Halloween Attack NYC

[Captain Steel]

Since 9/11/2001, I can't believe the number of times my jaw's been on the floor in learning about irresponsible and utterly insane policies that have either been left in place, initiated or left unaddressed.

For the first time in 16 years New York City has fallen victim again to a terrorist attack, this one made possible by something I never heard of... a "Diversity Lottery."

Why do we have "lotteries" allowing people like this terrorist who murdered 8 innocent people with a truck to immigrate to America?


Everyday I hear the ad on the radio about how 1 in 8 Americans don't have enough food to eat.
We have unemployment, many Americans have been unemployed for years - unable to find work or discriminated against for being unemployed too long. Millions have fallen into a state of limbo where they've been unemployed so long that they aren't even counted amongst the nation's unemployed!
We have homeless epidemics in many cities (one homeless American is one too many).
We have poverty, we have pollution, we suffer from overpopulation in many areas.
We have minority Americans who cannot escape poverty, feed their kids or find jobs.
We bring millions of legal immigrants into the country every year.
And there are millions more immigrants trespassing illegally and millions on top of that who are undocumented and that no one can even estimate or account for!
We have hundreds of thousands stuck in a grey area where they aren't citizens, but were brought here as children by their families.
We have been attacked countless times by Islamic Terrorists (one time being the single largest terrorist attack on a single day that the world has ever seen in modern times).


Why in God's name are we holding immigration lotteries in Islamic countries that enable Terrorists to come to a country where we can't even feed, house or employ our own people?

[I. Rex]

A lot of red herrings there. As if stopping a visa program that is responsible for a drop in the bucket of all immigration will make a hill of difference (or even has anything to do with) lack of food, unemployment, homelessness, poverty, pollution, overpopulation, etc. Nevermind that solutions for ALL those things you mentioned are routinely opposed by anti immigration conservatives when democrats call for funding to help the poor, the hungry, the homeless, etc. Just stick with the argument that you are worried that immigration "lotteries" will act as a short cut for terrorists to rain down on our country and kill people.

From what I understand the lottery simply allows folks to move straight to green card status without the need for a sponsor. They dont come waltzing into the country the next day. They still need to go through the normal process of immigration, its just their green card is now guaranteed and theres no line waiting. But they still have to go through the normal security checks and vettings that everyone else does. So the concept that getting rid of this program will stop all those nasty terrorists from getting in the country is just silly. Especially since it looks like this guy was turned by ISIS AFTER he got into the country. Not sent as some stealth terrorist operative. Of course, if you grant 50,000 visas a year, chances are some of them will commit a crime of some sort. But the vast majority are law abiding and we shouldn't punish future applicants because of one person's actions.

That being said we can certainly have a discussion about if this program is relevant in this day and age. Ill note that the program was originally supported by members of BOTH parties when it first went into law (and signed by a republican president). So I think Trump using this tragedy to jump on this program and try to make political points is pretty disgusting. Divider in chief strikes again. I'll ALSO note that in 2013 when a new immigration bill was proposed that would have ended this program it was defeated by the Nationalist Freedom Caucus, not the lefties.

[Captain Steel]

Thanks for the info, I. Rex.
You make a lot of good points.

As I said, I never heard of this program before yesterday, so I have little knowledge of the details outside what I heard the last few hours.

My overall point was, we have enough problems in this country that we can't seem to fix for our own people - so bringing more people whose motives or potentials can't be confirmed (and none can be confirmed) from foreign lands (especially from those that largely hate western culture, do not seek to assimilate, or which embrace ideologies that include supremacism & genocide), is antithetic to establishing safety, security and an acceptable standard of living to our own citizens. The more stable, safe and secure our country is, the better able it would be to help others or invite them in through a more secure, legal process.

