
Good idea, in principle. Except, it would have done nothing to prevent the Orlando idiot from getting his guns. He even had a Florida firearms license in his capacity as a security guard. Now, how someone can have the bright idea of issuing such a license to someone who has professed to having buddies in Hamas and Al Qaeda, that eludes me.
There are 14,100 U.S. homicides (1,200 mass murder victims) 41,100 suicides yearly. How do we find perpetrators before they act? There is a way. Background checks miss potential perpetrators 75%, interviews & “judgment” 54%, physical & psychiatric examinations, 51%. Flipping a coin is better. Yet 95% of professionals persist using these ways. Violence is linked to mental 0%illness, substance abuse, & deceptive self-presentation; 20% of homicidal, 90% of suicidal & 59% of mass murderers have mental illness. People cloak the true nature of their dangerous thoughts & feelings leading to deception. Combining the possible forms of deception & multiple mental health problems means there are 40,300,000 ways of deception! Current ways cannot handle this. Finding a violence-prone person without a tool that is sensitive (i.e. finding individuals at risk) specific (not identifying those not at risk) is impossible. However, internet-based tests shield analysis from bias introduced by knowing demographics. Current approaches miss 61% of those at-risk for violence, but the Standard Predictor equation built into internet-based tests has 97% sensitivity & specificity. A young man in Orlando massacres 49 people. His poor decision making skills, special education background, hyperactivity, underachievement, & anti-social behavior are warnings. His score on the Standard Predictor exceeds the cutoff for violence: 36% probability of committing violence. Testing of at-risk is a solution.
1
How Do You Stop a Future Terrorist When the Only Evidence is a Thought?
You make a great argument as to why we want to stop Obama and Hillary from bringing in more middle eastern immigrants.
Obama's own top national security officials have admitted they can't be properly vetted. Even when their backgrounds can be checked we don't know what they are thinking and which ones are radical Islamic terrorists.
Why jeopardize the lives of all Americans? The Europeans have learned this lesson too late.
You make a great argument as to why we want to stop Obama and Hillary from bringing in more middle eastern immigrants.
Obama's own top national security officials have admitted they can't be properly vetted. Even when their backgrounds can be checked we don't know what they are thinking and which ones are radical Islamic terrorists.
Why jeopardize the lives of all Americans? The Europeans have learned this lesson too late.
2
People have been on the anti-gun trip since Orlando and as an LGBT person I'm sick of it. I have several guns and they have definitely made me safer. We will not stop terrorism by banning assault rifles. Look at Paris, assault rifles are banned there and 128 people were killed by terrorists with assault rifles. Criminals will always get assault rifles, and they will sell them to people who want to commit terrorism. If assault weapons are banned, the legal user of assault rifles will lose their guns, while the criminals and terrorists will laugh and buy more assault rifles. I own an AR-15 and I am a Transgender woman. Liberals don't have every LGBT person completely in their pocket on this issue.
Jacqueline, perhaps your guns make you feel safer, but as my firearms instructor told me, unless your gun is loaded and you can get it and fire withing seconds, it is no protection, Do yo know that you a re hundreds of times more likely to be assaulted by people you know than by strangers? No one can protect themselves from their friends and family.
How have your several guns definitely made you safer? AR-15s, M-16s, AK-47s, et al, were made for one purpose only. Rapid Mass Killing.
I don't understand why an AR-15 is necessary, as opposed to a regular gun without a large capacity magazine, if the purpose is self-protection in your home. As for anything outside of your home, everyone carrying an AR-15 is not helpful either. Somebody would still be shot before the "good guy" knows what's happening and can return fire. An AR-15 won't help anybody if the terrorist weapon is a bomb.
Yes, maybe some of the bad guys can obtain assault rifles by stealing them, or purchasing them from unscrupulous arms dealers. Any law/regulation eliminating assault rifles should contain stiff sentences for anyone who has one, and even stiffer sentences for those who use assault rifles as part of a crime. It wouldn't be hard for law enforcement to identify criminals with assault rifles and confiscate them once they have been limited.
Yes, the Paris incident was committed with assault rifles, but France does not have mass shootings just about every week, like we do in the US. France and other countries with similar restrictions believe that the restrictions on weapons has prevented mass shooting on the same scale as in the US. I agree.
Yes, maybe some of the bad guys can obtain assault rifles by stealing them, or purchasing them from unscrupulous arms dealers. Any law/regulation eliminating assault rifles should contain stiff sentences for anyone who has one, and even stiffer sentences for those who use assault rifles as part of a crime. It wouldn't be hard for law enforcement to identify criminals with assault rifles and confiscate them once they have been limited.
Yes, the Paris incident was committed with assault rifles, but France does not have mass shootings just about every week, like we do in the US. France and other countries with similar restrictions believe that the restrictions on weapons has prevented mass shooting on the same scale as in the US. I agree.
It all starts with radical Islamic teachings and clerics in Wahabi influenced and supported Mosques here, in Europe and elsewhere. Sadaam and other Mideast despots knew how to curtail radical jihadi movements. maybe we should learning from them.Why is US still giving Wahabis a free ride as one of the main the sources of radical Islam?
3
Does it say anything to you that the rise in violent Islam began with our invasion of Iraq?
1
Too many politicians and too many members of the general public are so afraid to be honest about the issue and the threats that it hamstrings our efforts to confront this challenge.
Yes, the constitution puts some impediments in the way, I suppose one could say, but while no one (despite what many seem to think about the world around us) can assure us of 100% safety and security. But we can take reasonable steps which will involve stopping being so political and PC and dismissive of differing views and ideas.
For example, we do need more workable restrictions on who can obtain firearms and the Republicans need to step up to the plate and work to impose them and stop worrying so much about the NRA. Democrats, stop calling them "common sense steps" for thats meaningless code language - be up front and direct. The Second Amendment is not going away so decrying it isn't a solution.
We need to limit those coming here from terror hot spots and culturally dangerous regions, and be honest about the danger that radical Islam, ISIS and the lot poses to our safety, which means the Democrats need to stop characterizing any of those steps as hate and xenophobia. Use the term and stop worrying about maybe offending someone.
People need to stop blaming divergent ideas (opposing transgender locker room access does NOT mean you cause or support slaughtering gay people in a bar) for the acts of terrorists. We're just hurting ourselves.
Yes, the constitution puts some impediments in the way, I suppose one could say, but while no one (despite what many seem to think about the world around us) can assure us of 100% safety and security. But we can take reasonable steps which will involve stopping being so political and PC and dismissive of differing views and ideas.
For example, we do need more workable restrictions on who can obtain firearms and the Republicans need to step up to the plate and work to impose them and stop worrying so much about the NRA. Democrats, stop calling them "common sense steps" for thats meaningless code language - be up front and direct. The Second Amendment is not going away so decrying it isn't a solution.
We need to limit those coming here from terror hot spots and culturally dangerous regions, and be honest about the danger that radical Islam, ISIS and the lot poses to our safety, which means the Democrats need to stop characterizing any of those steps as hate and xenophobia. Use the term and stop worrying about maybe offending someone.
People need to stop blaming divergent ideas (opposing transgender locker room access does NOT mean you cause or support slaughtering gay people in a bar) for the acts of terrorists. We're just hurting ourselves.
3
Of course the difficulty is that thousands of people may be suspect based on thoughts and Internet chatter, but only a few end up crossing the line to actual violence, and it's impossible to say in advance who those few will be. The expectation that we can protect everyone all the time is absurd.
4
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. Nobody can change a person's mind when that person can't or won't change it. Try to talk reasonably with someone who mentally unstable, or is deeply religious, or is racist , or is homophobic, or just watches FOX news all day. You're not going to change their minds so we are forced to look elsewhere for change. Every gun owner can go off his nut at any time and there is nothing you can do about it. So, the only thing we can reasonably change is our gun laws. This takes courage, which is in short supply in our nation's capitol, so I wouldn't look there for change. The only power we have, individually, to change things, is to become politically active and vote for people who don't hide behind the constitution in order to arm known and potential terrorists. Alternatively, one can have the wisdom to leave a country that is so, destructively, in bed with the NRA.
3
We have all the tools required to monitor people's thoughts. Besides keeping suspects on your radar screen, monitor their facebook accounts, and share information between law enforcement agencies as carole above notes, we could simply mandate that every electronic device be a sender as well as a receiver.
The Patriot act, which Obama very tellingly did not repeal, allows for this incursion into the private lives of citizens in dangerous time with language nebulous enough to fit almost any purpose the Public Good and its enforcers deem appropriate.
No one will be able to hide from the watchers and a Mr. Tuttle who mistakenly gets apprehended by a swat team coming through a hole in the ceiling for Mr. Buttle is taken away for processing.
No matter. Once taken the accused has no rights and no recourse. He is subjected to the truth machine whereby his greatest fear is utilized to obtain a voluntary confession which will be broadcast to the populace as a cautionary tale before he is killed using that very fear.
Is this where we are heading or even more frightening, is this where we're at? Sometimes I wonder when I hear slogans like, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." What kind of freedom are we talking about and what kind of vigilance? And in times of fear what are we willing to sacrifice?
The Patriot act, which Obama very tellingly did not repeal, allows for this incursion into the private lives of citizens in dangerous time with language nebulous enough to fit almost any purpose the Public Good and its enforcers deem appropriate.
No one will be able to hide from the watchers and a Mr. Tuttle who mistakenly gets apprehended by a swat team coming through a hole in the ceiling for Mr. Buttle is taken away for processing.
No matter. Once taken the accused has no rights and no recourse. He is subjected to the truth machine whereby his greatest fear is utilized to obtain a voluntary confession which will be broadcast to the populace as a cautionary tale before he is killed using that very fear.
Is this where we are heading or even more frightening, is this where we're at? Sometimes I wonder when I hear slogans like, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." What kind of freedom are we talking about and what kind of vigilance? And in times of fear what are we willing to sacrifice?
4
You really need to educate yourself in how the US government works. Obama, not any other President can "repeal Laws." In order to repeal a law, Congress must pass legislation repealing a law and then the President must sign that legislation before the repeal becomes law. If you do not like the Patriot Act then vote against the Republicans in Congress who passed it. But first, read the US Constitution so you have a better understanding how our government actually works.
1
Jeff, I assume you want to also vote against the Democrats who passed the renewal of the Patriot Act? Why should they be left off the hook?
1
Where would we be if King George III had effectively answered this question?
3
Figure out a tip price, say $1000 per credible tip
Advertise that anyone submitting a tip to the FBI which leads to an investigation
gets the $1000..
See how many good tips you get, see what comes out of it if anything..
100,000 tips would cost $1,000,000 in tip fees..
I don't know how much $$ it would cost to process 100,000 tips, but figure it out..
if you get 1% good tips, this comes to 1,000 credible terrorists..
much better then looking for a needle in a haystack..
imagine 50 million americans helping the FBI..
appeal to people's basic greed, you'll get plenty of action..
Advertise that anyone submitting a tip to the FBI which leads to an investigation
gets the $1000..
See how many good tips you get, see what comes out of it if anything..
100,000 tips would cost $1,000,000 in tip fees..
I don't know how much $$ it would cost to process 100,000 tips, but figure it out..
if you get 1% good tips, this comes to 1,000 credible terrorists..
much better then looking for a needle in a haystack..
imagine 50 million americans helping the FBI..
appeal to people's basic greed, you'll get plenty of action..
3
Do you trust Loretta Lynch to determine what person or group is a terrorist ? Ask Clive Bundy... who 6 months after protesting land grabs & sabotage by BLM was arrested, with his friends... for TERRORISM ! No due process.. no bail.
2
Lets see, Clive bundy formed a group that publicly invaded a government installation. They used guns and threatened to kill anyone who tried to remove them. The only difference between Clive Bundy and the Orlando terrorist is that Clive didn't kill anyone. You may call him a freedom fighter but all terrorists consider themselves freedom fighters.
3
Poor Clive. Luckily, stupidity is not a crime, or he and his comrades would be doing real hard time.
1
Arming oneself and threatening federal officials, and calling for others to join them may not be the definition of terrorist for you, but it is for many Americans. He and his family are a domestic terrorists, and they should be treated in the same way that Native Americans and African Americans were treated when they armed themselves and protested against the government.
