San Bernardino terror attacks and presidential tiptoeing

[athanaric]

Notice how homogenity has no relationship with murder rate.

Then how do you explain Iceland and Japan?

Spain is not a homogenous country at all, it is not a nation-state, it has a history continuing to today of inter-ethnic violence. It has the same murder rate as extremely homogenous Germany.

That's an utterly retarded statement. Even without taking into account post 1950s immigration, Germany and Spain are both about equally diverse in terms of ethnicities and culture. Germany is highly federalized (like the US and Russia), with strong local cultural identities (you must be one of the few people alive who've never heard about local German cultures and dialects and Bavarian in particular) and individual states having several official languages, one of which is Slavic and another Indo-Aryan. Bavarians have more in common with Austrians and Czech, maybe even Slovakians, than with Frisians. Germany is not any less "diverse" than Britain, rather the other way round.
Get educated here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region...pa#Deutschland

Belgium has two different official languages spoken in the two halves of the country, yet it has less murder than homogenous Norway.

According to what I've heard, Belgium also has more Daesh members (per capita) who went to Syria than any other European country, Wallonia has a huge unemployment problem and they're having trouble forming a functioning government.
Norway has two minority languages BTW, which aren't even related to Norwegian.

[Sint]

as extremely homogenous German

It think you don't know what homogeneous means if you think germany is it.

[snuggans]

how about holding networks accountable for inviting Anjem the freakshow Choudary to grace them with his backwards presence?

a moderate muslim that says daesh blows dicks, is not that sexy, it's pretty dull TV-ratings wise. its like "yeah you and everybody else that has already been on this show has said about the same, buddy"

an extremist hate preacher like Anjem however, now that's pretty sexy, he's just like daesh's videos. people are going to stay around longer to listen to this crazy kook talk, and that generally means more profits for the channel. unfortunately one of the flaws of corporate media.

hold networks that give these loons a soapbox accountable, because they are amplifying the amount of people receiving his lunacy. this has a twofold effect: it might actually radicalize a few muslims here and there who are also probably manically depressed and want a meaningful exit that gives them assurance of a supposedly good afterlife. and it'll radicalize non-muslims into embracing islamophobia, as they construct this image of islam based on freak shows like Anjem and news footage of terrorists executing french cops (that cop btw was a muslim, ironically), etc mostly because they do not interact with muslims in the real world.

i wish Fox News would actually invite more sane muslims, CNN and MSNBC have in the past few months done a decent job at it.

[Phier]

how about holding networks accountable for inviting Anjem the freakshow Choudary to grace them with his backwards presence?

a moderate muslim that says daesh blows dicks, is not that sexy, it's pretty dull TV-ratings wise. its like "yeah you and everybody else that has already been on this show has said about the same, buddy"

an extremist hate preacher like Anjem however, now that's pretty sexy, he's just like daesh's videos. people are going to stay around longer to listen to this crazy kook talk, and that generally means more profits for the channel. unfortunately one of the flaws of corporate media.

hold networks that give these loons a soapbox accountable, because they are amplifying the amount of people receiving his lunacy. this has a twofold effect: it might actually radicalize a few muslims here and there who are also probably manically depressed and want a meaningful exit that gives them assurance of a supposedly good afterlife. and it'll radicalize non-muslims into embracing islamophobia, as they construct this image of islam based on freak shows like Anjem and news footage of terrorists executing french cops (that cop btw was a muslim, ironically), etc mostly because they do not interact with muslims in the real world.

i wish Fox News would actually invite more sane muslims, CNN and MSNBC have in the past few months done a decent job at it.

So what you want is the news to be sanitized in order to keep people calm. I disagree, the horrors and wackjobs should be seen.

When 9/11 was happening live, the news reports showed people jumping to their deaths caught between gravity and the fires. They quickly censored all that and it was stated after that they didn't want "irrational hatred" to develop because of those scenes.

Sometimes its rational...

[fkizz]

So what you want is the news to be sanitized in order to keep people calm. I disagree, the horrors and wackjobs should be seen.

When 9/11 was happening live, the news reports showed people jumping to their deaths caught between gravity and the fires. They quickly censored all that and it was stated after that they didn't want "irrational hatred" to develop because of those scenes.

Sometimes its rational...