I've held this stance since 2001. First things first. I say let's get our own security completely under control. Let's secure our borders, ports and all points of entry. Let's get an accounting of who is in the country. Let's enact fair laws and uphold them consistently. Let's fix our immigration system to make it both simpler and more secure. As always, I am just dumbfounded that these areas were not completely addressed and revised immediately after 9/11/2001. It seems unfathomable, after what happened, that this country didn't devote every resource and however long it might take to focusing on totally repairing every single weak link in the only chain that protects us.

All I'm suggesting is taking time to focus on solutions rather than creating more problems with programs and policies that enable and empower more terrorists to come in and slaughter more innocent people. For those who argue, "no policies enable or empower terrorism" ... well, look what happened... and then look beyond it to a list that is too long to post of attacks that have occurred both on our shores and on those of other nations.

[I. Rex]

I find the argument that this one attack proves that the program is a terrible idea fairly ridiculous. After all, no matter how many people die in this country from gun violence nothing is done about guns. But if ONE immigrant is involved in a terrorist attack, the screams and cries of "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" are deafening. Thats an enormous double standard to me.

But again, Im definitely not opposed to looking into updating it. I think it has issues probably for different reasons then you do (its supposed to promote diversity but most of those who have "won" this particular lottery have been white and/or from Europe. How is that promoting diversity exactly?) Plus employers seem to be taking advantage of it even though its supposed to be "random".

[7thson]

I find the argument that this one attack proves that the program is a terrible idea fairly ridiculous. .


Tell that to the families of the people that were killed.

I personally am neither condoning nor condemning the program, I do not have enough information yet - but as always I think those adversely involved should have the first and last say about "arguments" like this.

Not saying they should ultimately decide, but they should definitely have the right to speak out before those of us not directly affected spout off.

[7thson]

I But if ONE immigrant is involved in a terrorist attack, the screams and cries of "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" are deafening. Thats an enormous double standard to me.

.


I hear the "cries:" from both sides.

I do not want to go into my own personal thoughts because this is not the place to do so and not the point I am trying to make. I hear those "cries" all the time, hell it seems to be all I hear now and those damn "cries" seem to all be close-minded and doing nothing but echoing off sound proof walls into the ears of the deaf.

Compromise IS a word and one that has done much for us as a country - just not lately.

[Captain Steel]

I'm screaming "SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO!"

A long time ago I was screaming "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!"

And before that I was screaming "WE JUST SAW WHAT HAPPENED SO WE BETTER DO SOMETHING TO KEEP ANYTHING LIKE IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN!"

But even in the face of ongoing and overwhelming horror, in the face of a constant and growing threat that openly telegraphs and literally warns us of its next moves and intentions on exactly what methods it will use to infiltrate and attack us, innocent people are STILL dying in the streets. Political correctness is like mental ear plugs - those infected by it can't seem to hear the screams.

It all comes down to a simple question: what is the priority?
Potentially helping some foreigners, but in doing so, opening the gate to potential terrorists who can murder untold numbers of innocent citizens OR protecting our children and our people? Which is more important?

[Camo]

Horrific that this happened. RIP to the victims :(

[gandalf26]

On a side note I think without us all realising it has happened we have become desensitised to this cycle of attacks, it is no longer a shock. We now expect an attack somewhere in a European/US city every month or so. It is no longer "big" news or at least not as big as it was.

Lots of us were outraged when London mayor Sadiq Khan said "terror is now part of big city life" but I think he was/is right.

Not making any political point here it's just a very sad state of affairs.

[Captain Steel]

On a side note I think without us all realising it has happened we have become desensitised to this cycle of attacks, it is no longer a shock. We now expect an attack somewhere in a European/US city every month or so. It is no longer "big" news or at least not as big as it was.

Lots of us were outraged when London mayor Sadiq Khan said "terror is now part of big city life" but I think he was/is right.

Not making any political point here it's just a very sad state of affairs.

Learning to "accept" it is another symptom of the apathy that allowed it to get to this point. Our governments realize they are powerless to do anything about the PC apologetics that enables and empowers terrorism, so the only thing left they know how to do is to try to promote the attitude of apathy and get us to accept it. We've become a culture of zombies who've chosen to replace our brains and our wills with Smart phones.

