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?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... 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.

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...

Call yourself a "patriot" or "pro-life" and people will even justify your attacks, or at least blame the victims. And of course blame victims for being unarmed. Mention Christianity and we will get a load of "No true Scotsman" fallacies.

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.

Not if it is a full automatic, which is what was suggested. But of course that would usually not be immediately obvious and the police presumably can't check anyone.

But given that the state is open-carry, what happened to the good guys with guns? Why were they not able to stop this happening before the cops turned up?

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.

Fear of the unknown, of the "other" is very compelling though. What we forget is the banality of evil - it is present even in those who seem to be ordinary.

It makes me laugh that the liberals bring up terrorism when it is a domestic "Christian" terrorist.

Please note how I call what he did terrorism. I abhor his act and want him punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also note how I do not make excuses for his actions. There is no valid reason that would allow absolution.

bbauska wrote:It makes me laugh that the liberals bring up terrorism when it is a domestic "Christian" terrorist.

Please note how I call what he did terrorism. I abhor his act and want him punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also note how I do not make excuses for his actions. There is no valid reason that would allow absolution.

Good.

So beyond condemnation, what do you think the US should do about the threat of domestic terrorism?

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 two issues are unrelated. You have no way of knowing how remote a chance it is (far less remote than you suppose would be my guess), but it's irrelevant either way. The fact that America already contains a lot of nutters who represent a security risk doesn't of itself justify letting in a load more people who might represent an additional security risk. Your post here was a cheap shot that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. The case for taking in refugees stands or falls on its own merits and shouldn't be conflated with this issue.

sass

You have no way of knowing how remote a chance it is

Actually we do have a way of knowing

Out of 784,000 refugees who have settled in the United States since 2001, only three of them have been arrested for planning terrorist attacks, “none of which, by the way, resulted in attacks here,” ..
“The actual known ratio of arrested terrorist suspects to refugees is not one in a hundred, it’s one in roughly 267,000.

The other way of knowing this is that we understand the actual vetting process. Which is incredibly tough. Far tougher than a tourist visa or a business visa. And of course far tougher than some domestic nut job enflamed by either anti-abortion, white supremacists or ISIS on the Internet.
(We also know that if mostly families are let in as refugees that they don't fit the profile of the average lone wolf terrorist. )

John Oliver actually did a lot of research on that. He's entertaining...

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... n-refugees

What we get is fear mongering from politicians who capitalize on two very important things.
1) The inability of their audience to rationally understand comparative risk.
2) Their audiences built in assumption that anything the government is responsible will be handled incompetently.
Hence the Ebola scare, the vaccine internet fear mongering , etc. etc.
(Excepting of course for firemen and cops.)

bbauska

It makes me laugh that the liberals bring up terrorism when it is a domestic "Christian" terrorist.

It makes me sad that people like Carly Fioriana get away with lying about videos that incite unstable people to shoot up planned parenthood.
The question is, should there be repercussions for politicians that incite violence?
Doesn't seem to hurt the Republicans running for their presidential nomination, Although perhaps that will change as Kasich takes on Trump.

Sassenach wrote:

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 two issues are unrelated. You have no way of knowing how remote a chance it is (far less remote than you suppose would be my guess), but it's irrelevant either way. The fact that America already contains a lot of nutters who represent a security risk doesn't of itself justify letting in a load more people who might represent an additional security risk. Your post here was a cheap shot that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. The case for taking in refugees stands or falls on its own merits and shouldn't be conflated with this issue.

I agree that it is not directly related.

But there is a question of priorities here. A lot of effort has been expended by people on the "threat" of Syrian refugees lately, with many Governors "blocking" them (even though they can only block state involvement not the actual people).

An awful lot of energy has also been expended on telling us how awful PP are, relying on doctored videos (or in Carly Fiorina's case, having to get her own doctored video to try to justify her BS).

I don't expect people who were doing either to spend much time examining their own consciences. I mean, they are hardly likely to admit that it is possible that all the escalating political rhetoric might help push someone towards political violence.

We accept that Muslim clerics who put out hate speech contribute to the radicalisation of people, and even that they may be complicit in the violence that arises.

So why not rabid "pro-life" commentators. This would not even be a one-off.

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.

Actually we do have a way of knowing

Out of 784,000 refugees who have settled in the United States since 2001, only three of them have been arrested for planning terrorist attacks, “none of which, by the way, resulted in attacks here,” ..
“The actual known ratio of arrested terrorist suspects to refugees is not one in a hundred, it’s one in roughly 267,000.

That's not a way of knowing, it's a spurious misuse of statistics. The vast majority of refugees settled in the US were not from Syria.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/res ... e-arrivals

This is just for 2014. The largest number were Iraqis but there were almost as many Burmese and the next highest number were from Bhutan. Only 132 Syrians.

If you're going to use a lot of 'we know that...' arguments then it should be pointed out that 'we know' ISIS is actively seeking to send terrorists into the west posing as refugees. The risk in the case of any individual refugee is still very low of course, but this fact alone makes it appreciably greater than it would be in the case of refugees from other countries. As such the data going back to 2001, which covers the whole world, is of very limited utility and doesn't prove anything.

Apologies for derailing the thread btw.

