sass

Out of interest, do you have any idea whatsoever of what this vetting procedure entails ? I'm guessing not

I'm not guessing...

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees ... g-process/

sass

You're not comparing like with like. The risk that people are concerned about is a very specific one relating to refugees from Syria where it's known that an active terrorist organisation has been seeking to infiltrate their people into the west in the guise of refugees

.
Yeah. But those refugees who are Iraqis, the largest group in your data...they also come from the part of the world where ISIS started and in some places now has control.
And by the way, most Iraqis refugees are Sunni. Shia are in the ascendancy in Iraq.
Moreover, unless you have a way of distinguishing where the Iraqis refugees came from, there's a pretty good chance they came from Syria. Why?

Syria has historically offered assistance to Iraqi refugees.[17] At the beginning of 2007, the UNHCR estimated that the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria was over 1.2 million.[17] [1] 80-90% of the Iraqi refugee population lives in the capital city of Damascus.[5] The reason for its large refugee population can be attributed to more than just geography. Until 2007, Syria maintained an open-door policy to Iraqis fleeing the war-ravaged country. [1

sass

The risk that people are concerned about is a very specific one relating to refugees from Syria where it's known that an active terrorist organisation has been seeking to infiltrate their people into the west in the guise of refugees. How do we know that

Actually we don't know that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... dont-know/

We do know that ISIS wants the west to be afraid of refugees. So they make claims that they will infiltrate them. Why? Because it serves their purpose to pit Islam against the West. it fits their narrative.

sass

First you said we had this failsafe 'vetting procedure' (details unspecified) which meant that the risk is already virtually eliminated and yet here you are saying that we need to adopt a blunt instrument ban on young men ?

Did I use the term fail safe? I said it was very good. And I also said that the profile of ISIS terrorists are young single men. I assume that the authorities are paying special attention to single young men, because I think they are competent.
The argument against refugees comes down to a claim that American authorities are somehow completely incompetent. I don't buy that. Why do you?
I know Canada is taking 35,000 refugees. 10,000 in the next month and the authorities have publicly stated they are focused on families.

sass

I do agree that the risk in any individual case is likely to be relatively small.

Well good. Then the positives in taking refugees have to be considered too. That it will reduce the ISIS argument that this is war of civilizations between Islam and Christians and Jews.
That it is morally the right thing to do to reach out and help.
And..... that the risk represented is actually far smaller, for an American, than being shot by a domestic terrorist or as a result of other criminal violence. And yet there is no great move to prevent any of these deaths...
The risk from refugees has been greatly exaggerated only for political effect.
You do remember the pants shitting over Ebola?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Sorry for the delay... Been vacationing in the mountains of Idaho...

What should we do about domestic terrorism?

Same thing we should do against foreign terrorism. Kill them when they perform such things.

Nothing to try and prevent them in the first place?

Just what I have said before. Screen them for weapon purchases, and punish them for breaking the laws existing on the books such as making terrorist threats, giving money or support to terrorist organizations, et. al.

Well, before you were a bit shakey on the weapon purchase screening - just talking about the background check (which over 2000 people who are on the terror watch list have passed and so bought a weapon).

Do you have any input on what you would do to stop both domestic and foreign terrorism, or do you just wish to judge others?

Maybe that's why you ask questions...

And on that subject, your questions tend to be "closed" - such as ones that require a yes/no answer - but that is frustrating when the issue is wider than a one-dimensional question would suggest (and .

I asked an open question (and it was not just addressed to you, but to anyone if they want to come up with something) which gives you as much latitude as you want to answer it. Not that you really tried on my original question about incitement.

But, my answer would be that those who have whipped up hysteria about PP should be censured - called out. Especially those with a political platform.

Free speech does not protect one from the repercussions. Liars should be punished. And incitement is not protected at all.

So let's look at who was promoting violence towards PP and investigate them. The internet will point the way.

I think you guys also ought to look at the open-carry laws. If it makes it easier for an armed extremist to operate, it's not a good idea. And the police should in any case be more responsive to reports of an armed man hanging around a potential target. A presence may well have put him off.

Yeah. But those refugees who are Iraqis, the largest group in your data...they also come from the part of the world where ISIS started and in some places now has control.