More than half of us cannot even identify the difference between right and wrong anymore. A murdered body at your feet calls for an analysis of what societal & political factors traumatized the perpetrator to do such a thing and who is behind promoting those societal or political factors, rather than stopping the killer and making sure they can never do it again.

[Yoda]

I'm screaming "SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO!"

A long time ago I was screaming "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!"

And before that I was screaming "WE JUST SAW WHAT HAPPENED SO WE BETTER DO SOMETHING TO KEEP ANYTHING LIKE IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN!"

But even in the face of ongoing and overwhelming horror, in the face of a constant and growing threat that openly telegraphs and literally warns us of its next moves and intentions on exactly what methods it will use to infiltrate and attack us, innocent people are STILL dying in the streets. Political correctness is like mental ear plugs - those infected by it can't seem to hear the screams.

It all comes down to a simple question: what is the priority?
Potentially helping some foreigners, but in doing so, opening the gate to potential terrorists who can murder untold numbers of innocent citizens OR protecting our children and our people? Which is more important?
"SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE."
"SOMETHING MUST BE DONE."
"WE BETTER DO SOMETHING."

"Something" is not a strategy.

You seem to think the issue is one that can be solved by mere willpower. This is both unsupported by the evidence, and convenient. I pointed out that there's no real reason to think we can wipe out terrorism with political willpower in another thread: you acknowledged the argument without ever really addressing it, and then went right back to berating people for not taking terrorism as seriously as you do.

So here's my theory: this isn't about actually fighting terrorism, which is why there appears to be next to no interest in talking about the actual mechanics of doing so. This is frustration in the face of a mostly intractable problem, which is temporarily alleviated when you can blame other citizens for not confronting it. This sidesteps all the really tough questions, and shrinks the issue down until it's small enough to put at the feet of the naive liberal down the road, who is conveniently close enough to have to listen to you yell at them for it.

This is not to say that the attitude many on the left have towards terrorism is not myopic, because I think it often is. But they're not stopping some grand victory over terrorism that we could easily achieve if only they came to their senses, either. That's a psychologically comforting fantasy, and an excuse to avoid facing the tough questions the actual issue entails. But, by ignoring all those and focusing only on whether other people agree with you about the scale of the problem (even though at the moment they possess very little political power and are therefore not standing in the way of anything you're talking about), it allows somebody to feel as if they're fighting terrorism without actually doing anything constructive.

[Yoda]

All the above is additionally supported by the fact that you don't seem to care who you're saying this about. This isn't a forum about politics or war, it's about movies, so it's an utterly bizarre place to decide to save society from itself. And you certainly haven't seen anything here (or anywhere, I'm guessing) suggesting that people respond to this kind of derisive venting, either. Yet it continues.

Both of these things are clear evidence that you don't care if you persuade anyone, which undercuts the entire premise of the argument. This is just blowing off steam. Because steam doesn't care where it goes: only that it gets vented out somewhere, so it doesn't cause an explosion.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I hear the "cries:" from both sides.

well, not on this forum so much, anyway. after the Las Vegas shooting, Captain Steel created this thread (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=51481). here's what the original message said:

Guess I'll take a chance on mentioning the attack.

Anyone want to talk about it, or just vent, express your fears, speculate, offer prayers & condolences?

not exactly full of passion and agenda the way this one is. it wasn't created by a more left-meaning member that so they could push the gun control debate, either (even though there are several passionate ones on here much to your chagrin :p)

and speaking of the Las Vegas shooting - when the conversation about gun control was even mentioned we were told by our current, lovely administration that "now is not the appropriate time" to discuss it. but, like, 3 hours after the NY terrorist attack our commander in chief was on the Twitter horn talking about stepping up our Extreme Vetting Program. so, forgive some of us for feeling that this has more than a little to do with bigotry.

