I'm not afraid of terrorism, are you?

[abaris]

Agree... Our govt is rethinking the way they manage large public gatherings in light if Nice.
I suppose if you make it hard for them to have easy big kills, they'll go elsewhere.

And yet you never can protect so called soft targets. That's all window dressing, since short of prohibiting public assemblies, there's no way to keep them save. Of course there should be security measures, since terror isn't the only danger by far. Nutjobs, as Munich has shown, are the bigger danger and homegrown on the side. The major attacks we had this last year, was one guy snapping and driving his SUV through the crowd of shoppers in a pedestrian zone, and one neonazi having wife troubles and gunning down spectators at a bikers rally. The last one didn't even plan on it, obviously. Just broke up with his girl, went to his car and got the automatic he obviously stored there.

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm not afraid of terrorism. I'm also not really that bothered by serial killers, bear attacks, or lightning strikes. Sure - these things happen and they're horrific, but the chances of me being personally affected are so slim, that fear of them would be irrational and probably more harmful to my health and quality of life, than the actual danger they present. I know that I'm going to die of some kind of a disease, or be run over by a car, driven by some idiot with a "smart"-phone.

I'm not going to spend my life cowering in a bunker and I'm not going to listen to a bunch of bigots trying to use the deaths of innocent people for furthering their political agendas. Especially that so far none of the blabbering idiots have proposed anything, that could actually stop terrorism. It's all just fear-mongering aimed at thick people with no grasp of statistics. And to be honest - THOSE people scare me sh*tless...

[ignoramus]

So Apple and Facebook are the new global terrorists!?

Their products are responsible for killing many more people worldwide by far than the odd terrorist attack on the west.
What do you do with entities like that? Put them on the stock market of course! This way many can benefit from these collateral deaths!

#lol

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sure they weren't terrorised! Maybe mildly inconvenienced by a semi driving over them?

You know, there's a difference between being in a horrible situation and fearing it to happen on an abstract level. If I did, I probably wouldn't leave my house anymore. Truth is, I don't reflect on what could happen. If it happens, I have to deal with it then. But I wouldn't be better prepared if my mind was constantly fixated on all the things that could possibly endanger my life.

Reminds me of the old duck and cover bullshit, the US government spewed back in the 50ies. Wouldn't have saved a single life and only contributed to the mass hysteria of being in immanent danger of being nuked.

I'm old enough to be amongst the last of the generations having had to do that, in my first-grade classroom. It horrified me when the teacher explained why, that we're doing this because war.4

You're right, living in fear is no life at all -- it's really a living death, in a way. I don't worry about being struck by lightning or the tornadoes which occasionally pass this way, either. When my number's up, there it is.

[CapnAwesome]

Refugees are -fleeing- a shitty situation, not looking to create one.  A terrorist will get into this country no matter -what- you do...and tbh I don't know why we fear foreign terrorists entirely out of proportion to their contribution.  Americans have committed more acts of terrorism on american soil, and taken more american lives.  It's not even close, and it never has been.....even -since- 9/11 it's 2/1.

Right wing anti government loons and racists are what we ought to be quivering about.  They're who we ought to be "doing something" about.  They're who we ought to be "looking into".  They're who the media should be running non-stop exposes on.   They're already here, they;ve always been here, already doing shitty things...they're better at it, and always have been, than the current boogeymen.  But no, no.....let's implicate refugees....victims.  Let's be afraid of that.  That's where the danger is...........that's the face of evil.  

Whatever happened to giving us your tired, your poor, your hungry?  What kind of america are we seeking to defend by pointing the fickle finger, and centering our irrational fears around refugees ?

I think "Give us your tired, your poor, your hungry" is outdated like most of the things from horsey riding days.  The US has all the tired, poor, and hungry it needs.  Back when we were filling up the country, and building the infrastructure, and getting the industrial revolution going.  Sure.  Send us a bunch of people, we'll hook them up with crazy difficult/dangerous jobs building a railroad 14 hours a day or working in a mine, and in exchange, they can start a little life here.  

Those days are gone, and then some. 