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. You cited figures covering right the way back to 2001 and including refugees from the entire world and yet when I challenged you on it you now seem obsessed with minutiae. Yes, Iraqis were the largest number. They still represent less than 30% of the total number of accepted refugees from just one of the years since 2001. Syrians don't even come to 1%. The overwhelming majority of the refugees accepted by the US in the time period that you cited are utterly and completely irrelevant to the question of whether there might be risk associated with the Syrians. By continually harking back to the point about the Iraqis you're effectively admitting that your original argument was wrong. It would be nice if you'd have the courtesy to admit it.

And by the way, most Iraqis refugees are Sunni. Shia are in the ascendancy in Iraq.

This is also irrelevant, but it would be interesting to see if you have any source for this claim or if you just pulled it out of your ass. So far you've made a lot of bald assertions that you haven't backed up, and your performance in the migrant crisis thread, where you essentially spouted unsubstantiated bollocks for page after page, makes me disinclined to simply take your word for it.

Actually we don't know that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... dont-know/

We do know that ISIS wants the west to be afraid of refugees. So they make claims that they will infiltrate them. Why? Because it serves their purpose to pit Islam against the West. it fits their narrative.

Sorry, but if there's a fingerprint match to the man who registered in Greece with a Syrian passport then that means that a terrorist entered the EU posing as a Syrian refugee. He may not have actually been a Syrian national, but for the purposes of this discussion that doesn't really matter.

Oh, and do you know what would suit ISIS' narrative even more than pretending to infiltrate Europe through the refugees ? Actually doing it. It's really not that hard. In fact it's pitifully easy to achieve given the complete collapse of the European immigration controls that you've been a cheerleader for, so if this kind of thing is something they want to encourage then why on earth would they not go ahead ?

Did I use the term fail safe? I said it was very good. And I also said that the profile of ISIS terrorists are young single men. I assume that the authorities are paying special attention to single young men, because I think they are competent.
The argument against refugees comes down to a claim that American authorities are somehow completely incompetent. I don't buy that. Why do you?

You said 'good enough to eliminate virtually any chance'.

I should add btw, that the article you linked to early does not include any detail about the vetting process. It's all grandiose bragging from politicians about what a robust system they have, designed to reassure American voters. As I suspected, the extent of your knowledge of the vetting process amounts to a handful of quotes you read in a newspaper.

Ultimately this will be a storm in a teacup, but I do wish you wouldn't act so smug and condescending over this issue when your own arguments are so wonky and ill-formed.

Ricky, something from the previous page.

I'm not familiar with the Daily Beast. Is this a blog or an actual news outlet of some sort?

danivon wrote:If it was politically or religiously motivated, and if he didn't only bring a gun but a bomb (reports from law enforcement suggest he had propane tanks in his vehicle that he tried to detonate), would this be an act of terrorism?

And what about those who incite violence?

He was a nut.

Who incites violence? Are you referring to BLM's chant for dead police officers?

rickyp wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/29/the-gop-ignores-the-bigger-terror-threat-from-the-right.html

You don't hear too much about domestic terrorism in the US. The link above is a list from Daily Beast about recent acts of domestic terrorism.
Conducted by white men. Most who profess to be Christian.

There are 784 active white supremacist groups in the United States per the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC.) And these groups are not just sitting around drinking Jack Daniel’s and cursing minorities. They have radicalized people to commit violent crimes in recent years, such as the six Sikhs gunned down at a temple in Wisconsin in 2012 and the three people murdered at a Jewish Community Center in Kansas in 2014 by white supremacists.

Now, these people might be on a terror watch list, but their second amendment rights are protected and they can get their guns. (Its not just the Muslims....)
And yet politicians are currently focused on the remote chance that an 18 month process can't find ISIS agents within a pool of potential refugees. Refugees who are fleeing terrorism.And that some or even one of them might eventually attempt a terrorist act...

The Gun laws in Colorado are Open carry. Even if police found this guy at Planned Parenthood before he entered the clinic, they couldn't legally have taken his guns. Till he opened fire.
Several weeks before a shooting spree was preceded by 911 calls to report danger from a man carrying weapons.
the response: The 911 operator responded,

“Well, it is an open carry state so he can have a weapon with him or walking around with it

http://kdvr.com/2015/11/04/911-recordin ... ing-spree/

Seems to me that the imagined danger from potential refugees pales in comparison to the actual dangers already built into the system.