1
It takes many factors and conditions for thoughts to grow and become concrete actions. The intelligence agencies don't seem to understand how this process works. Their own actions make already scared and aggressive people even more paranoid and ready to lash out, like caged animals. Our own intelligence agencies are inadvertently complicit in the radicalization of future terrorists. We need another approach entirely. Perhaps the first step is to recognize that some violence is unavoidable and will always be with us. To a large extent, I believe, it is our own fears and reactions that make things so much worse.
12
Let's take in more "scared and aggressive people," and not keep an eye on them for fear of tipping their latent hatred of western civilization into bloody terror. We have a clear choice in the coming election: "Islamist terror is inevitable. Get used to it." Or "We will never accept this so-called inevitability, and will mobilize our country to crush our enemies." Your "other approach" is not working...anywhere.
1
So then our intelligence agencies should avoid collecting information on threats to our national security in order not to enrage the sensitivities of those who would do us harm?
2
Gad, what a distorted, twisted view of reality.
Thought control, that's the answer. Just give the NSA $10bn a year more & they'll tell us whatever we want to hear.
4
President Obama has already solved this conundrum. Send the future terrorist to the African continent and attack him/her by drone using your executive powers.
1
This has been done in the Chechen Republic. There was terrorism there but the government started rounding up all family members related to the terrorists and deporting them or placing them in prison along with the terrorist.
Are we ready to be that extreme?
Are we ready to be that extreme?
Terrorism will always be with us, because there will always be crazy people who need to express their insanity through killing large amounts of people.
The real problem with terrorism is what people do in an attempt to stop it. Are we going to give up all our guns, allow the NSA to go through our communications, and abrogate the constitutional rights of our own citizens in order to try to prevent attacks that are basically unpreventable?
I don't want a world in which big brother keeps me safe. I want a world where I have real freedom, and with that freedom comes the price of having people who want to tear that freedom down. I'd rather get blown up by a suicide bomber than have my entire life saved and stored away in some NSA database.
The real problem with terrorism is what people do in an attempt to stop it. Are we going to give up all our guns, allow the NSA to go through our communications, and abrogate the constitutional rights of our own citizens in order to try to prevent attacks that are basically unpreventable?
I don't want a world in which big brother keeps me safe. I want a world where I have real freedom, and with that freedom comes the price of having people who want to tear that freedom down. I'd rather get blown up by a suicide bomber than have my entire life saved and stored away in some NSA database.
7
That "freedom" costs us the lives of 30,000 people every year and nearly all of them, by the way, are white or black non-Muslims. And while the Daesh Paris attack was terrible, France as a whole suffers few deaths or injuries from gunshot compared to the US.
The biggest threats to our society are the armed criminal and the so-called law-abiding gun owner who ceases to be law-abiding when he open fire on someone - something that happens every day.
What about the freedom for the rest of us to live without the omnipresent threat of America's gun owners?
The biggest threats to our society are the armed criminal and the so-called law-abiding gun owner who ceases to be law-abiding when he open fire on someone - something that happens every day.
What about the freedom for the rest of us to live without the omnipresent threat of America's gun owners?
Multi multicultural society not working too well in 2016. Need to put on the breaks. Immigrants no longer feel the need to simulate.
2
Remember dude who killed 22 people or so at Virginia Tech? He had two pistols and did that. It doesn't really matter what gun you have, if you know how to shoot you can kill double digits of people in minutes using a Glock or similar gun. Banning assault rifles isn't the endgame for the anti-gun people. They want to ban all guns, and make sure the government is the only people who have guns.
Look, I will never give up my pistols no matter how many laws people pass. I will also not give up my assault weapons unless the police and national Guard give up their assault weapons and start patrolling with Billy clubs. Since they wont, I wont. And I'm not a right wing nut. I'm a Transgender woman and two time Obama voter. BTW, will never vote for HRC, sorry.
Look, I will never give up my pistols no matter how many laws people pass. I will also not give up my assault weapons unless the police and national Guard give up their assault weapons and start patrolling with Billy clubs. Since they wont, I wont. And I'm not a right wing nut. I'm a Transgender woman and two time Obama voter. BTW, will never vote for HRC, sorry.
3
"I will also not give up my assault weapons unless the police and national Guard give up their assault weapons"
Does this also mean you will not give up your hand grenades, flame throwers, cruise missiles and nuclear warheads until the US military does?
Does this also mean you will not give up your hand grenades, flame throwers, cruise missiles and nuclear warheads until the US military does?
Something like 800000 people are on the terrorism watch list, some not even connected by name and social security number. Should we just arrest all 800000 people just to be safe? Are we going to start instituting thought police to arrest us as soon as we utter an angry word?
2
Yes. As soon as they speak out in favor of Isis they should be considered traitors snd spies, and placed on the no fly and no guns list.
Prosecution of "precrime" will put behind bars a lot of fringe types -- some of whom may be terrorism risks (depending where you set the threshold) but are innocent of actual wrongdoing. The most slippery of slopes.
3
The simplest solution to this problem would be to make deportation much easier to do, short of not allowing dangerous immigrant to enter the country in the first place. Deportation laws need to be updated to reflect modern realities. There is no natural right to enter another country. Many Americans seem to think that there is and that excluding someone is some kind of civil liberties violation. This is simply not true and that fact needs to be unambiguously clear.
8
Where would you deport Omar Mateen? Back to his birthplace in New York?
1
Interesting idea. What concerns me about deportation is that it puts the person outside of our field of influence. Arrest someone, convict them, put them in jail. You know where they are and you can control their movements. Deport them to Syria and you can no longer control them. Will they find a way to slip back across our borders? Will they go to some other country, say France, and wreak havoc there?
there is no such thing as th thought police ... yet
theyre working as hard as they can to breach th last barrier of privacy, your mind
not to worry
if and when that happens, life wont be worth living anyway
but in th meantime, i suggest you love Big Brother
1
One Mateen can go out and wreak havoc. But what of his teacher, whoever that was? He and others like him learned their hatred from teachers. In my view, the teachers of violence are the bigger criminals, causing greater destruction.
Is there some way we can stop them without the creation of a "thought police" as you describe it? I totally understand your concern about Big Brother and I share it. But at the same time I think we need to find the way both to maintain our freedom and protect ourselves more effectively. It seems to me we should be going after the teachers of violence as forcefully as the students/foot soldiers.
Is there some way we can stop them without the creation of a "thought police" as you describe it? I totally understand your concern about Big Brother and I share it. But at the same time I think we need to find the way both to maintain our freedom and protect ourselves more effectively. It seems to me we should be going after the teachers of violence as forcefully as the students/foot soldiers.
Didn't the Orlando killer physically abuse his wife?
Maybe we should enforced physical and sexual assault laws more vigorously (for white men too, they don't get a free pass because their mass shootings don't get labeled 'terrorism'). Maybe then it would become more clear which people have a tendency towards instigating violence against a larger group of people, as well as having more of a basis for denying people the access to guns.
Maybe we should enforced physical and sexual assault laws more vigorously (for white men too, they don't get a free pass because their mass shootings don't get labeled 'terrorism'). Maybe then it would become more clear which people have a tendency towards instigating violence against a larger group of people, as well as having more of a basis for denying people the access to guns.
4
There are already prohibitions against those arrested for domestic violence from owning a firearm. One does not even have to have been convicted of domestic violence too include white men for this prohibition to take effect.
1
The same applies to the abuse of animals. It is often a sign of violent tendencies that later get unleashed against people.
Actually, no.
Omar called the police on his first wife for her beating him up. The police came and found evidence of physical violence on his arm.
Omar called the police on his first wife for her beating him up. The police came and found evidence of physical violence on his arm.
Experimental Psychology has been around for 150 years and has received funding from various governments all around the world and yet has failed to devise a reliable test which can ferret out this pathology? What have they been working on? This should be made a priority, and passing this test should be a requirement for anyone to posses a gun or be in a security sensitive occupation. Right now in this country you can be blocked from being a janitor or cashier for failing a marijuana test - but you can work security and buy assault rifles over the counter even though the police academy kicked you out for being unstable and prone to violence???
6
And medical science has been around for longer than that, and they still haven't found a cure for the common cold. I guess you think they haven't been working on anything either, right?
Psychologists are not mind readers, fortune tellers or psychics. Sorry to disappoint you.
Psychologists are not mind readers, fortune tellers or psychics. Sorry to disappoint you.
2
Being "unstable" and "prone to violence" can be seen and understood in demonstrable conduct- and should be used to properly assess ones suitability for a lot of things. But the idea of some sort of crystal ball into the mind is, frankly, mere fantasy. Modern psychiatry trumpets itself as just a valid as medicine but they continue to demonstrate the opposite. If you have a malignant tumor, for example, pretty much any qualified doctor will tell you that you have a cancer. Yet with psychiatry we continue to see a "spectrum" of analysis - someone kills some people and you get psych clinicians who assess the killer from normal to has some problems to insane and not responsible. It's more guess work that science, and shouldn't be used to deny people their rights.
1
What a silly question. You pass more gun control laws. Jeeze! Why are people so stupid.
17
So, according to you, gun control laws are useless?
1
I agree about gun control. But it's not a silly question. There is SO MUCH more we could do. We should be putting far more focus on what leads certain people to taking the FIRST STEPS down the path towards terrorism. The earlier we can identify that the more lives will be saved at less cost.
In the 2002 Tom Cruise film "Minority Report" a specialized police unit arrested folks based on 'precog' visions of three psychics who foresaw that someone was going to commit a murder. Do we need to create a similar organization to apprehend suspected terrorists?
13
Yes, it is an eerily prescient film. Although the pre-cogs were the children of 'Neuroin' addicts. I don't think it would be ethical to use pre-cogs to stop crimes in the real world. Of course this is all just science fiction ... or is it? ;)
Can't tell if joking.
<insert applicable internet meme here>
<insert applicable internet meme here>
All of this paranoia! How to surveil 10,000 suspects in France. Whether or not to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Has anyone considered addressing the problem at its root, which is the systemic and continuing policy of the West to wage its own form of jihad in the Middle East? It takes little imagination to link the cause of our problem to the effect we are now trying to deal with. And I certainly hope this statement of the obvious doesn't get me on someone's “watch list”.
12
G Siegner, you must not ignore a bully. Turning the other cheek may be a Christian thing to do but with this enemy is deadly. This enemy is brutal ruthless and knows no mercy for the innocent. This enemy must be given taste of some of its own medicine.
2
The idea that the West is the cause of the woes in the Middle East is so tiresome. While some Western powers have indeed done some silly or actually bad things in the region does not change the fact that the locals have been hating and killing each other for a long time, all without our help, thank you very much. Sunnis killing Shia, one clan killing another clan, obedience to warlords and fatwahs like it is still the 1500's, etc. So we are not the cause of all of it all.
2
I worked in the Middle East for many years. One Muslim colleague said to me, "What Jesus said, to turn the cheek, is very good. But there comes a time when you must protect yourself. The prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him, taught us that we should protect ourselves when we must."
Like many sensible ideas, taken to the extreme it becomes a justification for all kinds of violence. "I must defend the honor of my religion and the long term security of my village in the backwaters of Saudi Arabia by flying a fully loaded passenger jet into the Twin Towers, to weaken the great American aggressor."
Like many sensible ideas, taken to the extreme it becomes a justification for all kinds of violence. "I must defend the honor of my religion and the long term security of my village in the backwaters of Saudi Arabia by flying a fully loaded passenger jet into the Twin Towers, to weaken the great American aggressor."
1
Prevent them from coming into the country in the first place. Most of the terrorist attacks have been committed by immigrants or children of immigrants. A lot of anti-Western rhetoric is coming from mosques here in the US and Middle-Eastern/North African parents.
23
hey paleface - indian say, stop white man entering country, he bring violence and disease...
Ben Franklin say (true) German immigrants bad, not true Americans
Pre Know Nothing party (circa 1820) say (true) Englishman immigrant not good as he brought up under monarchy, hard to retrain to be democratic american
...
And as for those Irish hoodlums, well, NINA
not to mention those Chinese (exclusion act),.....
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Ben Franklin say (true) German immigrants bad, not true Americans
Pre Know Nothing party (circa 1820) say (true) Englishman immigrant not good as he brought up under monarchy, hard to retrain to be democratic american
...
