What Exactly is Terrorism?

[Jeff Matthews]

I think I am hearing Zen and Travis propose that since documents don't always (or may seldomly) predict terrorism, we should allow undocumented people to come here.

[Zen Traveler]

 

 

My aim was at the current issue:  whether we should bring undocumented Syrian "refugees" here into our land.

 

They didn't commit the crime.

[Jeff Matthews]

Yep, that's what I thought I was hearing.

[Paducah Home Theater]

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/12/breaking-authorities-now-confirming-our-worst-fears-about-san-bernardino-shooter/

Apparently they just confirmed that this guy has been in contact with multiple international terrorist suspects (or people of interest) that the FBI was already investigating, on the phone and social media. What exactly is the point of all our wiretap technology if we can't pick up on such obvious things before things go south? If a guy travels to Saudi Arabia then maintains contact with multiple known terrorist subjects, why isn't that guy being checked out?

Edited December 3, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Zen Traveler]

 

 

 

One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Refugees being brought in but not being screened thoroughly? A porous border?

Or let's assume our security apparatus' are genuinely working to identify threats and eliminate them - then why would these things be said:

"ISIS is contained." Just prior to the Paris attacks.

"There is no imminent threat." Just a week ago.

Does anyone in the media have the guts to ask the questions regarding those statements vs. reality? No.

 

Because you have a lying, policy-driven, ideological administration which will say or do anything to further its agenda regardless of the events and occurrences which reality throws to the people.  The answer is, "No.  There is no desire to combat terrorism if to do so would hamper "greater policy."

 

Is it a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top? With a complicit media? And does half the nation stand in defense of these actions? Can they not see it or do they simply incapable of critical thought and fall in line and believe whatever they are told?

I'm hard-pressed that on one hand we are waging a war against terrorism (don't get me laughing) across the world while allowing suspect individuals to casually enter the country in the name of compassion while simultaneously demanding that the populace become labored to defend themselves domestically from the very threats we face!

I find such a position insane.

 

 

Exactly!  

 

 

How can the above not be a political statement. Fwiw, I think few Americans understand what is going on in Syria and Iraq and think the Media leads one to believe that the  current Administration is the one at fault--What is going on over there WAS predicted prior to this Administration ever coming into office.

[Zen Traveler]

I think I am hearing Zen and Travis propose that since documents don't always (or may seldomly) predict terrorism, we should allow undocumented people to come here.

No. I think they should be documented.

[wvu80]

San Bernardino Questions

Why do all these police wear military desert camouflage?

Why do all the reporters keep referring to "long guns" even after the weapons were identified as AR 15 style rifles? A couple reporters even called the hand guns, "short guns?"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

All the police don't wear dessert cammo.  There were multiple law enforcement dressing in the battle dress of their department, some with all blue, some with cammo, some in all black.  There was sheriff, SB PD, and FBI.  In addition there was a police training class of some kind within 1.5 miles of the first shooting site, and once they got the word there was an active shooter nearby those guys jumped into action immediately and sealed off the area.  That group was likely dressed different as well.

+++

 

 

However, be careful in falling for the whole AR-15 thing the media is trying to push. They were using AK-74's very similar to AK-47's. The media wants us to think it's AR-15's. Yes it's still a semi-auto rifle with high capacity mags but they like to villify AR-15's as if us rednecks who like to shoot paper are the problem. It's not quite the same.

 

 

The SB PD reported each was carrying an AR-15.  More than  5,000 rounds of ammo found was .223 and some 9mm for the hand guns.  I watched the press conference this morning at 9am and that is what the Police Chief said.

 

MetLakeOut, your point is well taken that there was a lot of misinformation reported by the media.  I switched between the major media TV (Fox News, NBC, CBS)

 

A law enforcement source told Fox News that the couple were each carrying an AR-15 rifle and a pistol when they were shot and killed by police after a brief chase in their rented black Ford Expedition with Utah plates about 2 miles from the initial shooting site. The source said the vehicle also contained so-called "rollout bags" with multiple pipe bombs, as well as additional ammunition.