Rabbit trail. Please show ANY evidence that Mr. Dear was anything but a mentally-ill loner.

danivon wrote:But, my answer would be that those who have whipped up hysteria about PP should be censured - called out. Especially those with a political platform.

Free speech does not protect one from the repercussions. Liars should be punished. And incitement is not protected at all.

So let's look at who was promoting violence towards PP and investigate them. The internet will point the way.

I think you guys also ought to look at the open-carry laws. If it makes it easier for an armed extremist to operate, it's not a good idea. And the police should in any case be more responsive to reports of an armed man hanging around a potential target. A presence may well have put him off.

I would ask you to please read this. It's not long. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/30/w ... -shall-we/

In an op-ed, another writer makes a few salient points:

Planned Parenthood likes to describe itself in the most anodyne terms as providing "health-care services" to women. But no one would care about the work of Planned Parenthood if all it did was provide routine exams and birth control.

In the wake of Colorado Springs, it hopes to delegitimize its critics. But a broad-based movement shouldn't be tarred by the crimes of one individual (or the excesses of a tiny fringe). In the prelude to the Civil War, there wasn't any doubt about the motives of John Brown, a domestic terrorist committed to fighting slavery. His raid at Harpers Ferry didn't silence abolitionists, although Southern partisans used it to galvanize opinion against them. (One Southern newspaper thundered afterward, "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing.")

When the Weathermen were setting off bombs in the early 1970s, no one said to stop criticizing the Vietnam War. When the Black Panthers were shooting it out with cops, no one said to stop advocating for black rights. When Puerto Rican separatists waged a campaign of terror, no one said that vigorous advocacy of Puerto Rican independence should be off-limits.

Today, most acts of domestic terrorism are committed by radical environmentalists, albeit they typically only involve property damage. Does this mean that we need to tone down the rhetoric about climate change and the allegedly catastrophic threat it represents to the future of humanity? If so, someone needs to get word to John Kerry and Barack Obama in Paris immediately.

The pro-life movement is overwhelmingly peaceful and prayerful, and seeks a more just society where all are welcomed into life. Robert Dear, who wantonly took three lives and wounded nine others, is the antithesis of all that it stands for. Neither his atrocity nor the smears of the left should hinder its work. The debate over abortion will -- and must -- go on.


Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1215/l ... YqFvr4M.99

What we need are better mental health facilities.

Or perhaps different perspective on punishing the "criminally insane".

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If it was politically or religiously motivated, and if he didn't only bring a gun but a bomb (reports from law enforcement suggest he had propane tanks in his vehicle that he tried to detonate), would this be an act of terrorism?

And what about those who incite violence?

He was a nut.

Who incites violence?

Josh Feuerstein. The CMP. Those who produce "wanted" posters. Carly Fiorina.

Yes, it seems he may be an oddball. The sort who is perhaps easily suggestive. Prone to violence. Not objective. Just the sort of person that will act on incitement.

Yes you do need better mental health services. And they need to be publicly funded.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If it was politically or religiously motivated, and if he didn't only bring a gun but a bomb (reports from law enforcement suggest he had propane tanks in his vehicle that he tried to detonate), would this be an act of terrorism?

And what about those who incite violence?

He was a nut.

Who incites violence?

Josh Feuerstein. The CMP. Those who produce "wanted" posters. Carly Fiorina.

Fiorina? I've seen nothing like "violence should be brought against Planned Parenthood." Do you have a specific quote in mind?

I don't even know who the others are and, oddly, you don't seem to want to prove your point.

Yes, it seems he may be an oddball. The sort who is perhaps easily suggestive. Prone to violence. Not objective. Just the sort of person that will act on incitement.

The police quoted him as saying "no more baby parts." He said many other things that they've not given us. He left no manifesto that we know of. He was not affiliated with any group that we know of. We know he's moved around, been violent, and has mental issues. However, there is scant evidence to associate him with some kind of "Planned Parenthood jihad." In fact, it comes down to four words: "no more baby parts." And, that is likely one officer's opinion of what he said. Based on what we've seen, does anyone think we have a clear understanding of the man?