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?

Sassenach wrote:

Actually we do have a way of knowing

Out of 784,000 refugees who have settled in the United States since 2001, only three of them have been arrested for planning terrorist attacks, “none of which, by the way, resulted in attacks here,” ..
“The actual known ratio of arrested terrorist suspects to refugees is not one in a hundred, it’s one in roughly 267,000.

That's not a way of knowing, it's a spurious misuse of statistics. The vast majority of refugees settled in the US were not from Syria.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/res ... e-arrivals

This is just for 2014. The largest number were Iraqis but there were almost as many Burmese and the next highest number were from Bhutan. Only 132 Syrians.

If you're going to use a lot of 'we know that...' arguments then it should be pointed out that 'we know' ISIS is actively seeking to send terrorists into the west posing as refugees. The risk in the case of any individual refugee is still very low of course, but this fact alone makes it appreciably greater than it would be in the case of refugees from other countries. As such the data going back to 2001, which covers the whole world, is of very limited utility and doesn't prove anything.

Apologies for derailing the thread btw.

quite alright ... it's an excellent post.

sass

That's not a way of knowing, it's a spurious misuse of statistics. The vast majority of refugees settled in the US were not from Syria

Nonsense. Its an excellent indication that the vetting process for refugees is good enough to eliminate virtually any chance of accepting someone who has or is likely to become a radicalized terrorist.

Sass

The largest number were Iraqis

And the difference between a Sunni refugee from Iraq or Syria is what? They are both fleeing sectarian violence and have lived in almost exactly the the same society. Especially those who's homes have been over run by ISIS
Iraqis were the source of most of the original ISIS recruits... (Mostly former inmates of American detention centres). So if there is anyone likely to be a senior ISIS agent .... they might well have come from Iraq.

The point is that terrorists tend to follow a profile. (Especially domestic terrorists) They are almost exclusively young men, with no careers, tend to be loners, and so on.... Its fairly easy to sort this group aside and accept other refugees instead.
The notion that the vetting process is some how incompetent has no justification. And there is no evidence to suggest that it can't eliminate virtually all risk.
This is the same anti-government trope that lead to the over reaction to Ebola.
Don't trust the experts at CDC or your public health officers.. "they don't know".
The point is that they are experts for a reason.
Politicians are, on the other hand, expert at manipulating the public for personal gain.

But I'm willing to be persuaded that the immigration process for refugees does fail with sufficient frequency to make refugees a threat... ... what evidence do you have of this?

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.

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?

Nonsense. Its an excellent indication that the vetting process for refugees is good enough to eliminate virtually any chance of accepting someone who has or is likely to become a radicalized terrorist.

No, it really isn't any such thing. 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. How do we know that ? Well, firstly because they said as much. Secondly because there was a major terrorist attack in Paris only the other week which was perpetrated by a man who had entered Europe as a Syrian refugee. So we know the risk is real, what we don't know is how big of a risk it might be. However, it's fair to say that the risk posed by Syrians is vastly greater than the risk posed by Bhutanis or Burmese or Vietnamese, and as such trying to argue from the general to the specific by using the past behaviour of a group of people who were overwhelmingly non-Syrian to predict the future behaviour of Syrians is ridiculous.

And the difference between a Sunni refugee from Iraq or Syria is what? They are both fleeing sectarian violence and have lived in almost exactly the the same society. Especially those who's homes have been over run by ISIS
Iraqis were the source of most of the original ISIS recruits... (Mostly former inmates of American detention centres). So if there is anyone likely to be a senior ISIS agent .... they might well have come from Iraq.

Indeed they might, although given the demographics of Iraq it's likely that more of them are shias. They're far less likely to have come from Bhutan or Burma though. Cherry-picking the Iraq example doesn't actually help your argument Ricky. I expected that you'd pick up on that. I only mentioned Iraq in the interests of fairness to show that I wasn't attempting to cherry-pick the data for my own benefit. I'm comfortable with the concept that some refugees are riskier than others though, you're the one who's basing his case on the heroic assumption that all refugees are equal.

The point is that terrorists tend to follow a profile. (Especially domestic terrorists) They are almost exclusively young men, with no careers, tend to be loners, and so on.... Its fairly easy to sort this group aside and accept other refugees instead.

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 ? I thought you said we could trust the vetting procedure.

The notion that the vetting process is some how incompetent has no justification. And there is no evidence to suggest that it can't eliminate virtually all risk.

Out of interest, do you have any idea whatsoever of what this vetting procedure entails ? I'm guessing not. This strikes me as yet another heroic assumption of yours. I must admit I don't have any professional expertise in US asylum administration either, but I do have a very good idea of how difficult asylum claims can be to assess and how hard it is to verify any of the information that applicants provide. I'd be very surprised if the American government was any more capable than we are. The idea that there's this wonderfully detailed and efficient vetting process strikes me as being entirely baseless. That's not how large public administration works in the real world.

Look, I don't want to go overboard on this. I do agree that the risk in any individual case is likely to be relatively small. I just think that you really need to acknowledge that a terrorist attack has already been carried out by a 'refugee' and adjust your assumptions accordingly. The risk is genuine and your blase attitude towards it is nonsensical.