Of course. Not only rational, it's in security interests. Letting again security to relax due to fears of being called racist only to have a massacre after, is a thing that will be kept re-happening until even the most "ultra-tolerance minded" realize.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So what you want is the news to be sanitized in order to keep people calm. I disagree, the horrors and wackjobs should be seen.

When 9/11 was happening live, the news reports showed people jumping to their deaths caught between gravity and the fires. They quickly censored all that and it was stated after that they didn't want "irrational hatred" to develop because of those scenes.

Sometimes its rational...

And unproductive. The emotions that rode high after 9/11 allowed the Governments of the USA and the UK to invade Iraq without any international coalition or mandate, based on evidence that had been utterly fabricated by the UK's intelligence services. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for nothing, and now we have a massively destabilised Middle East that that adventure has contributed to. That's the natural result of your rational hatred.

[Phier]

And unproductive. The emotions that rode high after 9/11 allowed the Governments of the USA and the UK to invade Iraq without any international coalition or mandate, based on evidence that had been utterly fabricated by the UK's intelligence services. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for nothing, and now we have a massively destabilised Middle East that that adventure has contributed to. That's the natural result of your rational hatred.

Obviously since what I talked about didn't stop the second, the two are not linked.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Obviously since what I talked about didn't stop the second, the two are not linked.

Second what?

[IronBrig4]

When 9/11 was happening live, the news reports showed people jumping to their deaths caught between gravity and the fires. They quickly censored all that and it was stated after that they didn't want "irrational hatred" to develop because of those scenes.

Sometimes its rational...

I dunno, I remember how patriotism got weird after 9/11. Flags flying from car windows were just the start. Then you had 9/11 trading cards, 9/11 commemorative coins, and fraudulent 9/11 charities. They sold like hotcakes because Americans tried to outdo each other by appearing even more patriotic. US flags were inserted into movies (especially the ending of Spider-Man) while any depictions of the World Trade Center were removed. It was just strange how Americans had "remember 9/11" hammered into them every day, and yet the WTC was carefully edited out of every film going back to the '70s.

I'd say that it became completely irrational leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's when you had all those pro-war country songs, freedom fries, and an insane amount of vehemence towards anybody who disagreed with the war.

[Phier]

I dunno, I remember how patriotism got weird after 9/11. Flags flying from car windows were just the start. Then you had 9/11 trading cards, 9/11 commemorative coins, and fraudulent 9/11 charities. They sold like hotcakes because Americans tried to outdo each other by appearing even more patriotic. US flags were inserted into movies (especially the ending of Spider-Man) while any depictions of the World Trade Center were removed. It was just strange how Americans had "remember 9/11" hammered into them every day, and yet the WTC was carefully edited out of every film going back to the '70s.

I'd say that it became completely irrational leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's when you had all those pro-war country songs, freedom fries, and an insane amount of vehemence towards anybody who disagreed with the war.

I'm not seeing why that was bad. We just got attacked, we had to shut down travel, we had 1000's dead. I'd be more worried if the country reacted like it was just another day.

[PointOfViewGun]

So what you want is the news to be sanitized in order to keep people calm. I disagree, the horrors and wackjobs should be seen.

When 9/11 was happening live, the news reports showed people jumping to their deaths caught between gravity and the fires. They quickly censored all that and it was stated after that they didn't want "irrational hatred" to develop because of those scenes.

Sometimes its rational...

That's not what rational means... There is nothing rational about fearing Muslims just because a dozen of them out of over a billion decided to commit an atrocity.

I'd prefer if the TV channels reported truth instead of being a medium to promote only a particular viewpoint. Even CNN did it. I remember them having a wackjob guy and the reporters asking him what Muslims in general believe. That's not good TV. If you're gonna have any imam have him talk about beliefs of his own congregation only. If you wanna talk about Muslims in general then get a university professor who specializes in Islamic history and theology so that he can talk about different angles of the issue.

[IronBrig4]

I think it's hilarious that one of the Fox News commenters shot the New York Times op-ed. He wants to show that gun rights people are level-headed and rational people, so he shoots a newspaper article that dares disagree with him. What a way to break the false perception that gun enthusiasts are insane, violent, and threatening.

What an emotionally stunted man-child. The only other thing he needed to do to complete the picture was huddle with his back to the corner, pistol trained at the door just in case, sobbing about his "brothers" in Iraq and muttering about Benghazi.