This reminds me of the rush to pin the Gabby Giffords shooting on the Tea Party. The evidence never supported that--and eventually contradicted it. However, it filled liberal blogs for a few days.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If it was politically or religiously motivated, and if he didn't only bring a gun but a bomb (reports from law enforcement suggest he had propane tanks in his vehicle that he tried to detonate), would this be an act of terrorism?

And what about those who incite violence?

He was a nut.

Who incites violence?

Josh Feuerstein. The CMP. Those who produce "wanted" posters. Carly Fiorina.

Fiorina? I've seen nothing like "violence should be brought against Planned Parenthood." Do you have a specific quote in mind?

I don't even know who the others are and, oddly, you don't seem to want to prove your point.

On what basis do you claim that I don't want to prove my point?

Feuerstein is the guy who decided to flip about Starbucks omitting the solemn religious symbols like snowflakes and candy canes from this year's Red Cup. Back in July he made a video in which he said:

"Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.

I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life

That last line sounds like a threat or incitement to deadly violence to me. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... heir-life/

The CMP are the organisation who put out the videos about Planned Parenthood. The "Centre for Medical Progress". You linked to the (heavily edited) videos on another thread, so you definitely have heard of them. By creating and then editing the videos, and splicing in unrelated footage (such as pretending a still birth of a miscarried foetus was an abortion), they have created a climate of hatred towards PP, even though a lot of it has not been upheld by those States holding inquiries.

And Carly Fiorina, who blurted out a claim that was not even on the videos, leading her campaign to create their own even more fallacious edit to retroactively try to substantiate it (and being found out), and refusing to accept that she is wrong, has been unapologetic about her rhetoric, refers to the shooter as a "protester" but somehow thinks it's bad to suggest that there's a link between protesting PP and him.

Some of that is criminal incitement. The rest is legal but those responsible for this climate of hatred when we already had people attacking clinics need to be challenged, not supported.

Yes, it seems he may be an oddball. The sort who is perhaps easily suggestive. Prone to violence. Not objective. Just the sort of person that will act on incitement.

The police quoted him as saying "no more baby parts." He said many other things that they've not given us. He left no manifesto that we know of. He was not affiliated with any group that we know of. We know he's moved around, been violent, and has mental issues. However, there is scant evidence to associate him with some kind of "Planned Parenthood jihad." In fact, it comes down to four words: "no more baby parts." And, that is likely one officer's opinion of what he said. Based on what we've seen, does anyone think we have a clear understanding of the man?

His ex-wife probably understands him better than we do. She has said he targeted Planned Parenthood before. Is that evidence you might bear in mind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pla ... fe-n472421

But the "baby parts" stuff, comes straight out of the CMP videos and the right wing political vendetta against PP that arose.

If you keep calling people murderers, someone might want to step in to "prevent" the murders.

danivon wrote:On what basis do you claim that I don't want to prove my point?

Because you didn't--you assumed (apparently) that everyone knew who and what you were talking about. I certainly didn't.

Feuerstein is the guy who decided to flip about Starbucks omitting the solemn religious symbols like snowflakes and candy canes from this year's Red Cup. Back in July he made a video in which he said:

"Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.

I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life

That last line sounds like a threat or incitement to deadly violence to me. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... heir-life/

Until you mentioned him, I'd never heard of him. I had wondered who was complaining about the Starbucks cups. I knew there was some kind of campaign, but all I'd ever seen was Christians (and non-Christians) complaining about the campaign. I also thought the Starbucks complaints were dumb--it's not a Christian company and the symbols removed were not Christian. Furthermore, companies regularly change their branding and advertising methods. Tempest in a coffee cup.

I agree with what Feuerstein said, until he made the comments about causing them to run and hide. Now, all that's missing is a link between Mr. Dear and Mr. Feuerstein.

I'll wait.

Meanwhile, there ARE links between the Southern Poverty Law Center calling the the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Family Research Council a terror organization and an armed attack upon it. Why aren't people linking that rhetoric?

No, it's not "whataboutery." I'm saying I can prove a link and you cannot.

The CMP are the organisation who put out the videos about Planned Parenthood. The "Centre for Medical Progress". You linked to the (heavily edited) videos on another thread, so you definitely have heard of them. By creating and then editing the videos, and splicing in unrelated footage (such as pretending a still birth of a miscarried foetus was an abortion), they have created a climate of hatred towards PP, even though a lot of it has not been upheld by those States holding inquiries.

