Paris

[Emily]

The west should be committed to leaving well alone what they cannot fix and have no place really trying to.

They have no place trying to? It's been demonstrated that our actions have led to the rise of radicalism and the increase risk in terror. Doesn't that mean we have a responsibility in fixing it?

No, nobody is forcing them to put a gun in their hands. If I was to stab someone in the neck that would be on me, not the fault of someone else. Same applies here albeit on a vast scale.

Mike's beard develops his own ersatz stats, history and political philosophy based on images flashing by on TV and hysterical writings on the Internet.

And where do you get yours from, pray tell? The moon? I get my information from a variety of sources from both sides of the argument.

You're beating your head against a wall CSM. This whole time, he hasn't once engaged thoughtfully with your central point. And he's not going to.

I have but as it isn't the response you or CSM want to hear you ignore it.

CSM - look how easy it is to divert me: MB - if there's a one-off stabbing, no one's going to put many resources into analyzing it or stopping future ones that they have no indication will occur.
If there's a wave of stabbings, I would hope people wouldn't respond by saying "let's round up and deport everyone with a knife in the stabby neighborhoods," but would make an effort to understand why there's a wave of stabbings and what can be done to effectively end it and not generate a new one.
Also, I have leaned some history from from popular resources, of course, but I try to verify with reputable (hopefully primary) sources before I allow it to adjust my understanding.
I also do my best to limit my popular reading on these matters because, as a trained historian, I'm aware how much of it is emotional nonsense and, yes, propaganda.

ETA: getting your information from "both sides of the argument" is not a good strategy if you want to develop understanding. It's only a good strategy for learning how to argue.
And your responses are all either diversions or a repetition of "they're evil religious maniacs," none of which engage with CSM's central point.

[Mike's Beard]

No, that's not quite true. First of all, you have never once addressed the point that I have made several times that for many religion is not a motivating factor. You've ignored that outright.

I've ignored it because frankly I have a hard time believing it.

Further, you have wavered back and forth between Islam being responsible, to people distorting Islam based on whatever I said last until you finally stopped responding when I challenged your final point that "the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson."

Actually I've been quite firm in saying that I'm wary of anyone who wants to base their lives around this ancient garbage. Those that see it as a go ahead to kill others are not so much distorting it as cherry picking the parts that justify (in their minds) their actions.
Lastly, we could trade bloodlust passages from both books all we want but in 2015 we have a lot less to fear from Hardcore Christians then we do Militant Muslims.

[Emily]

No, nobody is forcing them to put a gun in their hands. If I was to stab someone in the neck that would be on me, not the fault of someone else. Same applies here albeit on a vast scale.

As anyone who is aware of human behaviour knows, some actions have predictable consequences. And when it is made abundantly clear that your actions have this predictable consequence and it is not a good consequence, then, yes, you are under an obligation to stop those actions. That's a cornerstone of basic ethics. Your example is baffling since it bears no relation whatsoever to what we are talking about. Do you believe Charles Manson should not have been charged with any crime in the Tate-Labianca murders?

You're beating your head against a wall CSM. This whole time, he hasn't once engaged thoughtfully with your central point. And he's not going to.

I have but as it isn't the response you or CSM want to hear you ignore it.

No, that's not quite true. First of all, you have never once addressed the point that I have made several times that for many religion is not a motivating factor. You've ignored that outright. Further, you have wavered back and forth between Islam being responsible, to people distorting Islam based on whatever I said last until you finally stopped responding when I challenged your final point that "the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson."

Also, looking back on the thread, you have yet to respond in any way whatsoever to my response to your point that "The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims."
[/quote]
Once again, better, more ordered, less reactionary responses than mine.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I've ignored it because frankly I have a hard time believing it.

In that case, please show us the sections of the article that the Captain provided and demonstrate its faults.

Actually I've been quite firm in saying that I'm wary of anyone who wants to base their lives around this ancient garbage. Those that see it as a go ahead to kill others are not so much distorting it as cherry picking the parts that justify (in their minds) their actions.