As for foreign terrorists fears.  It's not fears, it's practicality.  Germany just had a refugee go bonkers 1 day ago.  Why take the risk?  It's like picking up hitchhikers.  And of course, keep an eye on anti-government loons.  I assume/hope they are being watched.  And it'll be easier to do, when the govt doesn't have to split up resources keep an eye on a bunch of refugees as well.  Alas, those crazy right-wing folks are our loons, and I don't think other countries will let us deport them to their land.

I always pick up hitchhikers. Like with the refugees, not only is it the decent thing to do, but the risk is extremely extremely low and you might end up with an enriching experience yourself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

May not be Awesome, but surely Captain Pretty-Goddamned-Good.

[henryp]

I think "Give us your tired, your poor, your hungry" is outdated like most of the things from horsey riding days.  The US has all the tired, poor, and hungry it needs.  Back when we were filling up the country, and building the infrastructure, and getting the industrial revolution going.  Sure.  Send us a bunch of people, we'll hook them up with crazy difficult/dangerous jobs building a railroad 14 hours a day or working in a mine, and in exchange, they can start a little life here.  

Those days are gone, and then some. 

As for foreign terrorists fears.  It's not fears, it's practicality.  Germany just had a refugee go bonkers 1 day ago.  Why take the risk?  It's like picking up hitchhikers.  And of course, keep an eye on anti-government loons.  I assume/hope they are being watched.  And it'll be easier to do, when the govt doesn't have to split up resources keep an eye on a bunch of refugees as well.  Alas, those crazy right-wing folks are our loons, and I don't think other countries will let us deport them to their land.

I always pick up hitchhikers. Like with the refugees, not only is it the decent thing to do, but the risk is extremely extremely low and you might end up with an enriching experience yourself.

It's an interesting question of how much risk is an okay amount of risk.  And then the secondary question of how much risk is okay to subject other people to.  I don't mind you picking up hitchhikers, because you're assuming all the risk. 

A hypothetical:  If there are 10k syrian refugees.  And exactly 1 of them will attempt a terrorist attack, do you let them in?  It's statistically unlikely any individual american will be harmed by the 1 attack, but that will be little consolation to the 3 people who get killed.  It's a tough balance to strike because there is no way for you to assume all the risk like there is in hitchhiking.

[The Grand Nudger]

Technically speaking, it's the hitchhiker that assumes the risk, lol.  Girls are picked up thumbing (which is illegal) and they just go :poof:  

As to the scenario, again notice that we are immediately assuming that one of them is a terrorist, so we're not talking refugees...and ofc that one terrorist can get here, already, if he can pass a refugee screen.  You aren't creating or adding any risk by accepting the refugees.   The effect, -if- there were one would be coincidental, not causal.

[henryp]

Technically speaking, it's the hitchhiker that assumes the risk, lol.  Girls are picked up thumbing (which is illegal) and they just go :poof:  

As to the scenario, again notice that we are immediately assuming that one of them is a terrorist, so we're not talking refugees...and ofc that one terrorist can get here, already, if he can pass a refugee screen.  You aren't creating or adding any risk by accepting the refugees.   The effect, -if- there were one would be coincidental, not causal.

I'd say whoever knows they aren't a murderer is assuming the risk in hitchhiker/hitchhikee situation.  Captain Awesome is presumably not a murderer in this scenario, so he's assuming the risk, as would I.  But you're right, that hitchhikers (who are not murderers) are also assuming risk.  That's why I don't hitchhike either.

--

Probably true on the screening front.  Intuitively, the screening process makes me nervous. What comes to mind is when some 18yo kid from Africa gets drafted in the NBA, and it turns out he might actually be 23.   But I think this goes to the poorly presented point Trump was making early on.  That its real hard, and maybe impossible sometimes, to vet people from 3rd world countries.

[The Grand Nudger]

Probably true on the screening front.  Intuitively, the screening process makes me nervous. What comes to mind is when some 18yo kid from Africa gets drafted in the NBA, and it turns out he might actually be 23.   But I think this goes to the poorly presented point Trump was making early on.  That its real hard, and maybe impossible sometimes, to vet people from 3rd world countries.

It just might be, but since refugees aren't terrorists, and a terrorist can get here without being a refugee...and it's very difficult to figure out that a terrorist is a terrorist regardless......where is the grounds in any of this for refusing -refugees-?