[Derpy Hooves]

Wait it was UK intelligence services that fabricated it? I thought everything is US fault :p

[PointOfViewGun]

This how ed up the situation in USA is:
Why it is nearly impossible for America to pass gun-control laws

ONE day after 14 people died and 21 were injured in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, America's Senate defeated a bill that would have prevented people on the terror watch list from buying guns. Making things a bit more difficult for people bent on killing Americans might sound like a rather moderate reform. But 54 conservative senators determined that such a rule might impinge on the gun rights of innocent Americans who were mistakenly placed on the watch-list—a risk assessment that is hard to square with the calculus used by many of the same lawmakers who oppose resettling Syrian refugees lest one of them turn into a terrorist. In the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that killed 20 children and 6 staff members in 2012, a bipartisan bill to enhance background checks for gun purchasers came up a few votes short. It was voted down last week as well. It seems even the mildest measure to curb guns in America is doomed to fail. Why has Congress found it impossible to pass gun-control legislation in the wake of a grim drumbeat of mass killings?

Many people attribute the phenomenon to the power of the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of America’s richest and most influential lobbying groups. But there is more to the story. The NRA builds its prestige on a constituency that is more strident and more politically active than proponents of gun-control. So while 55% of Americans believe that gun laws should be “more strict” (as compared to 11% who want them to be “less strict” and 33% who are satisfied with the laws as they stand), gun owners are twice as likely to sound off to their congressmen and nearly five times more apt to contribute money to candidates or interest groups that reflect their views on guns. America’s electoral structure also lends NRA supporters outsize influence. As many gun-rights advocates live in rural areas where a few votes can swing a congressional election, “[t]he NRA's job is made easier,” Stephen Hill and Robert Richie write. The group “can target its resources at the three dozen swing districts like a military strategist dividing quadrants on a battlefield”.

Opponents of gun control routinely argue that the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” ensures unfettered access to guns. Seven years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a ban on handguns in the home was an affront to the Second Amendment. But since the ruling in District of Columbia v Heller, the justices have refused to embellish this right. On December 7th, the Court declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of a law in Illinois that banned semi-automatic assault rifles and large-capacity magazines. Only two justices dissented from this refusal, indicating that a solid majority on the Supreme Court would vote to uphold many gun regulations that Congress may yet pass.

Recent mass shootings may mobilise advocates of gun restrictions and could conceivably even spur legislators to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 or pursue other gun legislation. But there is reason to wonder how much of a difference these reforms would make. American civilians own far more guns than anybody else in the world. The land of the free is home to an estimated 270m guns, enough for nearly nine in ten Americans. (That’s compared to 46m guns for the runner-up, India, with a population quadruple that of America.) So even if all new gun purchases were banned tomorrow, there are enough rifles floating around the country to fuel countless more mass shootings. Some countries, notably Australia, have rounded up privately owned weapons and seen a dramatic decline in suicides and homicides. But no one in America is proposing such a radical solution to its rash of tragic shootings.

[Derpy Hooves]

This how ed up the situation in USA is:
Why it is nearly impossible for America to pass gun-control laws

So I guess the people unfairly put on the watchlist should be SOL right? Basically all Muslims are SOL :p

[PointOfViewGun]

So I guess the people unfairly put on the watchlist should be SOL right? Basically all Muslims are SOL :p

If getting unfairly put on the watchlist is an issue then they could address that instead of using it as an excuse. They have the majority. What's their excuse to act?

[Derpy Hooves]

If getting unfairly put on the watchlist is an issue then they could address that instead of using it as an excuse. They have the majority. What's their excuse to act?

The veto

[Infidel144]

The veto

If I am not mistaken, the No Fly List is an executive action rather than a legislative process.

[PointOfViewGun]

The veto

Did Obama ever made a statement where he told that he'd veto any attempt to reform the terror watch list to make it more useful and efficient?

If I am not mistaken, the No Fly List is an executive action rather than a legislative process.

It's managed by the Terrorist Screening Center which is managed by the FBI. I don't think it's an executive action issue.

[Infidel144]

So I guess the people unfairly put on the watchlist should be SOL right? Basically all Muslims are SOL :p

The New York Times on the No Fly List in 2014:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/op...?_r=0&referer=
and a couple days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/op...terrorism.html

It would be interesting to found out of those people here who want to use the No Fly List to strip citizens of their constitutional rights if they were against the No Fly List previously...