Well, which one is it, ancient garbage or a text that contains some passages that could be interpreted by criminals to justify their own actions? After all, people have died over The Catcher in the Rye but I'm not prepared to call that novel garbage.

Lastly, we could trade bloodlust passages from both books all we want but in 2015 we have a lot less to fear from Hardcore Christians then we do Militant Muslims.

Yes, but that tells us that there is nothing about the text itself that is causing people to do this. If that were the case then we would have as much if not more to fear from Hardcore Christians since The Bible has just as much if not more calls for violence against non-believers, according to religious scholars. Therefore the problem is not Islam, it is rooted somewhere else. Hence my whole issue with you denying support to anyone simply on the grounds that they practice Islam. We have gone a hundred and a half miles around on this but it's a basic point that you yourself occasionally seem to agree with.

And if you want a quick tally of the things that I last mentioned that you did not address:

1. It is basic ethics that you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions
2. You still have yet to respond to my response to your point that "The issue is not the west's mistreatment of the poor muslims."

[Emily]

No, that's not quite true. First of all, you have never once addressed the point that I have made several times that for many religion is not a motivating factor. You've ignored that outright.

I've ignored it because frankly I have a hard time believing it.

Further, you have wavered back and forth between Islam being responsible, to people distorting Islam based on whatever I said last until you finally stopped responding when I challenged your final point that "the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson."

Actually I've been quite firm in saying that I'm wary of anyone who wants to base their lives around this ancient garbage. Those that see it as a go ahead to kill others are not so much distorting it as cherry picking the parts that justify (in their minds) their actions.
Lastly, we could trade bloodlust passages from both books all we want but in 2015 we have a lot less to fear from Hardcore Christians then we do Militant Muslims.

Your first point, as with the UN stats, reinforces your choice to make stuff up rather than listen to expertise, which is why, CSM, this is a pointless exercise.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No, that's not quite true. First of all, you have never once addressed the point that I have made several times that for many religion is not a motivating factor. You've ignored that outright.

I've ignored it because frankly I have a hard time believing it.

Further, you have wavered back and forth between Islam being responsible, to people distorting Islam based on whatever I said last until you finally stopped responding when I challenged your final point that "the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson."

Actually I've been quite firm in saying that I'm wary of anyone who wants to base their lives around this ancient garbage. Those that see it as a go ahead to kill others are not so much distorting it as cherry picking the parts that justify (in their minds) their actions.
Lastly, we could trade bloodlust passages from both books all we want but in 2015 we have a lot less to fear from Hardcore Christians then we do Militant Muslims.

Your first point, as with the UN stats, reinforces your choice to make stuff up rather than listen to expertise, which is why, CSM, this is a pointless exercise.

Yes, I am aware that I probably won't be convincing MB any time soon. But like you have suggested, the very discussion can be a learning experience for all of us in some way, even the ones who are just reading and not participating, so perhaps that makes it worthwhile.

[Mike's Beard]

True, nothing you say will make me change my mind and vice versa. Anything I quote is just going to be dismissed as propaganda so I can't be bothered to post it.
Bowing out gracefully.

[Emily]

No, that's not quite true. First of all, you have never once addressed the point that I have made several times that for many religion is not a motivating factor. You've ignored that outright.

I've ignored it because frankly I have a hard time believing it.

Further, you have wavered back and forth between Islam being responsible, to people distorting Islam based on whatever I said last until you finally stopped responding when I challenged your final point that "the Koran make the Old Testament look tame by compairson."

Actually I've been quite firm in saying that I'm wary of anyone who wants to base their lives around this ancient garbage. Those that see it as a go ahead to kill others are not so much distorting it as cherry picking the parts that justify (in their minds) their actions.
Lastly, we could trade bloodlust passages from both books all we want but in 2015 we have a lot less to fear from Hardcore Christians then we do Militant Muslims.