And as for those Irish hoodlums, well, NINA
not to mention those Chinese (exclusion act),.....
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The difficulty with the Irish is five million in five years. The Know Nothings were not as extreme as usually portrayed. After all they got a former president of the United States, Fillmore to run on their ticket in 1856.
Do you have any theory why the US Government allowed Omar's father into the United States while the Reagan administration was funding the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan?
1
In the short term, there is little that can be done.
If a fixed percent of a specific population becomes radicalized, but the specific individuals cannot be identified or detained in advance, then the only longer term solution is to limit the population itself. This may involve restrictions on immigration.
This is the harsh, unpleasant truth.
If a fixed percent of a specific population becomes radicalized, but the specific individuals cannot be identified or detained in advance, then the only longer term solution is to limit the population itself. This may involve restrictions on immigration.
This is the harsh, unpleasant truth.
15
It is one thing of identifying a new actors but yet another is to let known potential terrorists fester, perfecting their act and act under our noses is yet another. Boston bomber was know, so was Orlando terrorist, but they were allowed to act out their violent acts. Why is our government not protecting Americans and being so kind to Radical Islamic Terrorists?
If a fixed percent is going to be radicalized (which I don't buy), wouldn't it make sense to limit the pool of potential terrorists through immigration policy?
So, should we allow Germans to come to US or not? After all, more Americans have died fighting Germans than any other nationality...
Sure, it's easy to suggest locking people up for their thoughts is the solution, until it's your thoughts they come after. It's a slippery slope, indeed, and once we start down it, there's no telling where we'll end up. One man's idea could be another man's threat. Scary stuff, this is.
6
Jail for "hate speech"?
1
the Israelis now demolish the homes of terrorists as retribution.
The wives, mothers, sisters, brothers fathers are sons and daughters of the terrorist are made to suffer, whether they are innocent or guilty..
Guilty by association..The freedoms of a few are sacrificed for the freedoms of the many...there could be a deterrent in this concept however the problem remains in the middle east..Give Syria to Assad and Putin IMMEDIEATLY!, divide Iran into Sunni Shia and Kurd, and pressure Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey
to water down the radical preachings in their Madras..
Finally get the Wall St. guys, Google, Apple, IBM, etc to get some Artificial Intelligence programs to weed out any possible domestic terrorists..
There you have it..I wonder if the NYT will post this one ?
The wives, mothers, sisters, brothers fathers are sons and daughters of the terrorist are made to suffer, whether they are innocent or guilty..
Guilty by association..The freedoms of a few are sacrificed for the freedoms of the many...there could be a deterrent in this concept however the problem remains in the middle east..Give Syria to Assad and Putin IMMEDIEATLY!, divide Iran into Sunni Shia and Kurd, and pressure Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey
to water down the radical preachings in their Madras..
Finally get the Wall St. guys, Google, Apple, IBM, etc to get some Artificial Intelligence programs to weed out any possible domestic terrorists..
There you have it..I wonder if the NYT will post this one ?
11
You mean Iraq should be divided into component nations... but yes, all of these would lead to a solution, if we can get past the rights if the innocent. We should implement it temporarily... And we should ban assault weapons and explosivesZ
FYI one of the reasons for the Israeli policy of punishing the families is to counteract the policies of Israel's enemies in surrounding states who provide rewards and pensions to the families of so-called "martyrs". Israel wants people to know that they will receive no rewards for their attacks on Israeli civilians.
How Do You Stop a Future Terrorist When the Only Evidence Is a Thought?
You don't, at least not without sacrificing the fundamental liberties allowed for in the U.S. way of life and resorting to some sort of police state where laws could be transgressed simply by exercising one's right to free speech and thought.
We should remember the "legality principle": Nullum poena sine lege--"no punishment without law".
If sowing hate for Muslims among the West is part of the jihadist objective according to liberals, then imagine how highly they would prize a weakening of our most basic civil rights.
Danger comes from being free and living with others in populous towns. But should we be willing to sacrifice freedom for security?
You don't, at least not without sacrificing the fundamental liberties allowed for in the U.S. way of life and resorting to some sort of police state where laws could be transgressed simply by exercising one's right to free speech and thought.
We should remember the "legality principle": Nullum poena sine lege--"no punishment without law".
If sowing hate for Muslims among the West is part of the jihadist objective according to liberals, then imagine how highly they would prize a weakening of our most basic civil rights.
Danger comes from being free and living with others in populous towns. But should we be willing to sacrifice freedom for security?
11
Even the constitutional guarantee of Free Speech has acknowledged limits. Libel is illegal. Advocating violence is illegal. I think the legal structure on these reasonable limits is already in place and what we need is a more effective pursuit of the people who TEACH jihadi-type violence. To my mind, the teacher of a Mateen is equally guilty in Mateen's crimes. The teacher is in fact MORE dangerous because he probably has many students.
1
its not about hating- you have to apply precautions when dealing with dangerous people
1
How Do You Stop a Future Terrorist....now that is the ONLY question that
should be posed.
How Do You Stop a Future Terrorist who is not on the Terrorist Watch List.
A lone terrorist...one who regardless of any persuasion by religion or just
a singular mind set...i.e. deranged mind set ...from killing a massive number
of people:
The Answer: Do NOT allow ANYONE ...in the USA to buy guns which can kill
a massive number of people.
Oh...the NRA will argue...then someone will tie a bomb to themself and blow
themself up...
Well...in answer to that weak excuse....MOST MURDERS are committee by
guns in the USA...and Massive Murders are committed by guns that are
designed to kill a massive amount of people..
Does this answer the question well enough for the
GOP in Congress those who are tied to the executioners of massive murders.
that being the NRA and the gun manufacturers.
It is Paul Ryan and his GOP who are aligned with the NRA...the Association
that is accountable for Sandy Hook...yes for a mass murder of innocent
children...
So..Paul Ryan and your NRA toadies ....excuse yourselves from Sandy Hook
the killing of kids..or get the Hell out of Congress along with Trump et al.
should be posed.
How Do You Stop a Future Terrorist who is not on the Terrorist Watch List.
A lone terrorist...one who regardless of any persuasion by religion or just
a singular mind set...i.e. deranged mind set ...from killing a massive number
of people:
The Answer: Do NOT allow ANYONE ...in the USA to buy guns which can kill
a massive number of people.
Oh...the NRA will argue...then someone will tie a bomb to themself and blow
themself up...
Well...in answer to that weak excuse....MOST MURDERS are committee by
guns in the USA...and Massive Murders are committed by guns that are
designed to kill a massive amount of people..
Does this answer the question well enough for the
GOP in Congress those who are tied to the executioners of massive murders.
that being the NRA and the gun manufacturers.
It is Paul Ryan and his GOP who are aligned with the NRA...the Association
that is accountable for Sandy Hook...yes for a mass murder of innocent
children...
So..Paul Ryan and your NRA toadies ....excuse yourselves from Sandy Hook
the killing of kids..or get the Hell out of Congress along with Trump et al.
18
"Do NOT allow ANYONE ...in the USA to buy guns which can kill
a massive number of people."
Obama can start with police, FBI, Secret Service, etc.
a massive number of people."
Obama can start with police, FBI, Secret Service, etc.
2
CBRussell Thank you for your comment. You have the most sensible answer to how to deal with terror, whether from Muslims or Christians or anyone else.
1
1) People are murdered with guns at much higher rates than in the US in countries where Guns are strictly restricted.
2) If drugs and people are smuggled into the US, what will stop them smuggling guns?
2) If drugs and people are smuggled into the US, what will stop them smuggling guns?
If terrorism were a problem in this country, trying to discern somebody's mindset would still be a waste of time and would introduce an Orwellian level of control over our citizens.
Hysteria, not terrorism, is the current problem we face. One factor in solving our national hysteria crisis is sober, responsible, balanced coverage of violent events. Other things are going on in the world, but the news media knows that only more sensational coverage will keep their audience in its thrall, so that is all they deliver.
Hysteria, not terrorism, is the current problem we face. One factor in solving our national hysteria crisis is sober, responsible, balanced coverage of violent events. Other things are going on in the world, but the news media knows that only more sensational coverage will keep their audience in its thrall, so that is all they deliver.
60
Terrorism is not the problem we face. Try telling that to the families in San Bernardino, Orlando and Boston who lost loved ones.
2
"Hysteria, not terrorism, is the current problem..." Really? Not if your one of the dead or their loved ones.
2
First thing is publish missing pages of 9-11 report and reopen 9-11 investigation. All Saudi sponsored mosques in US should be shuttered as foreign terror bases. See 2005 Freedom House report on radical Islam hatred of infidels and Jews propagated by these mosques worldwide. Then place any young male muslims who travel to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria etc. on a terrorist watch list unless they can prove a nonreligious purpose for their trip. All these countries and Gulf states should be required visa s for anyone entering US and only with Homeland Security, CIA and FBI clearance.
GOP wants US to condemn radical Islam- fine ; let's start with the two countries that created radical Islamic governments in 1979- Iran and Saudi Arabia. How many Iranian terrorists have killed Americans in recent years???
GOP wants US to condemn radical Islam- fine ; let's start with the two countries that created radical Islamic governments in 1979- Iran and Saudi Arabia. How many Iranian terrorists have killed Americans in recent years???
"While the legal systems may be different, the United States faced many of the same problems in their interactions with Mr. Mateen..."
Both France and the U.S. may need to try a radically different approach. China has to deal with Islamic radicalism in its Xinjiang region. Can we learn anything from China?
Both France and the U.S. may need to try a radically different approach. China has to deal with Islamic radicalism in its Xinjiang region. Can we learn anything from China?
The multicultural society of modern liberal democracy suffers from monocultural legal system. Legal system of the countries are created or evolved by assuming a synthetic subjective reality that the culture of the country adopted. This synthetic subjective reality is very different from objective reality and that is the reason we need a laws and legal system to determine the reality acceptable to society. Most of the western democracy build their legal system using Judaeo Christian value system build on the synthetic subjective reality that created the society. The new immigrants may be completely out of sync with this subjective reality of their host culture. This gap in reality perception if not closed, will show up through violence.
Liberal democracy from the very beginning assumed violence as physical only - though other cultures include mental violence also as part of violence. Same is also true for hate crimes - only physical hates are considered hate, mental hates are not.
Time has come to expand the laws considering the multicultural nature of the society, and give more flexibility to judges to include the cultural parameters to decide the laws. It may seems, profiling - but without this changes the modern multicultural society may continually suffer from security lapses.
Liberal democracy from the very beginning assumed violence as physical only - though other cultures include mental violence also as part of violence. Same is also true for hate crimes - only physical hates are considered hate, mental hates are not.
Time has come to expand the laws considering the multicultural nature of the society, and give more flexibility to judges to include the cultural parameters to decide the laws. It may seems, profiling - but without this changes the modern multicultural society may continually suffer from security lapses.
1
The least state governments can do is prevent people on watch lists from getting guns. But they have to grow a backbone first.
4
Desensitizing people to mass murder by killing animals. Nothing new there.
2
Video simulations accomplish the same objective. Just look at the popularity of Call of Duty and the like. Those type of "games" were originally funded by the DoD to overcome the hesitation of soldiers to pull the trigger. Your mind easily transfers those virtual experiences and incorporates them easily into your memories and morality framework
1
Well, number one is understand and identify that extremist Islamic teachings, coupled with an indication of animal cruelty, domestic abuse, or overall "troubles" they lead, in a number of these cases, to murderous acts.
We need to start taking a harder line on the imams, mosques and other that push this type of thinking. And to stop making apologies for a religion that has a great war inside, that the West shouldn't get involved in. And that includes deporting the imams that preach this hate. And we need to make it very clear that "multiculturalism" of accepting values and people that are not compatible with our Western values and culture, will no longer be the standard. Those that can't abide by the culture, values and laws will not be able to enter into or stay in the country.
And finally, the security agencies need to be ruled by realism, not "compassion, unity and love" (Loretta Lynch - Attorney General of the US). Maybe then, freed of the garbage of political correctness and low expectations, we can make some headway in the war of terror.
We need to start taking a harder line on the imams, mosques and other that push this type of thinking. And to stop making apologies for a religion that has a great war inside, that the West shouldn't get involved in. And that includes deporting the imams that preach this hate. And we need to make it very clear that "multiculturalism" of accepting values and people that are not compatible with our Western values and culture, will no longer be the standard. Those that can't abide by the culture, values and laws will not be able to enter into or stay in the country.
And finally, the security agencies need to be ruled by realism, not "compassion, unity and love" (Loretta Lynch - Attorney General of the US). Maybe then, freed of the garbage of political correctness and low expectations, we can make some headway in the war of terror.
7
In an idealistic world where everyone treats each other with kindness and care we would not need to take potential terrorists into custody. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. Realism dictates that society needs to protect itself from actors whose behavior warns us that they mean to harm others. Waiting until after the innocent are slaughtered is not the answer. Putting guns in the hands of everyone is not the answer, but establishing laws that give greater weight to policing powers is needed.
1
Problem - everyone is a "potential terrorist." Just like all men are potential rapists. Most don't turn out to be. We're all potential anything you can think of. How many times do you read/hear about neighbors, acquaintances of criminals saying, "Oh, I never thought he would do something like this. He's not the type." So by "potential terrorists," if we just mean Muslims (cause white people are terrorists too, like Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph), then sure, let's just set up outside mosques and lock up everyone who shows up.
When are we going to ask the question "Why do terrorists become terrorists?" Few people would say they were born evil. They observe and are taught by parents and others. And why have their parents and others developed the beliefs they possess? Could it be our policies over the years have been the problem? Have we brought this on ourselves? Perhaps they were forced into taking evil actions by a lack of any legitimate alternatives for solving their problems. Perhaps we have used economic, diplomatic and military force to invade or coerce people to accept our desire for raw materials and products without paying them appropriately for their labor. Have we now turned ordinary people into terrorists? This is obviously not good for anyone including ourselves. Is it our past and ongoing economic, political, social and military policies that are primarily responsible for this situation? People who have no civilized recourse to remedy adverse actions perpetrated against them turn to terrorism. Have our policies with respect to the United Nations whereby we control its ability to work for our best interests and against the best interests of the world, place others with their backs to the wall? Is it any wonder they turn to the only avenue that remains available to them! Unilaterally maintaining a "presence in a volatile part of the world" is one of the major reasons that part of the world became volatile in the first place! Is our U.S. foreign policy the correct one!
3
If replaced the word "islam" with "nazi" and "Pakistan" with "Hitler's Germany" I don't think this sort of hand-wringing, brow-mopping, weasel-talk would be tolerated for a minute by Americans. But since this violent, flaming hatred toward the West is spewed in a Mosque (Church) and not a beer-hall it is totally fine.
In 1933 it was probably not the best thing to be a Nazi in America, but it was legal. Prior to Sept 11th it was also fine to be a Muslim here. However, there became a time in 1939 when wearing your Nazi lapel-pin to your job at Macy's would have been a terrible idea. I think Muslims might want to consider the times they live in and where they live before aligning themselves with extremist ideologies.
Sure, many Nazis didn't gas enemies of the state and most Muslims aren't crazed murderers, but TPO (time, place, occasion) dictates life and if someone wants to wear their Nazi pin to work, accept what happens next.
In 1933 it was probably not the best thing to be a Nazi in America, but it was legal. Prior to Sept 11th it was also fine to be a Muslim here. However, there became a time in 1939 when wearing your Nazi lapel-pin to your job at Macy's would have been a terrible idea. I think Muslims might want to consider the times they live in and where they live before aligning themselves with extremist ideologies.
Sure, many Nazis didn't gas enemies of the state and most Muslims aren't crazed murderers, but TPO (time, place, occasion) dictates life and if someone wants to wear their Nazi pin to work, accept what happens next.
6
You're a little confused about the National Socialists. By 1939 they had managed to establish themselves as the sole political power in Germany. They had passed legislation banning Jews from owning businesses or property, and from doing many jobs. They had fired Jews from posts as professors and teachers all over the country. They systematically disenfranchised Jews, then gathered them into ghettos, then started deporting them to labor camps. They also persecuted political dissenters, homosexuals, artists, and the mentally or physically disadvantaged. They began euthanizing those in mental hospitals, then moved on to killing their prisoners in camps after deciding to implement the so-called Final Solution during the war.
You don't "decide" to wear your party pin in a totalitarian state. You wear it to survive. In most towns, if you wanted to hold any position of authority, you HAD to join the party. My mother-in-law's father was a school principle and was told that if he wanted to keep his job, he had to join the party. Being a "good German" (that is, obedient to authority), and not wanting to lose his job during a global depression, he did so.
Many didn't like the Nazis, but they didn't want to cause trouble for themselves, because the Nazis were indeed thugs who would attack individual dissenters and beat or kill them. Public pressure to join the party was enormous. Public figures who denounced the Nazis were arrested or politically neutralized. We aren't there -- yet.
You don't "decide" to wear your party pin in a totalitarian state. You wear it to survive. In most towns, if you wanted to hold any position of authority, you HAD to join the party. My mother-in-law's father was a school principle and was told that if he wanted to keep his job, he had to join the party. Being a "good German" (that is, obedient to authority), and not wanting to lose his job during a global depression, he did so.
Many didn't like the Nazis, but they didn't want to cause trouble for themselves, because the Nazis were indeed thugs who would attack individual dissenters and beat or kill them. Public pressure to join the party was enormous. Public figures who denounced the Nazis were arrested or politically neutralized. We aren't there -- yet.
Let's face it. We can't stop it. We can only hope to minimize the damage. Most gun deaths have little to do with religion.
It's just somebody with a gun who's willing to kill. Or does it on impulse. Disaffected Muslims who are ready to kill the infidels and have access to semi automatic weapons are now our reality. Lone wolves are out there. Looking for soft targets. Drumpf is feeding that fear. The cheddar succubous.
It's just somebody with a gun who's willing to kill. Or does it on impulse. Disaffected Muslims who are ready to kill the infidels and have access to semi automatic weapons are now our reality. Lone wolves are out there. Looking for soft targets. Drumpf is feeding that fear. The cheddar succubous.
3
If Rukmini Callimachi had restricted this to the French incidents, it would have been a solid account of how difficult it is to track even individuals who are known ISIS sympathizers, given budgets and civil liberties constraints.
But instead, Ms. Callimachi insists on grafting onto her story the incongruous piece from Orlando. In this, she persists with a New York Times-led media trend of forcing into the France paradigm a U.S. incident that is about as ISIS-"inspired" as the Aurora theater shooting was "inspired" by Marvel comics.
What we know about Omar Mateen is that he suffered from emotional illness, may have been confused about his sexuality, certainly harbored a toxic homophobic pathogen (whatever its source), and, most important of all, had easy access to an assault weapon and ammunition suited only to mass murder.
That the killer was hopelessly confused on political matters—and even about which terrorists he "supported"—is made plain by his having "pledged allegiance" at various time to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, three groups dedicated to each other's destruction.
In short, to assert that this act was ISIS "inspired" is absurd and a distortion of the public record.
Nonetheless, from the outset, the Times struck this sensationalist note, in the form of Ms. Callimachi's very first piece on the Orlando carnage—and we see here that this is your story and you're sticking with it, never mind the facts.
Frankly, this is beneath the New York Times.
@ricfouad
But instead, Ms. Callimachi insists on grafting onto her story the incongruous piece from Orlando. In this, she persists with a New York Times-led media trend of forcing into the France paradigm a U.S. incident that is about as ISIS-"inspired" as the Aurora theater shooting was "inspired" by Marvel comics.
What we know about Omar Mateen is that he suffered from emotional illness, may have been confused about his sexuality, certainly harbored a toxic homophobic pathogen (whatever its source), and, most important of all, had easy access to an assault weapon and ammunition suited only to mass murder.
That the killer was hopelessly confused on political matters—and even about which terrorists he "supported"—is made plain by his having "pledged allegiance" at various time to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, three groups dedicated to each other's destruction.
In short, to assert that this act was ISIS "inspired" is absurd and a distortion of the public record.
Nonetheless, from the outset, the Times struck this sensationalist note, in the form of Ms. Callimachi's very first piece on the Orlando carnage—and we see here that this is your story and you're sticking with it, never mind the facts.
Frankly, this is beneath the New York Times.
@ricfouad
9
The difficulty of stopping terrorism in a democracy is why immigration from potential terror trouble spots should be restricted.
The spoiled American elite of today think they can have it all: Unlimited support for Israel and unlimited immigration from violent Mid East Muslim countries. The elite are well rewarded for supporting both, and can go to sleep in their gated communities thinking about what beautiful people they are.
The spoiled American elite of today think they can have it all: Unlimited support for Israel and unlimited immigration from violent Mid East Muslim countries. The elite are well rewarded for supporting both, and can go to sleep in their gated communities thinking about what beautiful people they are.
7
Osama bin Ladin was once a playboy. Omar Seddique a Registered Democrat picking up gay men. Intractable menace you cannot see, hear, analyze, much less defeat - Sunni terror out of the blue.
Political correctness absolves 1.6B Muslims too easily. Could OBL live next to Pak West Point, or Umar Seddique flourish without tacit support of majority 85% Umarites (Sunnis, Wahabbis) whose non-stop terrorism is 1,400 years old?
Lone wolf is classic Sunni. Israelites are tribal, Christians/Shia family-based, but Sunni is patently individual, loners taking charge to "great" ends. (only Western parallel is Lawrence of Arabia).
Sunni heroes are Arabs, master tacticians. Khalid outwitted Mohammed himself in his only defeat at Uhud, Qasim in India, and foremost Tariq of Gibralter who crossed waters into Spain in 711AD. With a battalion facing a huge Christian army had his ships burnt to block his own retreat. No return – fight or die, victory unto death, suicidal violence - Sunni Islam today.
Sunni OBL, Sunni Atta, 9/11, London 7/7, Madrid, Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando - lone acts with no orders or funding. What can CIA, FBI, NSA, Superman, 007 do against such?
Every Sunni, self-led, a walking plot, a time bomb, can flip any time to take control – parents, wife, children will not know, only he and his Sunni allah.
But Sunni brilliance in tactics is exceeded by its blindness in strategy. Are we the rest dimwits? Jihadist have not tasted what we can do unto them. Courage friends.
Political correctness absolves 1.6B Muslims too easily. Could OBL live next to Pak West Point, or Umar Seddique flourish without tacit support of majority 85% Umarites (Sunnis, Wahabbis) whose non-stop terrorism is 1,400 years old?
Lone wolf is classic Sunni. Israelites are tribal, Christians/Shia family-based, but Sunni is patently individual, loners taking charge to "great" ends. (only Western parallel is Lawrence of Arabia).
Sunni heroes are Arabs, master tacticians. Khalid outwitted Mohammed himself in his only defeat at Uhud, Qasim in India, and foremost Tariq of Gibralter who crossed waters into Spain in 711AD. With a battalion facing a huge Christian army had his ships burnt to block his own retreat. No return – fight or die, victory unto death, suicidal violence - Sunni Islam today.
Sunni OBL, Sunni Atta, 9/11, London 7/7, Madrid, Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando - lone acts with no orders or funding. What can CIA, FBI, NSA, Superman, 007 do against such?
Every Sunni, self-led, a walking plot, a time bomb, can flip any time to take control – parents, wife, children will not know, only he and his Sunni allah.
But Sunni brilliance in tactics is exceeded by its blindness in strategy. Are we the rest dimwits? Jihadist have not tasted what we can do unto them. Courage friends.
3
And the religious wars continue.
Abballa was arrested and sentenced for belonging to a terrorist organization; the authorities knew among other things that he had written “I’m thirsty for blood, Allah is my witness." This is very different from someone who is merely suspected of terrorist sentiment or who has expressed support for radical Islam, and yet he was given only a two-year sentence. We can't and shouldn't jail someone for expressing their views, but in this case, a crime had been committed, and a longer sentence that takes into account the seriousness of membership in a terrorist organization would have saved lives.
Perhaps we need to direct our efforts in another direction. The gun used in Orlando can be bought nearly anywhere in America. A device to make it fully automatic can be bought for about $100! This makes this weapon fully automatic. In 1934 the NRA helped congress outlaw automatic weapons. Anyone who sells this device needs to be sent to prison. Anyone who has used this device need to go there also. AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are not legal. Any weapon that can be easily made automatic should be seized and the manufacturer heavily fined or driven out of business. This requires no new laws. The laws are on the books already. WHERE ARE YOU ATF?
This guy worked for a security contractor who was actually a big defense entity. Mateen's father was highly connected in Afhanistan and with people in high places in this country. He was also a domestic abuser. And he was reported on by his co workers. So the problem isn't that he has a thought. The problem is he is exactly the type of worker this contractor wanted. This contractor is one of the biggest in the world of its type. Do some journalism NYTimes. And his violence to his wife was considered to be of no consequence..after all..he was the profile of a mindless violent peron they wanted. Lots of people making money on "terrorism". We have to keep it going to keep Mateen's employer in business.
2
They will discover that police documented Omar's first wife beating him up.
Even with best of the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus in place, it's difficult to track down each movement of the suspected terrorist, specially in an open democratic society, constrained its commitment to protecting civil liberties. The best defence against such criminal elements could be the civic preparedness and a high level of trust between the ruling dispensation and the citizenry, which could be possible only through responsive governance and inclusive policy pursuit.
1
Keep the suspects on your radar screen. Monitor their facebook accounts. Communicate between law enforcement agencies. Easy.
7
If it was that "easy" more would be done. In spite of what we see on TV or in the movies, it just isn't that easy to watch what everyone does at every moment. Law enforcement agencies, especially federal ones, are highly bureaucratic and believe in their superiority - but when a terrorist(s) are shooting up a club or the mall or people on the street it isn't the FBI who comes to the rescue and has to do the dirty work, it's the local police. Yet the feds, at least in their own minds, are the "heroes" tracking them down. A lot of attitudes need to change.
1
Remember the uproar over Edward Snowden's disclosure of the NSA supposedly doing this kind of stuff. Is it now ok?
2
Not when there are 10,000 suspects.
This is about foreign policy based on an oil economy with the dollar tied to oil for its value. I don't think this is about guns. I think it is about civil liberties and our consitutional rights. The Patriot Act was an unthinkably unAmerican event. It need to be repealed. And we absolutely need to withdraw from the Middle East and concentrate on renewable energy asap. Terrorism would peter out if we would just do this. It's time to quit worrying about the dollar based on a shakey oil economy. We need to build an infrastructure for the future based on up to date non oil dependence. We have time to amend this if we begin in earnest now, not just for the sake of the United States but also the peace and health of the planet and to slow down our own danger of extinction as a species.
I don't think that Mateen or the Paris terrorists were thinking about or motivated by mid east oil or renewable energy when they went on their killing sprees.
Essentially, this is a question of whether the rights of gun owners is more important than the rights of individuals to free expression. Both of these are protected by our Bill of Rights, and, both have a long history of judicial interpretation. However, the current interpretation concerning gun rights is fairly recent and quite murky.
Earlier versions of the SCOTUS weren't nearly as literal in their interpretations of the 2nd amendment, so that Amendment doesn't need to be repealed. It needs to be re-interpreted.
It seems to me that a reinterpretation of the right of expression is a much more slippery slope, and much more difficult to enforce.
Earlier versions of the SCOTUS weren't nearly as literal in their interpretations of the 2nd amendment, so that Amendment doesn't need to be repealed. It needs to be re-interpreted.
It seems to me that a reinterpretation of the right of expression is a much more slippery slope, and much more difficult to enforce.
3
No it isn't. This article is about Europe. Europe has much stricter gun laws than the US. It's not about taking away people's guns. It's about an ideology that labels you and I as "infidels" who deserve to be killed. Whether or not there are guns doesn't change that basic fact.
1
Mateen seemed troubl;ed by 'homosexual panic' - a psychological conflict about intolerable desires. This has long been linked to paranoid anxiety and projection- where one's inner feelings are imagined to be coming from others- a delusional state. His attraction to ISIS or any other rigid ideology may well have been secondary.
Many psychotic people get bolstered by existing fundamentalism: doctor killers claim Christianity, the Oklahoma bomber had 'beliefs' too. If Lanza, Cho or Holmes had left notes citing Liberty, feminist filth, or a calling to cleanse--would we call them terrorists too ?
'Lone wolf' assassins may always bring a mixture of internal terror to their murderous frenzies. Access to combat weapons with large magazines give them a capacity to commit mass murder. Little could stop them from suicidality.
Many psychotic people get bolstered by existing fundamentalism: doctor killers claim Christianity, the Oklahoma bomber had 'beliefs' too. If Lanza, Cho or Holmes had left notes citing Liberty, feminist filth, or a calling to cleanse--would we call them terrorists too ?
'Lone wolf' assassins may always bring a mixture of internal terror to their murderous frenzies. Access to combat weapons with large magazines give them a capacity to commit mass murder. Little could stop them from suicidality.
3
A very difficult job:
1. Wide media and government level publicity to their acts must stop first of all. It also motivates some to follow their footsteps and gain global recognition and publicity.
2. Naming their ideology and even religion and holding their parents and preachers more accountable than is the case.
3. Confiscating their property and all assets and using the same for memorials to their victims.
1. Wide media and government level publicity to their acts must stop first of all. It also motivates some to follow their footsteps and gain global recognition and publicity.
2. Naming their ideology and even religion and holding their parents and preachers more accountable than is the case.
3. Confiscating their property and all assets and using the same for memorials to their victims.
1
Humans have agency. As a matter of fact, all things that are done are done by the agency of individual humans. Other things, not "done", merely "happen". Human agents are able to "do" things. What they think, unlike the examples recorded here, is completely private. It is also, formally, without any meaning, since a thought not communicated cannot "mean". What the article refers to as "thoughts', are not thoughts at all. They are writings and/or audible sayings or other actions that nother person heard, saw or recorded. Consequently, "evidence".
You cannot imprison or harm anyone for "thinking". It is impossible to do that, unless you have some way to access "thinkings", in which case they would no longer be "thoughts".
It is hard to imagine the number of people who think seriously about performing destructive acts of mass violence; millions certainly. But they are not violent agents unless they act in some way discernible to others. Thinking is not a crime, nor can it ever become one, as it is entirely private, and void of meaning.
You cannot imprison or harm anyone for "thinking". It is impossible to do that, unless you have some way to access "thinkings", in which case they would no longer be "thoughts".
It is hard to imagine the number of people who think seriously about performing destructive acts of mass violence; millions certainly. But they are not violent agents unless they act in some way discernible to others. Thinking is not a crime, nor can it ever become one, as it is entirely private, and void of meaning.
2
In the article: "After Mr. Mateen’s massacre, James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I., said the file on Mr. Mateen had been one of “hundreds and hundreds of cases all across the country,” and compared the task of weeding out those who are expressing extremist ideas from those who may act on those ideas to “looking for needles in a nationwide haystack.”
The FBI director admits the task is nearly impossible, perhaps a probabilistic anomaly at best. Whether for imported or domestic acts of ultra violence, the means to predict such events is evanescent. What's the difference between a radical Christian's murder of an abortionist and a radical Islamic jihadist's killing of infidels? While there is little in effect, there is one in magnitude and probability.
The danger is clear. But, if we create a law enforcement structure large enough and intrusive enough to stop terrorist acts, what will we have become. The Supreme Court's recent further loosening of the 4th Amendment protections, in a recent case unrelated to terrorism, is part of a slow accretion of injustice that seems to rise when terror knocks.
The FBI director admits the task is nearly impossible, perhaps a probabilistic anomaly at best. Whether for imported or domestic acts of ultra violence, the means to predict such events is evanescent. What's the difference between a radical Christian's murder of an abortionist and a radical Islamic jihadist's killing of infidels? While there is little in effect, there is one in magnitude and probability.
The danger is clear. But, if we create a law enforcement structure large enough and intrusive enough to stop terrorist acts, what will we have become. The Supreme Court's recent further loosening of the 4th Amendment protections, in a recent case unrelated to terrorism, is part of a slow accretion of injustice that seems to rise when terror knocks.
3
The answer to the question is really easy and straight forward. Muslim are responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks. Therefore attack Muslims first. Do it to them before they do it to us. Secondly, the mentally ill are responsible for a certain percentage. Institutionalize them early and often. This further reduces the risk. In short, it is people who need our adverse attention, not things such as guns. Now you know!
3
No this isn't true. In the U.S. most have been Christian white males.
2
"Muslim are responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks. Therefore attack Muslims first. Do it to them before they do it to us."
And this is known as straight-up bigotry. As a quick way of seeing how dangerous and offensive this is, replace the word "Muslim" with the word "Jew", and ask yourself whether you sound like a Nazi.
And if your counterargument is "But the Jews weren't terrorists", think again: The Nazi propaganda had convinced most Germans that all Jews were potential terrorists, which is why they needed to lock them up in concentration camps, and most of the German public supported the move for precisely that reason.
And this is known as straight-up bigotry. As a quick way of seeing how dangerous and offensive this is, replace the word "Muslim" with the word "Jew", and ask yourself whether you sound like a Nazi.
And if your counterargument is "But the Jews weren't terrorists", think again: The Nazi propaganda had convinced most Germans that all Jews were potential terrorists, which is why they needed to lock them up in concentration camps, and most of the German public supported the move for precisely that reason.
That is pure nonsense. Incidents in Detroit, Boston, New York, California, Ft Hood, Tennessee and Florida were instigated by Islamists. Also, you are assuming that a white male in the United States must be Christian. How about gentile for starters?
Gentile does not necessarily equate with Christianity.
Gentile does not necessarily equate with Christianity.
2
It seems that the growth in sudden and increasingly heinous violence is an increasingly common translation of the growing discontent of some people within their dominant cultures and societies.
Maybe we should be looking at how our cultural, economic and social systems are adversely impacting and increasing the vulnerability of such emotionally fragile people. If society can identify them and intervene early, then maybe incarceration or worse, can be avoided before its too late.
Maybe we should be looking at how our cultural, economic and social systems are adversely impacting and increasing the vulnerability of such emotionally fragile people. If society can identify them and intervene early, then maybe incarceration or worse, can be avoided before its too late.
2
....'how do you stop a future terrorist'?
You don't. We are facing a worldwide religious movement, or jihad....there are many ways to define it. The young men and women who are dedicated to the 'teachings of the Quaran' will continue taking it's distorted messages and converting them to terror on civilians. The Middle East is a war zone we partially created - it's a fertile ground for young militants and the Islamic movement will continue to be felt throughout the world.
We can try to strengthen our borders and be as vigilant as possible, but it's too late to prevent isolated terrorism taking place in various cities and countries.
Or we can promote peace and put down our weapons. Maybe trying something 'different' will work, as our current course of action has not.
You don't. We are facing a worldwide religious movement, or jihad....there are many ways to define it. The young men and women who are dedicated to the 'teachings of the Quaran' will continue taking it's distorted messages and converting them to terror on civilians. The Middle East is a war zone we partially created - it's a fertile ground for young militants and the Islamic movement will continue to be felt throughout the world.
We can try to strengthen our borders and be as vigilant as possible, but it's too late to prevent isolated terrorism taking place in various cities and countries.
Or we can promote peace and put down our weapons. Maybe trying something 'different' will work, as our current course of action has not.
5
I believe, as demonstrated by the case of Omar Mateen, who was an Afghani-American, that anyone who expresses even a smidgen of interest in terrorism, should remain under strict surveillance for the rest of their lives. Sort of a house arrest if you will. Let them go about their lives, but if they show any sign of trouble. pounce on them, lock them, no questions asked. America has the technology to do it, and it must be done. What amazes me about Mateen is that he worked for one of the world's largest security firms; a firm that contracts with the Department of Homeland Security! What type of standards was his background vetted against to be hired by this firm? I can understand some mickey mouse firm hiring him, but this one! Did he hold a USG security clearance? If so, what does this say about the investigative process to get a security clearance? What does this say about the DHS? How many more Mateens, terrorists all, as far as I am concerned, are working as contractors, or even federal employees? Liberals look upon this as "diversity." I look upon it as a great tragedy.
33
The problem is what qualifies as interest? You just read an article about identifying terrorists. Does that mean you want to know the methods that the government is using to find potential terrorists in order to avoid surveillance and setting off alarms? What if you criticize Israel and suggest that Palestinians have the right to statehood? It is very dangerous to criminalize thoughts and speech, which is why we have the First Amendment.