I apologize for not recognizing the acronym. Sorry.

You're free to watch the unedited videos. The truth is PP did precisely what CMP claimed. In fact, they announced a stop to the practice:

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a letter Tuesday to the National Institutes of Health that the organization’s affiliates will no longer accept any reimbursement for costs associated with procuring tissue from abortions and providing it to researchers.

And Carly Fiorina, who blurted out a claim that was not even on the videos, leading her campaign to create their own even more fallacious edit to retroactively try to substantiate it (and being found out), and refusing to accept that she is wrong, has been unapologetic about her rhetoric, refers to the shooter as a "protester" but somehow thinks it's bad to suggest that there's a link between protesting PP and him.

Nope. Prove she was wrong.

Some of that is criminal incitement. The rest is legal but those responsible for this climate of hatred when we already had people attacking clinics need to be challenged, not supported.

It's criminal when it's proven to be criminal. Step one: proving any of this motivated Mr. Dear. I anxiously await the proof.

His ex-wife probably understands him better than we do. She has said he targeted Planned Parenthood before. Is that evidence you might bear in mind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pla ... fe-n472421

Her marriage to him officially ended 22 years ago. I'm not sure how much weight her opinion will carry in a court of law. I'm willing to see, but for now, I find that of dubious value.

But the "baby parts" stuff, comes straight out of the CMP videos and the right wing political vendetta against PP that arose.

If he said that, which is still a very thin reed.

If you keep calling people murderers, someone might want to step in to "prevent" the murders.

Again, I'm willing to believe this is possibly motivated by what you say. However, if the evidence you are jumping on proves out to be incorrect, I'll anxiously await your full-throated retraction.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:On what basis do you claim that I don't want to prove my point?

Because you didn't--you assumed (apparently) that everyone knew who and what you were talking about. I certainly didn't.

I figured that using a name you can Google, the acronym of an organisation that you have referenced (and can also google) and a Presidential candidate would not go over too many heads.

I clearly overestimated you. You clearly have time to type, so you not looking is not my problem.

Feuerstein is the guy who decided to flip about Starbucks omitting the solemn religious symbols like snowflakes and candy canes from this year's Red Cup. Back in July he made a video in which he said:

"Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.

I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life

That last line sounds like a threat or incitement to deadly violence to me. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... heir-life/

Until you mentioned him, I'd never heard of him....
... I agree with what Feuerstein said, until he made the comments about causing them to run and hide. Now, all that's missing is a link between Mr. Dear and Mr. Feuerstein.

No. Incitement is incitement.

And his rhetoric is incorrect. In what way do Planned Parenthood "hunt down" foetuses? Their clients come to them, they are not dragged in off the street. The rest is also frankly dubious and is inflammatory rhetoric, totally unfounded: "stuck a knife in the uterus", "threw them bleeding into a trash bin"

Meanwhile, there ARE links between the Southern Poverty Law Center calling the the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Family Research Council a terror organization and an armed attack upon it. Why aren't people linking that rhetoric?

No they did not. The SPLC labelled the FRC a hate group. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ch-council

And as the FRC spread lies associating homosexuality with paedophilia, it appears to me to be a reasonable label.

No, it's not "whataboutery." I'm saying I can prove a link and you cannot.

Now, where can you show what the link is, and also where the SPLC called them a "terror" organisation?

Not that it actually matters when it comes to incitement whether you can also prove a "link" to an act of violence. The incitement stands on its own. I wonder how many gay-bashings the FRC's lies have inspired.

The CMP are the organisation who put out the videos about Planned Parenthood. The "Centre for Medical Progress". You linked to the (heavily edited) videos on another thread, so you definitely have heard of them. By creating and then editing the videos, and splicing in unrelated footage (such as pretending a still birth of a miscarried foetus was an abortion), they have created a climate of hatred towards PP, even though a lot of it has not been upheld by those States holding inquiries.

I apologize for not recognizing the acronym. Sorry.

You're free to watch the unedited videos.

No I am not. The "unedited" videos are still edited.