 

In addition to the explosives found in the SUV, authorities discovered and detonated three pipe bombs late Wednesday at the Inland Regional Center, the complex where the initial shooting took place about 60 miles east of Los Angeles. Another source said investigators discovered a dozen pipe bombs in the house, as well as small explosives strapped to remote-controlled cars - a signature of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, according to counter-terrorism experts. Police also found thousands of .223-caliber and 9mm rounds at the home.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/03/2-suspects-killed-shootout-san-bernardino-massacre-14-killed/?intcmp=hpbt1

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by wvu80

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

My aim was at the current issue:  whether we should bring undocumented Syrian "refugees" here into our land.

 

They didn't commit the crime.

 

 

This tells volumes!

 

So, how do you know?  Are you wanting to apply a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard?  You sure jump awfully quickly to the defense of people you know absolutely nothing about.   And I mean absolutely nothing.  These are the ones who "didn't commit the crime?"  LOL!  You should know.  What a great national policy position!

[Jeff Matthews]

 

I think I am hearing Zen and Travis propose that since documents don't always (or may seldomly) predict terrorism, we should allow undocumented people to come here.

No. I think they should be documented.

 

 

LOL again.  This is setting 'em up to hit them out of the park!

 

Let's document undocumented people who we let into this country.  What do you suppose these new documents we issue will say?  "These people aren't terrorists?"

[LarryC]

Terrorism is the use of violence, or threat of violence to further a political or religious agenda.

Re the thread topic, the following is from the FBI website, as spelled out in federal law:

 

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801©.

Edited December 3, 2015 by LarryC

[Bella]

One must wonder if there is actually a desire in this administration to prevent terrorism at all. It's hard to conceive. Refugees being brought in but not being screened thoroughly? A porous border?

Or let's assume our security apparatus' are genuinely working to identify threats and eliminate them - then why would these things be said:

"ISIS is contained." Just prior to the Paris attacks.

"There is no imminent threat." Just a week ago.

Does anyone in the media have the guts to ask the questions regarding those statements vs. reality? No.

I don't think you have one accurate statement in that entire post. Do you have a soure for any of that, other than Ted Cruz' speach last night.

He sent his thiughts and prayers by the way.

As you seem so inclined to use language designed to characterize my posts as extreme and by extension, without merit, allow me my shot:

Ahh. A product of the government comes to the rescue? Why am I not surprised?

So that we are clear, let’s identify your bias in the debate in that you profit directly in the very heart of the machination to which many millions of Americans are enslaved: the judicial system, which is no longer nothing more than a money-making scheme designed to line the pockets of a very few ‘select’ individuals willing to cast aside all reason and logic in favor of ‘the law’ which is nothing more than what some legislator (who is probably already a lawyer themselves!) decides needs to be law (which almost always results in a burden to the people) and then beyond that, nothing more than what another lawyer in a black gown determines it really means.

Which will usually result in a negative monetary impact upon the poor soul who haplessly became entrapped in this corrupt system, innocently looking for what his government schooling taught him to be ‘justice,’ but ends up poorer and likely in jail while his ‘council’ profits handsomely from what the system grotesquely turned into, as I’ve pointed out, a purely for profit industry.

I assume you ARE a lawyer from the narcissist display of your avatar and screen name? You may as well have taken a picture of your law license and used it instead, but I suppose that would have been too egocentric? Never the less, I’m not impressed, nor if your intention is to intimidate, intimidated.

Now that we’ve established your government bias, let’s explore just one of the things I posted that you have labeled as untrue, shall we?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-terror-attacks-obama-isis-contained/index.html

I’m not going to re-educate you. That’s up to you. If you’d like to explore alternatives to your incorrect dogma, that’s up to you. I really couldn’t care less what you ‘think’ you know – however incorrect it may be. I’m here only to give my opinion of the facts as my research has exposed them. I’m sorry you may not be up to handling them - Cognitive Dissonance affects many people - but again, that’s up to you to change.

[Zen Traveler]

Let's document undocumented people who we let into this country. What do you suppose these new documents we issue will say? "These people aren't terrorists?"

 

Again, this is an outlandish statement and the fact is the ones that are already here haven't caused terrorism.

[Paducah Home Theater]

The SB PD reported each was carrying an AR-15.  More than  5,000 rounds of ammo found was .223 and some 9mm for the hand guns.  I watched the press conference this morning at 9am and that is what the Police Chief said.