2
I agree completely. We are too lenient with people to betray their country to pledge interest in and allegiance to an enemy state. As soon as anyone declares interest in Isis or any other terrorist organization they should be placed in a no fly/no guns list, period. The same goes for the close family of a terrorist, because surely they know what is going on.
2
Why does media ignore fact that he travelled twice to Saudi Arabia and became radicalized afterwards. That should set off all kinds of alarms.
The French are right to be concerned about civil liberties and not creating a Guantanamo.
But perhaps both we and the French need more agents.
But perhaps both we and the French need more agents.
2
A future terrorist carrying assault firearms can be stopped the same way the TSA has kept billions of airlines passengers safe since 911 by preventing any guns, knives or explosive devices from getting on the plane. Entry to large gatherings of over 50 people such as the one in Orlando should have been restricted to those not carrying any firearms or knives, just as entry to large political rallies. Citizens of the US have a right to live and a right to be in a place where there are no weapons around them and right to be informed that there will be people (other than the law enforcement) with guns at the venue. Also no person carrying any weapon should be allowed into airports in areas that preceded the departure gates. Just these simple precautions could have saved thousands of lives lost to terrorists in France, Belgium and the USA. Future terrorists can be blocked by recording and monitoring of all deadly weapons. This can be achieved by recalling all currently held weapons to be tagged and any weapons sold in the future should have a tag which will signal the movement of weapons anywhere in the country. Any attempt to temper with the tag should be grounds for arrest. Right to bear arms does not mean right to kill and all creative ways need to employed to prevent mass killing and killing of individuals by others.
5
Guns were not permitted inside the Pulse night club
Art Stone. Did anyone check if the guns were actually not allowed and stop the person/s carrying guns.
1
Wouldn't we take in and apprehend an enemy combatant who wore their uniform but had not yet committed an act against us? Why are tell-tale indicators such as posting on social media, cavorting with like-minded people, traveling to acknowledged centers of terrorism training, different from the wearing of the enemy's uniform?
47
The acts you describe are all protected by the Constitution. Do you want to get rid of it? Great. Now we're China. Or even worse, North Korea. Hindsight is always 20/20. Until someone invents a crystal ball that accurately predicts what crimes will be committed by what people, our civil rights cannot and should not be thrown away.
1
Even Nazi generals recognised the execution of a lone, unarmed enemy uniformed soldier as a war crime. Apprehending a uniformed enemy may be perfectly permissible, but torturing and assassinating them (both of which the US has done abroad if we are to accept your uniform analogy) is certainly not.
For the same reason it isn't illegal to have a drink with a member of the mafia -- that would be guilt by association. Actual membership in a terrorist group, though -- or conspiracy, or providing material aid -- are crimes.
1
Our government, its leaders need to realize that this is a war of survival and not a political game. It requires a new comprehensive plan to totally mobilize our people, its power and laws concerning terrorists, to change operational strategies and tactics against terrorists.
1. Go after terrorists where-ever they are.
2. Eliminate potential threats, covertly, special opts leveling the playing field.
3. Eliminate potential threats, overtly, creating a killing field.
4. Make it an act of treason; for Americans in or outside the country and non-Americans within our borders who support or even know about a terrorist(s) without reporting it to Homeland Security.
5. Any American representing our government, its agencies that allies with Terrorists States or Terrorists Groups/Insurgents is treason.
6. Close our borders to anyone that is trying to wrongly enter our country.
7. Document anyone that has wrongly entered the country. If in doubt, throw them out.
8. Build a safe-zone for Syrian Refugees in Syria. Most are without papers, don't want to live in America nor to become US Citizens. They just want to live in their home-land safely.
9. Work towards applying pressure to make US activities against terrorists and terrorists countries Western/Eastern Law to protect the Global Community of Nations and peoples against terrorism.
10. Create a new international security force supported only financially to enforce new international laws against terrorists.
1. Go after terrorists where-ever they are.
2. Eliminate potential threats, covertly, special opts leveling the playing field.
3. Eliminate potential threats, overtly, creating a killing field.
4. Make it an act of treason; for Americans in or outside the country and non-Americans within our borders who support or even know about a terrorist(s) without reporting it to Homeland Security.
5. Any American representing our government, its agencies that allies with Terrorists States or Terrorists Groups/Insurgents is treason.
6. Close our borders to anyone that is trying to wrongly enter our country.
7. Document anyone that has wrongly entered the country. If in doubt, throw them out.
8. Build a safe-zone for Syrian Refugees in Syria. Most are without papers, don't want to live in America nor to become US Citizens. They just want to live in their home-land safely.
9. Work towards applying pressure to make US activities against terrorists and terrorists countries Western/Eastern Law to protect the Global Community of Nations and peoples against terrorism.
10. Create a new international security force supported only financially to enforce new international laws against terrorists.
8
This is not our father’s war, it’s ours. And this is war. Let’s get some terminology straight here. They’re not ‘future’ terrorists if they’re here preparing a terrorist act; they’re Terrorists. Just like an enemy combatant isn’t a ‘future’ spy if they’re here preparing to spy on us. They’re spies.
During our past conventional, or ‘regular,’ wars, if an enemy was not in their military uniform and was caught spying or attempting to spy on us; or preparing, or in the act of sabotage, they were not soldiers, they were spies and treated different than those soldiers in uniform.
If our military or FBI suspects a person among us is a spy, or a terrorist preparing for sabotage, they should not have the protections of The Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They are not committing treason. They should be treated as an enemy under the rules of war. No, they don’t get Due Process.
During our past conventional, or ‘regular,’ wars, if an enemy was not in their military uniform and was caught spying or attempting to spy on us; or preparing, or in the act of sabotage, they were not soldiers, they were spies and treated different than those soldiers in uniform.
If our military or FBI suspects a person among us is a spy, or a terrorist preparing for sabotage, they should not have the protections of The Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They are not committing treason. They should be treated as an enemy under the rules of war. No, they don’t get Due Process.
20
You have a very strange definition of a spy. Have you ever really read the rules of war?
"If our military or FBI suspects a person among us is a spy, or a terrorist preparing for sabotage, they should not have the protections of The Constitution or the Bill of Rights."
On the contrary. When ANY of us fall under government suspicion, that is precisely the time when constitutional protections are what sets us apart from other nations. To destroy our heritage of the rule of law is to surrender to the terrorists. Our founders understood that well, having lived under the yoke of unbridled authority. That's why they insisted on a Bill of Rights. One of those founders said it better than I:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin
On the contrary. When ANY of us fall under government suspicion, that is precisely the time when constitutional protections are what sets us apart from other nations. To destroy our heritage of the rule of law is to surrender to the terrorists. Our founders understood that well, having lived under the yoke of unbridled authority. That's why they insisted on a Bill of Rights. One of those founders said it better than I:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin
1
Rational controls on weapons and immigration.
Middle East policies that don't create yet more enemies.
Energy independence so we are not financing Saudi Arabia's intolerant Wahabism.
Economic opportunities here at home so immigrants don't fester in poverty.
Readily available and affordable mental health care
Middle East policies that don't create yet more enemies.
Energy independence so we are not financing Saudi Arabia's intolerant Wahabism.
Economic opportunities here at home so immigrants don't fester in poverty.
Readily available and affordable mental health care
59
Immigrants in the US have access to free mental health care via County health systems. Working immigrants do not fester in poverty, look at the vast Hispanic and Asian population thriving here. None of this has anything to do with hate-filled, religious fanatics bent on destruction. Or the Saudis.
You're making too much sense.
Saudis and US politicians corrupted by them are at the core of US middle east problems. Just imagine germans blowing up Capitol hill in 1939, and US invading Poland in retaliation.
To those posting to this article who state that limiting access to guns will prevent future acts of terror, think about this. Was a gun used on 9/11? Did the Tsarnaev brothers use a gun during the Boston Marathon bombings? Did Timothy Mcveigh or Ted Kasczynski use guns to kill? Your proposed gun laws or repeal of the 2nd amendment will not deter terrorists from obtaining guns or any type of weapon to kill. To effectively understand as to how to begin to reduce the threat of terrorism we must identify the enemy, acknowledge the ideology as a threat, and work within the constitutional parameters to investigate their actions. Not a fool proof method, but short of totalitarianism, this is the hand we must play. I've been in the counter-terrorism business for 28 years.
7
Just because some of our horrible mass murders were not committed using guns doesn't mean we should stop trying to control who gets their hands on one. Even one shooting death is too many.
2
There are already prohibitions as to who can and cannot get guns. But if we exert more control on guns, which will only be adhered to by law abiding people, not criminals, then we must also regulate anything that canbe used as a weapon. Not a possibility.
I still revert back to commonsense on this topic. Islamic thought centers around the fact that Islam is the only valid religion and that infidels must be struck down wherever they are found. They aspire to kill Jews, Christians, Gays, and frankly anyone else who is not part of their religion. I'm not sure how easy it would be to prevent a religion from entering the U.S., but we should be doing nothing to encourage the relocation of Muslims into our country. Especially since Ted Kennedy's awful immigration act allows family members to reunite with these initial transplants ad infinitum. Soon you have little Somalia in Minneapolis-St. Paul. And we can't afford 20 FBI per suspect here anymore than the French can. You hate to paint with broad brushes, but Islamic terror will never stop, and fewer Muslims in our presence means less terror down the road.
41
I respectfully disagree. The majority of Muslims don't subscribe to killing "infidels".
Please look at statistics that compare white male anti-government/anti-whatever acts of terror in the US compared to acts of terror by Muslims in the name of ISIS or al-Qaeda. You might be surprised that we have more to be fearful of among "our own kind" than immigrants or Muslims.
Christians have been terrorizing Africans and Native Americans in this country for 500 years. The Klu Klux Klan is a terrorist organization that only allows Christians to join. Thousands of gays and transgendered people have been terrorized and killed by Christians. Abortion providers have been assassinated and otherwise terrorized by Christians for a political goal. Now many Christians think the answer to terrorism is to terrorize Muslims, because some of them are terrorists too. Who would Jesus terrorize?
If no oil had ever been found in the Middle East, we would never had spent so much money and had so many CIA people running around there trying to keep violent tyrants like the Saudi Royal Family, Mubarak, the Shah of Iran and other lunatics in power. Then the people their would only want to come live here, not murder us for revenge. They hate us because they are not free and we support their oppressors
When you engage in hypocrisy you give crazy people an excuse to use your own techniques against you.
Stop terrorizing the world, not because it occasionally results in blowback, but because "Shock and Awe" is wrong and stupid.
If no oil had ever been found in the Middle East, we would never had spent so much money and had so many CIA people running around there trying to keep violent tyrants like the Saudi Royal Family, Mubarak, the Shah of Iran and other lunatics in power. Then the people their would only want to come live here, not murder us for revenge. They hate us because they are not free and we support their oppressors
When you engage in hypocrisy you give crazy people an excuse to use your own techniques against you.
Stop terrorizing the world, not because it occasionally results in blowback, but because "Shock and Awe" is wrong and stupid.
The way to stop terrorists is to kill them before they can kill you. As to not fomenting terrorism through our foreign policies, that is another issue.
As to controlling access to guns, that only works on the law abiding. Terrorists couldn't care less about our laws, like, say, laws against murder.
As to controlling access to guns, that only works on the law abiding. Terrorists couldn't care less about our laws, like, say, laws against murder.
2
Easy:
1. There are already various State laws with respect to "making a terroristic threat".
2. Conviction should be sufficient to put someone on a no-buy list.
Of course, you would also have to eliminate all the loopholes that allow people to buy weapons off the books.
Another good step would be to hold-harmless anyone who treats the presence of a firearm in a public venue as a mortal threat. We should be free to use any means possible to subdue someone in that situation, before they start shooting. (Breaking fingers is a good way to mitigate the threat, and even a weaker person can do that.)
1. There are already various State laws with respect to "making a terroristic threat".
2. Conviction should be sufficient to put someone on a no-buy list.
Of course, you would also have to eliminate all the loopholes that allow people to buy weapons off the books.
Another good step would be to hold-harmless anyone who treats the presence of a firearm in a public venue as a mortal threat. We should be free to use any means possible to subdue someone in that situation, before they start shooting. (Breaking fingers is a good way to mitigate the threat, and even a weaker person can do that.)