The truth is PP did precisely what CMP claimed. In fact, they announced a stop to the practice:

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a letter Tuesday to the National Institutes of Health that the organization’s affiliates will no longer accept any reimbursement for costs associated with procuring tissue from abortions and providing it to researchers.

The CMP allegation was that PP were profiteering and maximising income, not just that there were cost reimbursements. Your unsourced quote does not "prove" the CMP right.

Of the 11 States making investigations, none have as yet found anything concrete, and 7 have stopped looking - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... sales.html.

And Carly Fiorina, who blurted out a claim that was not even on the videos, leading her campaign to create their own even more fallacious edit to retroactively try to substantiate it (and being found out), and refusing to accept that she is wrong, has been unapologetic about her rhetoric, refers to the shooter as a "protester" but somehow thinks it's bad to suggest that there's a link between protesting PP and him.

Nope. Prove she was wrong.

On what? She said that the CMP videos showed a moving foetus following an abortion. Then had to find the clip that CMP had spliced in, which was released to back her up. Turns out it is not likely to be an abortion and is likely to be a miscarriage http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... al-experts

Some of that is criminal incitement. The rest is legal but those responsible for this climate of hatred when we already had people attacking clinics need to be challenged, not supported.

It's criminal when it's proven to be criminal. Step one: proving any of this motivated Mr. Dear. I anxiously await the proof. [/quote]No, step 1 is proving that any of them are criminal incitement. I allege that the first one is. Did they also inspire Dear? We will find out, but he does not exist in a vacuum.

His ex-wife probably understands him better than we do. She has said he targeted Planned Parenthood before. Is that evidence you might bear in mind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pla ... fe-n472421

Her marriage to him officially ended 22 years ago. I'm not sure how much weight her opinion will carry in a court of law. I'm willing to see, but for now, I find that of dubious value.

This is not a court of law, but this is indeed a suggestion that the guy has a problem with PP going back a long way. A good job no-one is making a big noise about how evil they are, or he'd take his violent personality and resurrect his campaign, perhaps. Oh. Maybe that's what happened. Or maybe it's all a big coincidence (unless he was a Muslim, in which case that's all the link we need to show why he would do it, yeah?)

But the "baby parts" stuff, comes straight out of the CMP videos and the right wing political vendetta against PP that arose.

If he said that, which is still a very thin reed.

Because cops are well known liars? Because it's unthinkable that a guy who attacks people at a PP centre might be motivated by antipathy towards PP?

If you keep calling people murderers, someone might want to step in to "prevent" the murders.

Again, I'm willing to believe this is possibly motivated by what you say. However, if the evidence you are jumping on proves out to be incorrect, I'll anxiously await your full-throated retraction.

If Dear says it was for any reason other than to try to stop abortions, then I will apologise for upsetting your delicate constitution by suggesting that a massive hate campaign might have violent repercussions.

If we accept that there are mentally ill people out there, some of whom can be violent, should we whip up hysteria?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:On what basis do you claim that I don't want to prove my point?

Because you didn't--you assumed (apparently) that everyone knew who and what you were talking about. I certainly didn't.

I figured that using a name you can Google, the acronym of an organisation that you have referenced (and can also google) and a Presidential candidate would not go over too many heads.

I clearly overestimated you. You clearly have time to type, so you not looking is not my problem.

That is so (unintentionally) funny coming from you! How many times have you demanded I prove (with links) my assertions? If I responded with "I clearly overestimated you. You clearly have time to type, so you not looking is not my problem," I'm sure you'd respond with something quite classy.

I live in a world of acronyms. Pardon me if that one didn't jump right out.

Until you mentioned him, I'd never heard of him....
... I agree with what Feuerstein said, until he made the comments about causing them to run and hide. Now, all that's missing is a link between Mr. Dear and Mr. Feuerstein.

No. Incitement is incitement.

No, incitement is only applicable to THIS case if Mr. Dear was aware of it. Otherwise, it may be "incitement" generally, but it has no bearing on this situation.

And his rhetoric is incorrect. In what way do Planned Parenthood "hunt down" foetuses? Their clients come to them, they are not dragged in off the street. The rest is also frankly dubious and is inflammatory rhetoric, totally unfounded: "stuck a knife in the uterus", "threw them bleeding into a trash bin"

Nope.

