Quote:How many Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks inside the United States since the September 11, 2001, atrocities? Arguably 16. Egyptian Hesham Mohamed Hadayet killed two Israelis at the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport on July 4, 2002. On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Muhammed killed one soldier at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers during a shooting rampage in at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009.

Checking the Global Terrorism Database, one finds that an additional 14 Americans were killed in broadly defined domestic terrorism incidents since September 2001. Five died from anthrax attacks (2001); two died in an attack on a Knoxville church (2008); two are suspected to have been killed by members of the Minutemen American Defense group in Arizona (2009); an abortion provider was killed in Wichita, Kansas (2009); a guard was stabbed to death at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., (2009); two died in Austin when a man crashed his light plane into a government building over a dispute with the IRS (2009); and a neo-Malthusian terrorist was shot by police during a hostage incident at the Discovery Channel in Silver Spring, Maryland (2009). That adds up to a grand total of 30 Americans killed in terrorist incidents inside the United States in the last 10 years.

...

Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010. The report adds, “From 1991-2000, the United States averaged 41.3 terrorist attacks per year. After 2001, the average number of U.S. attacks decreased to 16 per year from 2002-2010.”

...

...the police and politicians will cite the lack of deaths from terrorism as evidence that their protective measures are working. Earlier this year, the conservative Heritage Foundation compiled a list of 39 terror plots that had been foiled since September 2001. Going through the list, about 23 of the plots might plausibly have resulted in terror attacks of one sort or another. Several were aimed at subways, military bases, and shopping malls. To get a feel for the number of people that might be killed in typical terrorist attacks, consider that four subway bombs killed 52 people in London in 2005; the deadliest attack on a military base killed 13; and blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killed 187 people in 1995.

(11-19-2015, 11:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I'm not concerned about a terror attack.  If it happens it happens.   Still doesn't change the fact I want to clamp down on the border and who we actually allow to come here .   This has been my stance for quite some time now.    A threat of terror doesn't change that...    

Besides if Obama and holder wouldn't take Coptic Christians when they were being slaughtered by the Muslim brotherhood then why has their position changed now?   Why is there a lack of consistency?

(11-19-2015, 11:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well if you're not afraid...and you think obama should have taken OTHER refugees in...why are you "consistently" against it?

(11-19-2015, 12:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Because the mass invasion of people marching to the west isn't all about getting out.   If they were they wouldn't be attacking border guards in Hungary.

Like it or not. We do know for a fact that Christians are not part of Isis.   If we take anyone we should start with them.    But I think we should take them somewhere to check them all out fully before we let them in.

(11-19-2015, 12:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Because the mass invasion of people marching to the west isn't all about getting out.   If they were they wouldn't be attacking border guards in Hungary.

Like it or not. We do know for a fact that Christians are not part of Isis.   If we take anyone we should start with them.    But I think we should take them somewhere to check them all out fully before we let them in.

Quote:"We should not be admitting either Muslims or Christians, and you’ll say, ‘Whoa why won’t you want to admit Christians?', because in so doing we would be accomplishing exactly what ISIS wants to accomplish, which is to rid the area of Christians, which is to rid the area of moderate Muslims," Santorum said on Pittsburgh radio show "Rose Unplugged," according to an audio clip highlighted by Buzzfeed News.

(11-19-2015, 12:26 PM)Benton Wrote: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-santorum-christian-syrian-refugees


I'll say one thing for Rick, this comment makes it sounds like he actually understands Christians and moderate Muslims aren't the same as ISIS.

(11-19-2015, 12:26 PM)Benton Wrote: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-santorum-christian-syrian-refugees


I'll say one thing for Rick, this comment makes it sounds like he actually understands Christians and moderate Muslims aren't the same as ISIS.

(11-19-2015, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: There's a rare moment of sanity!

(11-19-2015, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agreed.   My position is that we shouldn't be accepting anyone.  

(11-19-2015, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only people I want coming in here are the best of the best .

Was only using the Christians as an example as those who aren't members of Isis.  

(11-19-2015, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Really we need more governments in the Middle East like Egypt .  Who will shut down and destroy radical mosques.

(11-19-2015, 12:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Despite what some think I don't have issues with moderate Muslims.

(11-19-2015, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think you even read what you write yourself.


So at this point its just close the borders to any and all...


...unless they meet some kind of standard for being "the best of the best" which is apparently being NOT Muslim.


Right.

As long as you can decide what is radical and we can keep them ALL out of the US.

(11-19-2015, 12:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would only allow 2% per year of the current population of legal citizens born in that country.   We should make it highly competitive and quite frankly we need time to sort out our current illegal immigrant situation.  

As far as me deciding what mosques to close down and destroy.   Not sure what point you are trying to make?  I had no voice in the decision to go after mosques who were radical and sympathetic to the Muslim brotherhood.    It sounds like their intelligence operation did their homework and removed the problem.

(11-19-2015, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Except you don't want any Muslims here.  

At all.

Because you are *not* afraid.

(11-19-2015, 01:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 2% per year is more than 0.  

Until the Middle East calms down I do think we should stop those immigrants.  

We should also be helping Russia and Iran get the region in control.   Since we were the ones who set it on fire.


We have high unemployment and already a shortage of jobs.   More immigrants is not going to help that improve.

(11-19-2015, 01:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: So 2% or none?

Quote:Peter Hoekstra spent 18 years in Congress and spent much of his time focused on intelligence matters. He is now with the Investigative Project on Terrorism and is the author of “Architects of Disaster,” which outlines the failure of the Obama administration’s policy in Libya.

“I think (Rhodes) basically lied to the American people,” Hoekstra told WND and Radio America. “He said we’ve got a good vetting process in place where we can vet those that are coming from Syria into the United States.”

Quote:He continued, “No we do not. The records don’t exist in Syria, especially after you’ve had five years of civil war. We don’t have a relationship with the regime. It’s an ungoverned area. We don’t know who these people are. Ben, shame on you for even implying that we’ve got a good vetting system. We’re lucky if can get the names right.”

(11-19-2015, 02:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: As opposed to what?  we have the issue with the lack of dealing with they current illegal immigration problem.  At some point we need to face the facts that we need to make some hard choices and limit people coming into the country.   So we can enable ourselves to deal with the illegals currently here breaking the laws that's neither party has been willing to deal with for years.  

It's irresponsible to continually let people in given our current economic situation.

(11-19-2015, 04:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you are back to letting NO ONE in?  You said 2%.  Which is it now?

(11-19-2015, 04:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What difference at this point does it make?

They will come through our leaky borders anyways.