4
Recently, Congress authorized the intel agencies to collect social media comments by employees in the intel sector. In contrast, co-workers of the Orlando shooter repeatedly reported warnings about this guy.
Stop watering down our Constitutional rights. There have been repeated failures to catch the perps in spite of increased mass surveillance. Something is failing. In this case, more agencies than the FBI were involved since some communications supposedly involved overseas. Expanding surveillance is not working. Period. It is sad you can hold an intel employee accountable for expressing an opposing political view (if not the party in power) or deny them a position if they subscribe to anti-war groups. But you can keep someone lik the Shooter on the roll of a major security contractor in spite of repeated warnings about the guy?
Would that have anything to do with the security contractor also holding contracts in Afghanistan and the shooter's father coming from a politically-connected clan? "See something, say something -- unless it impacts lucrative security contracts" would be a sad sacrifice but we keep seeing new lows - including letting the public think it was an FBI failure and not something worse behind this latest incident.
Stop watering down our Constitutional rights. There have been repeated failures to catch the perps in spite of increased mass surveillance. Something is failing. In this case, more agencies than the FBI were involved since some communications supposedly involved overseas. Expanding surveillance is not working. Period. It is sad you can hold an intel employee accountable for expressing an opposing political view (if not the party in power) or deny them a position if they subscribe to anti-war groups. But you can keep someone lik the Shooter on the roll of a major security contractor in spite of repeated warnings about the guy?
Would that have anything to do with the security contractor also holding contracts in Afghanistan and the shooter's father coming from a politically-connected clan? "See something, say something -- unless it impacts lucrative security contracts" would be a sad sacrifice but we keep seeing new lows - including letting the public think it was an FBI failure and not something worse behind this latest incident.
1
Limit access to the weapons that enable madmen, terrorists and criminals to act on their thoughts. Limit the scope of carnage. Seems pretty simple.
Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of assault rifles outside of military use. Confiscate assault rifles in the general population.
Apply common sense licensing to guns as we do to cars, trucks and barbers.
These will save lives even if we cannot (or until we can) change hearts and minds.
Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of assault rifles outside of military use. Confiscate assault rifles in the general population.
Apply common sense licensing to guns as we do to cars, trucks and barbers.
These will save lives even if we cannot (or until we can) change hearts and minds.
3
Do not let Muslims in Europe or the US by just facing the fact that Islam and a western Democracy are incompatible. Fact: Most Muslims in the world would vote for Sharia Law implementation superior to a country's constitution. If you let them in, you are creating a monstrous future problem and not helping anybody. It is a shortsighted policy that might make some liberal feel good, but long term , it is creating a disaster.
3
Perhaps the solution is to stop imposing Western Democracy in Islamic countries at the point of a gun
11
Trumpism hits Houston. We're the land of the free, as long you're not Muslim.
1
In reply to Art Stone, who stated "Perhaps the solution is to stop imposing Western Democracy in Islamic countries at the point of a gun"... Well, perhaps te solution should be to stop people from imposing Sharia Law in Western Democracies...somehow...
1
He was released after only serving a few years for attacking a couple with a knife and leaving them to bleed to death. In the US that would have drawn a sentence of decades or life and he wouldn't have been able to kill anyone else. People should remember that when they complain about our penal system being too harsh.
1
Actually, Todd, as the article makes clear, Larossi Abballa's prison term was for belonging to a criminal or terrorist organization, not for the knife attack.. The group was arrested after a rabbit-killing episode when some members were found to have terrorist videos on their cell phones. The authorities did not have clear evidence that Abballa participated in the rabbit killing. As the youngest and apparently least influential member, he received a shorter sentence than the seven others in his group. Following his release, he was placed under surveillance for two years, until 2015. The attack on the couple occurred just last week.
The article is about the difficulty of determining how to allot limited resources when many evince interest in terrorism but few get to the point of participating in clearly illegal acts that would permit long sentences. It may be argued that Abballa's association with others in suspicious circumstances should have warranted a longer sentence. However, that discussion is not furthered by people jumping to conclusions based on careless reading and fuzzy thinking.
The article is about the difficulty of determining how to allot limited resources when many evince interest in terrorism but few get to the point of participating in clearly illegal acts that would permit long sentences. It may be argued that Abballa's association with others in suspicious circumstances should have warranted a longer sentence. However, that discussion is not furthered by people jumping to conclusions based on careless reading and fuzzy thinking.
1
He was released after two years for belonging to a terrorist organization. After his release he killed the couple with the knife.
1
The headline question, "how do you stop a future terrorist act when the only evidence is a thought" is easy. Almost all the world wide terrorist threats today are Muslim thoughts. The world must pursue Muslims in every thought, word, and deed. Next, institutionalize known mentally ill people. We used to do it. Do it again. Then 90% of the problem is solved. Today, coddling of both of these biggest threats, is why terrorism is so prevalent. We must attack the PEOPLE who do the acts and not the things they use. Now you know!
1
If a predator drone drops a guided bomb on a wedding celebration, does that cause terror?
All the more reason to encourage the development of a culture of self protection instead of encouraging people to cower in "gun free zones." The Second Amendment establishes the right of people to maintain their security, particularly when the government can't. It's a terrible thing to have to do, but that's what we've come to.
1
I think first, we have to decide what terrorism is, and is it ever justified. The British called the Americans Revolutionaries and the IRA terrorists. Goliath called David a terrorist for using a weapon while he was unarmed. Native Americans and African slaves killed indiscriminately when revolting. Were they terrorists? Hiroshima? I don't justify or condone any violence, I'm just trying to understand.
1
This nation has already moved substantially toward the unconscionable practice of punishing people before they have committed a crime. We do it to persons who have been previously convicted and have served their sentences. We do it to accused persons who have not yet been convicted by using excessive bail requirements as punishment even though the person has not been tried or convicted.
Now we are moving to do it to people who have neither been convicted nor accused of having committed a crime. There is great clamor anticipatory punishment not only for terrorism (which is usually vaguely and overly broadly defined), for domestic abuse, for so-called sex crimes, A great many people even want to deny Constitutional rights to people who have not been convicted of any crime (gun rights of persons accused but not determined by court to be mentally disturbed).
When you combine this desire for anticipatory punishment with the intense spying that the government now does on every one of us, you get what we will soon have........a police state.
Now we are moving to do it to people who have neither been convicted nor accused of having committed a crime. There is great clamor anticipatory punishment not only for terrorism (which is usually vaguely and overly broadly defined), for domestic abuse, for so-called sex crimes, A great many people even want to deny Constitutional rights to people who have not been convicted of any crime (gun rights of persons accused but not determined by court to be mentally disturbed).
When you combine this desire for anticipatory punishment with the intense spying that the government now does on every one of us, you get what we will soon have........a police state.
2
'“We are in fact drowning in intelligence,” said Alain Bauer, a professor of criminology at the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts in Paris.'
Is AI data mining being used? If not then this should be a priority for all the world.
Is AI data mining being used? If not then this should be a priority for all the world.
1
How about arrest those who are studying terrorist attack tactics while also owning or acquiring arsenals of weapons? This shows intent and mindset. Also, if community members can alert police about hate-spewing extremists in their midst, that can be quite helpful.
3
Neither of these actions are crimes.
You don't need to place any one in detention. But that does not mean that FBI should check off and clear people so easily. Possibly FBI is not using a correct algorithm to "profile" suspects. Yes I said "profile" which is not so PC. But don't we profile people when we hire someone? I am not talking about profiling based on people's color or religion. Consider the "odd factors". For example 1. this guy - is the son of a prominent Muslim. Why was he keeping a security job and license? It just shows that this has been years in the making. Carnage was always his goal. 2. the wanna be terrorist gets married to a woman just for the sake of creating a progeny but then always separates from this Fake family before the act 3. the husband and wife pair in Europe seemed to be just plants not even real 4. people who go around trying to purchase weaponizable materials, not just guns.
Use people who knows the culture to profile these wanna be terrorists.
Use people who knows the culture to profile these wanna be terrorists.
2
Sure, start locking up folks in preventative detention, for what they might do or what they think. Or what security state agency officials suspect, assume, conjecture they may be thinking or what they might do.
Say good bye to freedom and the Bill of Rights.
Reality = There is no way to live in a society that enjoys robust freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and others and be completely "safe". Further, it is a folly, and an expensive one at that, to try to provide that level of so called "security."
Say good bye to freedom and the Bill of Rights.
Reality = There is no way to live in a society that enjoys robust freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and others and be completely "safe". Further, it is a folly, and an expensive one at that, to try to provide that level of so called "security."
5
Children and adolescents who kill animals - in my experience when on staff on an inpatient psychiatric unit - this was a sign of mental health issues.
No matter what, the madness of crowds historically has demonstrated the idea that the disturbed thinking of one or two individuals can proliferate into world-sized problems.
Read up on the Hitler Youth and their requirements to kill baby animals.
What these extremist people do is not an original idea. It is still difficult to detect, but when the signs are there, people need to pay attention to potential outcomes and watch them like a hawk.
No matter what, the madness of crowds historically has demonstrated the idea that the disturbed thinking of one or two individuals can proliferate into world-sized problems.
Read up on the Hitler Youth and their requirements to kill baby animals.
What these extremist people do is not an original idea. It is still difficult to detect, but when the signs are there, people need to pay attention to potential outcomes and watch them like a hawk.
4
Since the NY Times deliberately blurred France and Mateen in this story, I've heard no reports that Mateen killed animals or collected beheading videos.
According to Univision, his motive was to kill Latino males who he believed might have given him HIV
According to Univision, his motive was to kill Latino males who he believed might have given him HIV
How about a ban on assault weapons? Or at the very least, if someone is on the no-fly list, prevent him from legally buying a gun. Both of those things are doable immediately. But our NRA-backed senators are preventing those things from happening, and they are arming future terrorists as a result.
3
Neither would have stopped him and both are serious infringements of constitutional rights.
Is there something "new" about living in a "safe" society? It isn't possible to control thought. But, it IS possible to prevent thought from ascending into terror.
Terrorism is wholly and entirely based on outrageous and deranged act, is it not? So, if an individual's thought follow along the lines of outrageous and deranged, what would prevent them from at some point from going off the deep end? In a word, "punishment."
When you study how far the US has gone in becoming an enabler nation, you see why no individual today with the idea of terrorism in their minds fears the consequences of what they do. They simply possess NO sense of shame. And why don't they? Because we live in a society that so abhors the idea of shame that we go to great lengths to prevent shame in any form. We get what we asked for.
This is the age of "So what?" That's the mentality we live with. So what if 11 little kids are killed? It satisfied the killer didn't it? So what if another 49 people are dead? The killer exacted the satisfaction HE wanted, didn't he?
When parents began to refuse to allow their children to understand how shame for what they do is part of their failings and errors, it spawned a generation that no longer fears shame and therefore, has no conscience.
When you consider the vile, subhuman acts of ISIS upon other human beings, you see just how far below the level of sanity, civilization has fallen. They have no shame, no conscience and seek only self-satisfaction.
Terrorism is wholly and entirely based on outrageous and deranged act, is it not? So, if an individual's thought follow along the lines of outrageous and deranged, what would prevent them from at some point from going off the deep end? In a word, "punishment."
When you study how far the US has gone in becoming an enabler nation, you see why no individual today with the idea of terrorism in their minds fears the consequences of what they do. They simply possess NO sense of shame. And why don't they? Because we live in a society that so abhors the idea of shame that we go to great lengths to prevent shame in any form. We get what we asked for.
This is the age of "So what?" That's the mentality we live with. So what if 11 little kids are killed? It satisfied the killer didn't it? So what if another 49 people are dead? The killer exacted the satisfaction HE wanted, didn't he?
When parents began to refuse to allow their children to understand how shame for what they do is part of their failings and errors, it spawned a generation that no longer fears shame and therefore, has no conscience.
When you consider the vile, subhuman acts of ISIS upon other human beings, you see just how far below the level of sanity, civilization has fallen. They have no shame, no conscience and seek only self-satisfaction.