Your first point, as with the UN stats, reinforces your choice to make stuff up rather than listen to expertise, which is why, CSM, this is a pointless exercise.

Yes, I am aware that I probably won't be convincing MB any time soon. But like you have suggested, the very discussion can be a learning experience for all of us in some way, even the ones who are just reading and not participating, so perhaps that makes it worthwhile.

Very good point.

[Emily]

True, nothing you say will make me change my mind and vice versa. Anything I quote is just going to be dismissed as propaganda so I can't be bothered to post it.
Bowing out gracefully.

You weren't quoting things. You were making assertions without backing them up and disregarding supported assertions.

[Bean Bag]

So let's get back to reality...

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

Let anyone of this faith into your country at your peril.

Ahhh, reality.  Such trouble it brings Progressives.

So what's going on, here?  Why are the Progressives trying so hard to convince you that you don't see what you see?  I'll tell ya...

It's all about the Progressives.  All of it.  No matter the case, the agenda of any Progressive is:  how can we advance Progressivism?

So Bean Bag -- how the fck does ignoring Muslim Extremism serve Progressives?

 

[Emily]

So let's get back to reality...

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

Let anyone of this faith into your country at your peril.

Ahhh, reality.  Such trouble it brings Progressives.

So what's going on, here?  Why are the Progressives trying so hard to convince you that you don't see what you see?  I'll tell ya...

It's all about the Progressives.  All of it.  No matter the case, the agenda of any Progressive is:  how can we advance Progressivism?

So Bean Bag -- how the fck does ignoring Muslim Extremism serve Progressives?

 

Sorry. I tried to resist but the temptation was too great:


Um... holocaust, holodomor, First American Nations genocide, my lai, pearl harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, school massacres, other mass shootings, Oklahoma, Waco, jim jones, the crusades, Genghis khan, Caesar, Alexander, El Salvador, KKK, haymarket, the boer war, the troubles, carlos the jackal, anarchist bombings, Birmingham, lynchings, a mess of assassinations, the bath school bombings, the unibomber, the weather underground, Pinochet, everything that ever happens in argentina, unit 731, Guernica, Dresden, Jamestown, everything in Greece in 1821, numerous massacres of European settlers in the Americas by American Indians, massacres of Chinese Americans by European Americans, kent state, lattimer, genocide of Armenians, hutus/tutsis, the great purge, shanghai massacre, Ludlow, a ton of stuff done by the United Fruit Company, jallianwala bagh, nanking, that Norwegian guy, "freedom fighters," the killing of sandino, the sandinistas, bureau for the repression of communist activities, castro, papa and baby doc, extraordinary rendition, Khmer rouge, a near millennium of just about constant war in Europe of increasing violence culminating in the bloodiest century and place in history, Tamerlane, Atlantic slave trade, congo war, Belgians in congo, apartheid, Russian troubles, Chinese civil wars, Algeria, Somalia, sudan, Ethiopia, Burma/Myanmar, Tenochtitlan, Haifa refinery and other episodes in palestine, jeju, sri Lankan gov't and tamil tigers, shining path, Mr. Huberty, serbs v. croats, Abkhazia, ANC v IFP, Chiapas, port arthur, ira, haditha, pottawatomie, need I go on?
Intentional homicide rate by region:

      Americas 16.3 157,000
      Africa 12.5 135,000
      World 6.2 437,000
      Europe 3.0 22,000
      Oceania 3.0 1,100
      Asia 2.9 122,000

The capacity to be horrible knows no ethnicity.

[the captain]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

[Bean Bag]

Emily -- I agree.  It's awful.  Violence is everywhere.  Not unique to Muslims.  Progressives are clear, decisive and quick to point that out.  They are vague, shifty and dismissive regarding the War with Muslim Extremism.  Why?

How does ignoring Muslim Extremism advance the Progressive agenda?



Captain -- if nobody (with a brain) denies Islamic fundamentalism is a problem... does that mean Progressives have half a brain?