While he may be inaccurate in saying the babies are hunted down, PP does advertise and do all that it can to bring pregnant women to its facilities. Further, if I could show you evidence of them killing babies who survive an abortion, would it change your view? if not, I'll not bother.

Meanwhile, there ARE links between the Southern Poverty Law Center calling the the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Family Research Council a terror organization and an armed attack upon it. Why aren't people linking that rhetoric?

No they did not. The SPLC labelled the FRC a hate group. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ch-council

And as the FRC spread lies associating homosexuality with paedophilia, it appears to me to be a reasonable label.

No, it's not "whataboutery." I'm saying I can prove a link and you cannot.

Now, where can you show what the link is, and also where the SPLC called them a "terror" organisation or not? Not that it actually matters when it comes to incitement whether you can also prove a "link" to an act of violence. The incitement stands on its own.

Oh, wait. Let me give this a whirl: I clearly overestimated you. You clearly have time to type, so you not looking is not my problem.

Incitement does not "stand on its own." If Dear was not aware of it, it is irrelevant.

Okay, they didn't call them a terror organization, only an "extremist" group (hence in the "extremist files"). As for a direct link, you really don't see the irony here--that you are too lazy to look after complaining about me?

WASHINGTON -- Floyd Lee Corkins has pled guilty to charges stemming from the August 15 shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council's D.C. headquarters.

Corkins, who carried a handgun, a box of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches when he shot Leo Johnson in the arm, pled guilty to three charges: Transporting a gun across state lines, assault with intent to kill and committing an act of terrorism while armed.

The Washington Post reports details that have emerged about the shooting:

Corkins told FBI agents who interviewed him that day that he “intended to kill as many people as possible” and to “smother Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces,” according to the plea agreement Corkins signed in December.
According to an AP report, Corkins told the judge that "he intended to make a statement against gay rights opponents."

Earlier AP reports also drew this connection:

The Family Research Council has defended Chick-fil-A since the fast-food chain's president, Dan Cathy, spoke publicly about his opposition to gay marriage.
Corkins' parents told investigators that he was a supporter of gay rights, and he said he didn't agree with the FRC's politics before the shooting, according to the documents.
“The shooting was not an accident,” assistant U.S. Attorney T. Patrick Martin said, according to the Washington Post. “He committed to the shooting for political reasons.”

The CMP are the organisation who put out the videos about Planned Parenthood. The "Centre for Medical Progress". You linked to the (heavily edited) videos on another thread, so you definitely have heard of them. By creating and then editing the videos, and splicing in unrelated footage (such as pretending a still birth of a miscarried foetus was an abortion), they have created a climate of hatred towards PP, even though a lot of it has not been upheld by those States holding inquiries.

That is not muddled. It is terrorism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 30614.html

I apologize for not recognizing the acronym. Sorry

.

You're free to watch the unedited videos.

No I am not. The "unedited" videos are still edited.

? To what extent? That they're not continuously filming when someone goes to the bathroom?

Is it fine when doctors talk about using less "crunchy" techniques during an abortion so that some parts are not damaged? (note: it is against federal law to alter a procedure for that purpose)

The truth is PP did precisely what CMP claimed. In fact, they announced a stop to the practice:

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a letter Tuesday to the National Institutes of Health that the organization’s affiliates will no longer accept any reimbursement for costs associated with procuring tissue from abortions and providing it to researchers.

The CMP allegation was that PP were profiteering and maximising income, not just that there were cost reimbursements. Your unsourced quote does not "prove" the CMP right.

Now, you're just laughable. It was a quote. You could have searched it by cutting and pasting if you did not believe me. Here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned-par ... 1444744800 And, the fact that they're stopping the practice . . . why did they? Please, do explain.

On what? She said that the CMP videos showed a moving foetus following an abortion. Then had to find the clip that CMP had spliced in, which was released to back her up. Turns out it is not likely to be an abortion and is likely to be a miscarriage http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... al-experts

It's more complicated than that:

hat’s a pretty big shift. The core of the revised story now reads:

That detailed scene does not occur in the videos, produced by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress. One of the videos, still posted on the center’s YouTube channel as of Friday, shows a woman identified as an “ex-procurement technician” from a firm other than Planned Parenthood discussing harvesting the brain of an aborted fetus.