6
I have seen extensive amounts of horror and recognition of wrongdoing at the atrocity in Orlando and the killing of children. Do you really think people rationalize it like this? While it goes unspoken that a politically influential group of Americans agree that these murders are an acceptable tradeoff for their distorted version of the Constitution, they are in no way a mainstream majority. These sentences derail your argument:
That's the mentality we live with. So what if 11 little kids are killed? It satisfied the killer didn't it? So what if another 49 people are dead? The killer exacted the satisfaction HE wanted, didn't he?"
That's the mentality we live with. So what if 11 little kids are killed? It satisfied the killer didn't it? So what if another 49 people are dead? The killer exacted the satisfaction HE wanted, didn't he?"
1
Yes, thank you. Still, terrorists are deranged collectively. It us an act of mercy to stop a young man in his tracks as soon as they say the word Isis.
Based on recent cases, a long term solution may be immigration reform restricting immigration from dangerous areas. Many of those called "Home Grown" are second generation immigrants. If I remember correctly, the Orlando shooter, Nadil Hasan, the Boston Bomber, the San-Bernardine male shooter, and at least some of the French terrorists were the Children of parents from dangerous part of the world. Having prevented the immigration of their parents would have prevented them from being "Home Grown" in western countries. Assimilation of western values like limiting the use of force to obtain justice to secular government, freedom of religion provided it does not impact another rights, inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, may be among the most important. In the case of 2nd generation terrorist, how many of their first generation parents truly embraced these values? How many believed in a superior system of religious law being above western secular law?
By preventing future terrorist from being in a host country in the first place, there is no need to have civil rights restrictions on citizens to prevent terrorism.
By preventing future terrorist from being in a host country in the first place, there is no need to have civil rights restrictions on citizens to prevent terrorism.
10
Gee, that's a tough one. Perhaps we go where the fish are, namely focus on the religion that is the source of the problem? Is that too tough to comprehend? Insurance companies assess risk based on decades of observed and chronicled behaviors, that is, by profiling. There's a reason EL AL is the safest airline; the heroic and no-nonsense Isralies understand who the enemy is. Would that the Ostrich-In-Chief take a lesson and have his fellow citizens' safety as his uppermost concern.
5
How many times was I going to do things that were stupid, dangerous, self-destructive—whatever—but stopped myself at the last moment?
Too many.
Thing is, I didn't do them.
I thought about them, fantasized about them, got very close to doing some...and then thought better of it.
Unless we get into criminalizing certain thoughts, you can't ethically, morally act against it.
Philip K. Dick, where are you now that we need you?
Too many.
Thing is, I didn't do them.
I thought about them, fantasized about them, got very close to doing some...and then thought better of it.
Unless we get into criminalizing certain thoughts, you can't ethically, morally act against it.
Philip K. Dick, where are you now that we need you?
3
Yes, but if youbtalk about committing a crime, and incite others to commit a crime, or invite criminals to approach you, you are risking the well-being of others and you should be stopped.
How do you stop'em?
Well, that's easy. We can lock up all of "them" (you know who I mean), a Trump-like solution that will surely work. But then, if we lock up all gun-owners and those who might be thinking of getting one, then we might stop most mass-murders, so maybe we should also consider that option.
Well, that's easy. We can lock up all of "them" (you know who I mean), a Trump-like solution that will surely work. But then, if we lock up all gun-owners and those who might be thinking of getting one, then we might stop most mass-murders, so maybe we should also consider that option.
2
Saddam Hussein and other tyrants that we have deposed would have known what to do with those ticking time bombs. They would have simply disappeared.
7
Can you not arrest people for animal cruelty? Seems like a dead giveaway, then you've got a record you can keep track of.
3
This is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Until we learn as a species we truly do not know the will of God, we will have fundamentalist of all stripes acting out.
1
Perhaps we might think for a moment about the roots of this problem and adjust our foreign policy to, at least, avoid creating new terrorists. That means we must stop going to war unnecessarily, stop droning civilians at weddings, etc., start communication with Muslims all over the globe and a long, long list of other measures which have been demonstrated to decrease hostilities instead of rubbing salt into wounds.
2
In answer to the question posed by your headline, how about making mental health care freely available? This has been talked about endlessly, with no resulting action. In general, improving our society could go a long way.... But these are big questions with very big answers and we seem a very long way from doing anything, other than just letting people be killed at random.
1
. Focus on the mosques. Omar Mateen was the second jihadist to come from his little mosque. That mosque and its imam need surveillance.
1
The same problem applies to other angry young men with guns. In recent months a neighbor--one who has been to my house--has become increasingly paranoid, talking incessantly about the importance of defending himself against the federal government. His sister is very worried about his mental stability, but he has never committed a crime. Last month he bought an AK-15. What are we to do?
168
You are clamoring for preventive punishment, punishment when no crime has been committed. Thus you are prepared to put someone in prison based solely on accusation or even mere fear that they might commit a future crime. Imagine how fragile becomes the freedom of everyone (including YOU) in such a nation.
2
Involuntary commitment, theres nothing stopping someone like that from committing mass murder, all it takes is a crazy rationalization against a target, you not only have a responsibility to help him stabilize but protect the public as he seems unstable and in possession of deadly weapons
1
Duck. No, seriously, we can't decide to punish people for what they might do, instead of what they have done. Who amongst us is not a potential murderer? Or wife beater? What if men who imagined beating their wives were punishable, on the grounds that they were more likely to do so than those who didn't? The web has contributed to the spread of paranoia, and paranoids tend to arm themselves, especially when it's so easy. I feel for you. Keep a low profile.
3
How to Stop a Future Terrorist Who Hasn’t Broken a Law?
By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI
You can't.
You CAN control who has assess to guns.
It's that simple.
By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI
You can't.
You CAN control who has assess to guns.
It's that simple.
147
Simple? Really? We are a country who's founding declarative statement guarantees the right to bear arms. Have you looked into what it would take to ratify a constitutional amendment? Not very simple.
3
Obama can't or won't control illegal immigrants and drugs crossing our borders. How do you expect that he could prevent guns? Or perhaps he could but simply doesn't want to.
1
USMC1977 The Constitution clearly says "a well regulated militia". Surely you understand what that means...
2
One way to increase the detection rate of wanna be terrorists in the US would be to have more stringent requirements for obtaining guns. Then, they would be under more scrutiny as they attempted to obtain them.
But of course the politicians in Congress, thinking more about their fat paychecks than about us, can't be bothered. People in this country need to make the imposition of gun control a top priority, and vote accordingly this November.
But of course the politicians in Congress, thinking more about their fat paychecks than about us, can't be bothered. People in this country need to make the imposition of gun control a top priority, and vote accordingly this November.
66
Until we extract the tentacles of the global corporate squids from our government, you will not get gun control passed. They make too much money off of selling weapons, and selling you protection from the fear the weapons create.
There is only one issue: will we take back our government from the global oligarchy? Until we do, all other policy choices are moot, because they are not ours to decide.
There is only one issue: will we take back our government from the global oligarchy? Until we do, all other policy choices are moot, because they are not ours to decide.
or finding a needle in a needle stack, more like - so time for the Minority Report or thinkpol, eh?
Has our individual/collective fear of death (or even that of our loved ones) really allowed us to backslide so far as to embrace outright tyranny in the name of security? Ben Franklin, Nathan Hale & Patrick Henry would be sorely disappointed...
Has our individual/collective fear of death (or even that of our loved ones) really allowed us to backslide so far as to embrace outright tyranny in the name of security? Ben Franklin, Nathan Hale & Patrick Henry would be sorely disappointed...
18
You could start by allowing people (like ICE or the FBI) to read their publically expressed thoughts!
2
Depending on the thought, i.e. if it calls for murder, or mayhem, or terror, that should be a crime. It is called "mens rea", i.e. guilty mind. In the old common law of England, an overt act in furtherance of the thought was not needed. Nor should it be needed when people voice calls to action inciting others to commit murder and terror. The statute would pass constitutional muster. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. All speech and all "thoughts" once verbalized are not protected. If we wait for the act in furtherance of the crime, it will be too late.
4
You should check your sources. You actually can yell fire in a crowded theatre under some circumstances. As to passing Constitutional muster you would have to show intent not thought . In our country you can say or believe anything you like. It is our way. You just can't act upon those thoughts if they are illegal.
4
Reason must reign over religion, because it's our only hope against the mind virus.
7
What does one use an AR-15 for besides mass killing?
98
I too am curious about that one.
1
Target shooting, home defense, hunting many animals, especially Feral pigs (definitely want the 30 round mags for pigs), just to name a few.
I own am AR-15 and I love to target shoot. Lol every single time I get an anti-gun liberal to shoot the AR, they turn straight into a gun supporter. I have shot thousands of 5.56 rounds, but I have never killed a single animal or person. I love America, and I am proud to be able to own an AR-15 as a civilian.
I own am AR-15 and I love to target shoot. Lol every single time I get an anti-gun liberal to shoot the AR, they turn straight into a gun supporter. I have shot thousands of 5.56 rounds, but I have never killed a single animal or person. I love America, and I am proud to be able to own an AR-15 as a civilian.
1
Jacqueline If you really love the challenge of target shooting, try a single shot type of gun. Much harder to hit the target, but a lot more satisfying when you do.
1
Well, one thing we can do is limit people's access to weapons designed for mass murder.
117
FBI Director Comey recently said that we're not only forced to look for needles in haystacks, but we must find straws that might turn into needles. It's not going to be easy--if it's even possible at all.
17
How about trying to reform these "straws" instead of just throwing them in prison to freely associate with other straws and increase their frustrations?
Where is the true reformatory? That's the way to reduce terrorism, and violent crime in general: treat these people, with psychotherapy or drugs, and isolate them from other criminals.
Easy to say, hard to do.
Where is the true reformatory? That's the way to reduce terrorism, and violent crime in general: treat these people, with psychotherapy or drugs, and isolate them from other criminals.
Easy to say, hard to do.
Clinton said she was going to make a push to go after lone wolves. The only way to do that is increase surveillance of everyone. How much freedom do we need to give away to be safe from people that kill less people than lightning?
Are we the land of the slaves and home of the fearful?
Grow some balls all of you that are so afraid you want to give more and more of you freedom to the government and global corporations!
Are we the land of the slaves and home of the fearful?
Grow some balls all of you that are so afraid you want to give more and more of you freedom to the government and global corporations!
You don't. You make it harder for them to have access to the weapons that they would commit crime with--mainly guns. Will this stop every "terrorist"? No. Not the very determined ones. But you stop the ones who may be halfhearted about it or who have conflicts that make any obstacle a deterrent.
81
Do you mean pressure cookers like the ones the Tsarnaev brothers used at the Boston Marathon, or Fertilizer and diesel fuel that Tim McVeigh used in Oklahoma City, or acetone and peroxide (obtained at a beauty supply warehouse) that Najibullah Zazi tried to used when he conspired to blow up the NY subway, or PETN that Omar Abdulmullatab laced in his underware when attempting to bring down an airliner in Detroit?
3
I wondered how long it would take someone to start that mantra of feel good prohibition. That's exactly what you want to do, move people to bombs instead of guns. At least you have a chance with them.
But I also notice the comment was 'make it harder to have access to the weapons they would commit crime with' and then said guns. That is either a lame attempt at disguising the real agenda behind the comment or just flat impractical. What would be on the list other than everything. You can make gunpowder with fecal matter just like you can policy.
But I also notice the comment was 'make it harder to have access to the weapons they would commit crime with' and then said guns. That is either a lame attempt at disguising the real agenda behind the comment or just flat impractical. What would be on the list other than everything. You can make gunpowder with fecal matter just like you can policy.
1
Feel good prohibition? You mean the opposite of feel good universal access?
1
You can't unless you want to ban free thinking. Any more than you can stop a madman like the killer at Newtown. Leaving aside the fact that people like Mateen are mad by definition. Actually what Comey said was that the real difficulty was finding pieces of hay in the nationwide haystack that may turn into needles. An infinitely greater challenge than looking for needles.
56
Was Mateen mentally ill?
But this is hay that turned into a needle they had already found. Obviously, this is not a job for the FBI, but one for our entire dysfunctional society, one we are unwilling to take on.
1
As a lone wolf, Mateen's only access to assault weaponry was to purchase it himself. Given his security history, broader gun control measures could have possibly prevented that access.
31