[filledeplage]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

The Tsarnaevs claimed asylum in 2002.

[Emily]

Emily -- I agree.  It's awful.  Violence is everywhere.  Not unique to Muslims.  Progressives are clear, decisive and quick to point that out.  They are vague, shifty and dismissive regarding the War with Muslim Extremism.  Why?

How does ignoring Muslim Extremism advance the Progressive agenda?



Captain -- if nobody (with a brain) denies Islamic fundamentalism is a problem... does that mean Progressives have half a brain?

BB- I don't ignore it. I think about what causes it and what we can do to eliminate the cause. Even if it were morally OK to just say let's round up the extremists, it's neither feasible nor would it stop the generation of more. As the Captain and CSM and Rentatris have been saying, we actually have serious research that identifies the cause. The reaction that you advocate is actually a continuation of the cause and makes the problem worse. Eliminating the cause would alleviate the symptoms.

[Emily]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

The Tsarnaevs claimed asylum in 2002.

As did a lot of people who are perfectly good citizens... as did my mom's parents during WWII. Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

[filledeplage]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

The Tsarnaevs claimed asylum in 2002.

As did a lot of people who are perfectly good citizens... as did my mom's parents during WWII. Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

This was an abject failure of the govt. to deport this family, whose mother was nailed for stealing $1600 from a high end department store and who had an outstanding arrest warrant, and the older son who was run over by the younger brother was on a "watch list for terrorist activities. The sister had criminal charges in Mass., and moved to NJ where she was charged with threatening to "put a bomb" on a person. 

This whole issue was connected to political correctness.  I support bona fide asylum cases and other categories as numerous as the alphabet. However those who commit felonies forfeit the privilege of living in the States.  They make it difficult for good people whom we welcome to bring their talent, skill and diversity to our country.  And my relatives came to this country through Ellis Island.  Most in this country came through a legit immigration route. 

By keeping a minority of criminals, who commit heinous (dangerous felonies) crimes, the "bathwater" as you say becomes polluted.  This is on a case by case basis. 

 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

The Tsarnaevs claimed asylum in 2002.

As did a lot of people who are perfectly good citizens... as did my mom's parents during WWII. Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

This was an abject failure of the govt. to deport this family, whose mother was nailed for stealing $1600 from a high end department store and who had an outstanding arrest warrant, and the older son who was run over by the younger brother was on a "watch list for terrorist activities. The sister had criminal charges in Mass., and moved to NJ where she was charged with threatening to "put a bomb" on a person. 

This whole issue was connected to political correctness.  I support bona fide asylum cases and other categories as numerous as the alphabet. However those who commit felonies forfeit the privilege of living in the States.  They make it difficult for good people whom we welcome to bring their talent, skill and diversity to our country.  And my relatives came to this country through Ellis Island.  Most in this country came through a legit immigration route. 

By keeping a minority of criminals, who commit heinous (dangerous felonies) crimes, the "bathwater" as you say becomes polluted.  This is on a case by case basis. 

 

But why did you respond to The Captain's point with this information?

[filledeplage]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

The Tsarnaevs claimed asylum in 2002.

As did a lot of people who are perfectly good citizens... as did my mom's parents during WWII. Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

This was an abject failure of the govt. to deport this family, whose mother was nailed for stealing $1600 from a high end department store and who had an outstanding arrest warrant, and the older son who was run over by the younger brother was on a "watch list for terrorist activities. The sister had criminal charges in Mass., and moved to NJ where she was charged with threatening to "put a bomb" on a person. 

This whole issue was connected to political correctness.  I support bona fide asylum cases and other categories as numerous as the alphabet. However those who commit felonies forfeit the privilege of living in the States.  They make it difficult for good people whom we welcome to bring their talent, skill and diversity to our country.  And my relatives came to this country through Ellis Island.  Most in this country came through a legit immigration route. 

By keeping a minority of criminals, who commit heinous (dangerous felonies) crimes, the "bathwater" as you say becomes polluted.  This is on a case by case basis. 

 

But why did you respond to The Captain's point with this information?

Because he alleged that the terrorists were largely Americans with anti government leanings. 

The Boston Bombings were conducted by trained radicalized terrorists. 

And the way in which a poster responds is up to that poster.  I disagreed with the statement. 

[the captain]

I didn't allege, I stated as documented fact. And the response was irrelevant to the point: an example--or many!--doesn't contradict the fact I noted.

Analogy: if I say the leading cause of death in the USA is cardiovascular disease, it's irrelevant whether someone's uncle died in a car crash. I'm not denying there are car crashes that cause death.

[Emily]

I have not read about that particular case, but I don't find that one error being made means we should change policy.
I don't really understand when you say "the whole issue was connected to political correctness." What do you mean by that?
There are others on this thread who have suggested that we limit immigration among Muslims using much more strict standards than whether they've been convicted of serious crimes. Unless we change the policy for everyone, we should change the policy for no one.

[Emily]

Not to mention the somewhat widely reported, but largely ignored by those who prefer focusing elsewhere, study showing that since 9/11, most domestic terrorism has been by antigovernment Americans. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. I'm sure I've cited it before but, at work, haven't got it handy now.

Nobody (with a brain) denies that Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism is a problem, by the way. There's a lot of talking past each other as if someone just loves the sh*t. That's not the disagreement. The disagreements are what are appropriate responses: what does or doesn't work; what limits on our liberty are acceptable in the name of security; what raises the risk of future terrorism; how much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice. So let's try to keep that in mind.

The Tsarnaevs claimed asylum in 2002.

As did a lot of people who are perfectly good citizens... as did my mom's parents during WWII. Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

This was an abject failure of the govt. to deport this family, whose mother was nailed for stealing $1600 from a high end department store and who had an outstanding arrest warrant, and the older son who was run over by the younger brother was on a "watch list for terrorist activities. The sister had criminal charges in Mass., and moved to NJ where she was charged with threatening to "put a bomb" on a person.  

This whole issue was connected to political correctness.  I support bona fide asylum cases and other categories as numerous as the alphabet. However those who commit felonies forfeit the privilege of living in the States.  They make it difficult for good people whom we welcome to bring their talent, skill and diversity to our country.  And my relatives came to this country through Ellis Island.  Most in this country came through a legit immigration route.  

By keeping a minority of criminals, who commit heinous (dangerous felonies) crimes, the "bathwater" as you say becomes polluted.  This is on a case by case basis.  

 

But why did you respond to The Captain's point with this information?

lol.. me + tangent = follow. Geez..I need some training.

[filledeplage]

I didn't allege, I stated as documented fact. And the response was irrelevant to the point: an example--or many!--doesn't contradict the fact I noted.

Analogy: if I say the leading cause of death in the USA is cardiovascular disease, it's irrelevant whether someone's uncle died in a car crash. I'm not denying there are car crashes that cause death.

Captain - while there are plenty of cases of employees "going postal" we have a growing number of cases whether it is individual felonies or mass attacks such as the Boston Bombings or post mutiple deportation orders such as what has caused the filing of Kate's Law, raising awareness of the insecurity caused by the "secure communties" as an example, which I find to be a joke.  

We have a growing number of undocumented drug runners importing tainted drugs (fentanyl) into the US. killing Americans, and the "secure communities" just perpetuates lawlessness.  Secure communities was designed to protect law abiding undocumented persons.  It has gotten out of control such that criminals are using it as their haven.  So we disagree.

This is on a case by case basis.  And the individual cases are growing day by day.

Reasonable minds can differ.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is probably the article The Captain is referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Here's a quote:

"A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."

[Emily]

Interesting. If we apply the solutions proffered by some on this board, we should start rounding up and deporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists. Who's that guy with the ranch in Nevada? He should be deported today.