As the woman talks, the video cuts away to show a fetus that producers say came from an older anti-abortion video. They say the fetus was aborted, though there is no proof of that or that the scene was filmed at a Planned Parenthood facility. There are no other persons shown in the clip discussing collecting any tissue.

A separate image shown later in the video is that of a stillborn baby miscarried in a hospital after 19 weeks of gestation.

After Fiorina was questioned multiple times about her claims, a pro-Fiorina super PAC released an online ad that again included the image, with the claim that “Carly Fiorina won the debate. Now come the false attacks.”

It’s better, though there’s still some confusion here. The “ex-procurement technician” did not work for Planned Parenthood but she did do her work at Planned Parenthood. I don’t think anyone reading the story or the correction would guess that. It seems the AP is trying a little too hard to create distance between Planned Parenthood and talk of harvesting brains.

Also, in the revised version, the line about the “stillborn baby,” which used to be the main point, is no longer necessary. It’s also still incorrect. The image in question is of miscarried baby Walter Fretz who was born alive, not stillborn. This information was sent to the author. It’s not clear why that line was not corrected in the rewrite.

Those readers who’ve been following this story about Fiorina and the videos closely know this isn’t the first time a major media outlet has made these errors. Last week, CNN’s Chris Cuomo made the same erroneous claims in an interview with the head of the group that produced the documentary in question. Cuomo’s confusing interview led to other reporters writing stories suggesting Fiorina’s claims had been completely undercut or even shown to be lies. Some individuals who were confused later corrected themselves, others did not.

The cosmic irony here is that the AP wrote a piece attacking Carly Fiorina for an error in her description of a video and, in the process, made that error themselves. The AP confused a still image of a miscarriage for a video of an aborted baby, claimed the former was “stillborn” and didn’t seem aware the latter video even existed. In short, they completely bungled the facts. And they did so in a way that is much harder to explain than what Fiorina did, i.e. incorrectly conflating the video and the story as being about the same fetus.

It’s worth pointing out that Fiorina was speaking live in front of a large television audience. That’s no excuse for being wrong, ultimately, but it does help explain why she might have made a simple mistake. The AP, which presumably had time to sort out the facts before publishing, still managed to repeat “an erroneous description of videos secretly recorded by anti-abortion activists.” And yes, that quote is the very accusation the AP hurled at Fiorina in its lede.

Some of that is criminal incitement. The rest is legal but those responsible for this climate of hatred when we already had people attacking clinics need to be challenged, not supported.

It's criminal when it's proven to be criminal. Step one: proving any of this motivated Mr. Dear. I anxiously await the proof. [/quote]No, step 1 is proving that any of them are criminal incitement. I allege that the first one is. Did they also inspire Dear? We will find out, but he does not exist in a vacuum.

His ex-wife probably understands him better than we do. She has said he targeted Planned Parenthood before. Is that evidence you might bear in mind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pla ... fe-n472421

Her marriage to him officially ended 22 years ago. I'm not sure how much weight her opinion will carry in a court of law. I'm willing to see, but for now, I find that of dubious value.

This is not a court of law, but this is indeed a suggestion that the guy has a problem with PP going back a long way. A good job no-one is making a big noise about how evil they are, or he'd take his violent personality and resurrect his campaign, perhaps. Oh. Maybe that's what happened. Or maybe it's all a big coincidence (unless he was a Muslim, in which case that's all the link we need to show why he would do it, yeah?)

But the "baby parts" stuff, comes straight out of the CMP videos and the right wing political vendetta against PP that arose.

If he said that, which is still a very thin reed.

Because cops are well known liars? Because it's unthinkable that a guy who attacks people at a PP centre might be motivated by antipathy towards PP?

If Dear says it was for any reason other than to try to stop abortions, then I will apologise for upsetting your delicate constitution by suggesting that a massive hate campaign might have violent repercussions.

You know what? That is asinine. 100%. There's no way to be nice about it.

If we accept that there are mentally ill people out there, some of whom can be violent, should we whip up hysteria?

Again, your "evidence" amounts to 4 words and the unrelated testimony of a woman he divorced more than 2 decades ago. I'd like to see you sell that tiny pile of manure to a jury, let alone a judge.