 

MetLakeOut, your point is well taken that there was a lot of misinformation reported by the media.  I switched between the major media TV (Fox News, NBC, CBS)

Here is a closeup of a spent shell casing at the scene. The original reports said an AK-47 style rifle, but if you look at this casing, it's shorter than usual, making an AK-74 more probable. Of course it could be an optical illusion somehow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3343309/At-TWENTY-people-gunned-California-mass-shooting-police-search-three-suspects.html

 

 

 

Here's what they look like side by side compared with what was picked up.  Second from the left is a .223, to the right of it is an AK-74.  The one on the right was the spent shell casing that was found.  Again, could be an optical illusion, but this seems pretty damning to me.  Not just the length but look at the neck.  

 

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Zen Traveler]

Here is a closeup of a spent shell casing at the scene. The original reports said an AK-47 style rifle, but if you look at this casing, it's shorter than usual, making an AK-74 more probable. Of course it could be an optical illusion somehow.

 

Are those both Military assault rifles?

[Paducah Home Theater]

 

Here is a closeup of a spent shell casing at the scene. The original reports said an AK-47 style rifle, but if you look at this casing, it's shorter than usual, making an AK-74 more probable. Of course it could be an optical illusion somehow.

 

Are those both Military assault rifles?

 

 

An AR-15, AK-47, and AK-74 are all semi-auto rifles with high cap mags.  It would just be interesting to me if they changed the designation to fit a narrative instead of reporting what's accurate.  I can just see the powers to be telling everybody it was an AR when it really wasn't, just to villify them, plus the public doesn't really know what an AK-74 is.  But hey, I love a good conspiracy theory.  

Edited December 3, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Travis In Austin]

Well here is a FACT, statistically you have a greater chance of being killed by a white, right-wing, domestic terrorist in the US,than a foreign terrorist.

This might be true. Let's just take it at face value and say it is. So, what? Does this mean we should let undocumented people into this country?

You lost me with undocumemted. I thought initial indication was that Farook was American.

Boston Marathon bombers were documented as far as I recall.

I am missing the documented/undocumented connection.

Yes. There's not much we can do about citizens. They have the right to live here. As regards the documented Boston bombers, you can't turn back the clock. Documents don't always predict everything.

My aim was at the current issue: whether we should bring undocumented Syrian "refugees" here into our land.

What does one have to do with the other?

Well let's start with the Christian refugees in Syria, should we bring them in?

I know a family in Kentucky, their Grandfather came to US from Syria in beginning of 20th century to escape religious cleansing, a refugee, and ended up opening of clothing stores all over Kentucky. I think there are about 100 3rd generation cousins all across Kentucky, all Syrian Americans.

You know as well as I do that it is much more complex. There is geography, religion, factions within one religion, and political infighting, and two Superpowers flexing their muscles.

Anyone who thinks this is simply about Islam and that this problem can be answered and ending the analysis there has no understanding of what the real terrorist threats are, and thus, how to effectively confront and prevent them.

That seminar I went to last week at UT, with teal counter-terrorism professionals, from this and previous administrations, are really above the political sound bites. Military response was discussed in the same way, going back to the Beirut bombing in '86.

That French response a couple of weeks ago, they asked the US if they could participate, after sitting out, and we gave them the target packages.

So far I see a lot of fear mongering, political gamesmanship and posturing, and very little substance. I see no real solutions.

Just thoughts and prayers.

[Jeff Matthews]

Well let's start with the Christian refugees in Syria, should we bring them in?

 

No.  I hope that puts your concerns at rest. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

Well let's start with the Christian refugees in Syria, should we bring them in?

 

The problem isn't Christian Syrian refugee families.  The problem is with the thousands of other single men from other middle eastern countries who are exploiting the situation to better their personal economic situation, then expect the host nations to adapt to their culture and not the other way around.  They have ticked off half of Europe with their shenanigans.  

[MercedesBerater]

I believe it takes 2 years to clear the refugee status and gain entry into our country.

Terrorists can come in much easier than a refugee status.

[Jim Naseum]

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/12/breaking-authorities-now-confirming-our-worst-fears-about-san-bernardino-shooter/

Apparently they just confirmed that this guy has been in contact with multiple international terrorist suspects (or people of interest) that the FBI was already investigating, on the phone and social media. What exactly is the point of all our wiretap technology if we can't pick up on such obvious things before things go south? If a guy travels to Saudi Arabia then maintains contact with multiple known terrorist subjects, why isn't that guy being checked out?

Makes ya wonder donut?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk