- This topic has 6 voices and 111 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is an interesting read. They may have tested out the explosives a month earlier.http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/22/did-the-boston-bombers-test-their-bombs-in-hell-swamp/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
The developments in this case make for interesting reading. I heard a good comment today on the radio about how there was so much bad information put out about these events through social media. Social media makes the news cycle faster but also slightly more inaccurate.
Slightly? 😀There are a few things that seem odd. The Saudi national who they supposedly deported. What's up with that? And why didn't these terrorists kill the driver of that car they hijacked. Was he their ride?And I'm not ruling out what Donnie said either. Wasn't there a Saudi family or something that disappeared after 9-11.
I have seen complaints in the media about the inaccuracies of social media and so-called internet “sleuths” who tried to find the bombers. There was criticism of the so-called “crowdsourcing” of the case. I think that talk might be the media propping itself up by criticizing its competition. Yeah, there were people analyzing photographs, and yeah, they were wrong in their assumptions. But really, those views would have remained without large audiences except for the media's involvement. It seems as if the media was reporting on the social media discussions, and that led to problems – such as the kid in the blue track suit who was put on the front page of the NY Post after he was targeted by some people on social media. Social media "sleuthing" is pretty much the same as friends getting together and pouring over photographs to figure out the problem. They're going to be wrong sometimes, but it's not going to have much effect unless a paper publishes it all over the place for all to see.
I just read an article about how the bomber used a cell phone just before explosion, and that he was just charged by prosecutors with using a “weapon of mass destruction to kill”. Then I read the comments. 1) Someone asked if the phone was an Obamaphone. I wonder what the reaction would be if that turned out to be true. Obviously, Obama can't be blamed directly, but hopefully it would put a quick end to a program of bloat and waste.2) Someone said that if they are considered to have used a weapon of mass destruction, then Bush really was right since the Iraqis used a lot bigger bombs than the pressure cooker ones.
Here are some updates about the bombers from WSJ. Apparently the Russians knew quite a bit and tried to warn us but the FBI placed a pretty low priority on the case. They are busy making up that lack now. I am really starting to wonder how many known jihadis there are in the country that we are not deporting because they have not “done” anything yet? Probably more than we would think.
As long as they can't investigate mosques, probably a lot.Here's an article about Nidal Hassan.linkWhat I find most striking (shocking really) is this:
Second, Hasan, grieving from his mother’s death, gravitated to the conservative brand of Islam preached at the Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Virginia; a mosque known for its attendance by two of the 9/11 hijackers. During 2001-2002, Anwar al-Awlaki also preached at Dar al-Hijrah issuing a now infamous sermon in November, 2001 equating the U.S. Global War on Terrorism with a larger global war by the U.S. against all Muslims. Hasan’s ideological following of Awlaki later manifested itself in repeated emails to the cleric requesting attack guidance and religious rulings on what would become his 2009 Ft. Hood shooting.
So in other words, this mosque is/was still open after 9-11?!?!
I would be willing to bet that every American would be shocked to know how many known jihadis are in the US that the FBI has lost track of. I heard on the radio today that there are 750,000 names on the terror watch list and even if every FBI were assigned to watching them that would mean each agent would have to monitor 21 people. I just wonder why we are not deporting people on the watch list or at least denying them entry to the country?
That is a good question. I am guessing not all 750,000 pose the same threat, because if they do, then we've lost.
That is a good question. I am guessing not all 750,000 pose the same threat, because if they do, then we've lost.
What is acceptable risk? is only 3 dead and several hundred wounded acceptable risk? I don't think any level of risk from known jihadis is acceptable, it is bad enough trying to find and stop the ones we don't know of. Known jihadis is a risk we can greatly lessen through deportation. If they are non-citizens then they have no rights of residency, especially if they espouse beliefs and sentiments contrary to freedom and our democratic traditions. They have a word for that you know, sedition.
and what if 3% of those 750,000 are actual bombers yet the other 97% don't tell anyone (like the dead terrorist's parents and wife)?
What is acceptable risk? is only 3 dead and several hundred wounded acceptable risk? I don't think any level of risk from known jihadis is acceptable, it is bad enough trying to find and stop the ones we don't know of. Known jihadis is a risk we can greatly lessen through deportation. If they are non-citizens then they have no rights of residency, especially if they espouse beliefs and sentiments contrary to freedom and our democratic traditions. They have a word for that you know, sedition.
I think the reality is that some pose greater immediate threats than others. I don't know how the terror watch list is compiled, but I imagine that a person's name might show up on it for being linked to the financing of terrorist camps. All that person's friends might also therefore show up on the list, and the children of those friends. I think it's clear the person doing the financing would be a more immediate threat than the child of a friend of that person, even if they are both on the list.
Why take a chance that we don't have to? I am supposed to have an ounce of pity or empathy for someone or their family that wants harm my fellow citizens? I think not. I am perfectly willing to shut down immigration of any kind from a whole host of countries starting with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Like many things in life, there's a balancing act which takes different concerns into account. Going to one extreme and cutting off immigration from target countries is one solution, but it would come at a high cost. Would it be worth the cost? I doubt it. There are legitimate reasons for people to immigrate from those countries you named. This is not to say that immigration from those countries should not be stricter. I think we take a chance by allowing any immigrant into our borders. There's always going to be risk. The task is to reduce them while maintaining channels for international development which aid the position of the United States.
This isn't a problem with immigration, this is a problem with Islamic terrorism, IMO. If ANY are on a watch list, or if we have been warned by other nations, then they immediately get deported or jailed. Since you can't jail anyone who hasn't committed a crime, then deportation is the best solution. That would include immediate family as well. Consequences must be severe in order to disuade them.