:sick:

[Captain Steel]

Well, thanks for the psychoanalysis, guys.
Up till now I didn't realize this was all about ME and the way I post on the MoFo under the Miscellaneous Chat section. ;)

[Yoda]

You seem perfectly happy to psychoanalyze people on the other side of these issues: they have "mental ear plugs" or put their "heads in the sand."

[Captain Steel]

well, not on this forum so much, anyway. after the Las Vegas shooting, Captain Steel created this thread (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=51481). here's what the original message said:



not exactly full of passion and agenda the way this one is. it wasn't created by a more left-meaning member that so they could push the gun control debate, either (even though there are several passionate ones on here much to your chagrin :p)

and speaking of the Las Vegas shooting - when the conversation about gun control was even mentioned we were told by our current, lovely administration that "now is not the appropriate time" to discuss it. but, like, 3 hours after the NY terrorist attack our commander in chief was on the Twitter horn talking about stepping up our Extreme Vetting Program. so, forgive some of us for feeling that this has more than a little to do with bigotry.

:sick:

I see what you're saying ash. The REASON the two threads are different is because the cases are different.

We don't know the motive for the Las Vegas attack, we only know that the ALLEGED person who carried it out ALLEGEDLY acted alone and was an American born citizen who doesn't fit any known profile of a mass murderer or terrorist. Currently my rail over the LV attack is at the authorities and the media for going silent when there are so many people coming forward with claims that contradict their narrative and so many questions left unanswered.

I began this thread talking about the policies that made it possible for a terrorist to be chosen AT RANDOM through a ridiculous lottery to bring more immigrants to a country that cannot feed, house or employ all of its own citizens. In this case we have a living perpetrator with a clear motive, proudly acting in the name of terrorists, who came here through a program that is very obviously irresponsible and dangerous in a post 9/11 world.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

[Captain Steel]

You seem perfectly happy to psychoanalyze people on the other side of these issues: they have "mental ear plugs" or put their "heads in the sand."

Yes, I'm analysing group mindsets because it is that very mindset that is a huge part of the problem. It's that mindset that enabled this latest attack to occur.

[Yoda]

Yes, I'm analysing group mindsets because it is that very mindset that is a huge part of the problem.
Great. I'm analyzing the group mindset that thinks this other group mindset is the only reason terrorism exists.

It's that mindset that enabled this latest attack to occur.
I don't think you actually have any idea if this is true.

[Captain Steel]

Great. I'm analyzing the group mindset that thinks this other group mindset is the only reason terrorism exists.


I don't think you actually have any idea if this is true.

That's fine. I don't think anyone is saying a mindset is the ONLY reason terrorism exists. For any major social problem there is not usually one single cause, nor is there one single solution.

You spoke about strategies to address terrorism before, and I've laid out my ideas of multi-pronged approaches on several former threads. I realize there is no 100% solution, but I've explained ways to address terrorism, retaliate against it and prevent it from reaching our shores.

An obvious preventative, common-sense measure should have been not having a program that chooses people at random to come into our country on a lottery.

As I said before - I didn't even know such a thing existed and can't believe that it would be allowed, no less carried out, in a post 9/11 world. With that being the case, how many other suicidal programs are in place in the name of political correctness that I or we don't even know about?

We do know we're bringing in refugees by the thousands from countries where Islamic terrorism is rampant despite the fact that ISIS said they would use this as a means of infiltration and have already carried out multiple such infiltration attacks in Europe!

Talk about a place to start!

How do we start working on preventative & defensive strategies when we are constantly undermined by a government & country full of people who practice and indoctrinate others with an ideology (PC) that literally sets us up for destruction?

[Yoda]

That's fine. I don't think anyone is saying a mindset is the ONLY reason terrorism exists.
You may not be saying it literally, but your wildly disproportionate focus on it suggests it pretty strongly.

You spoke about strategies to address terrorism before, and I've laid out my ideas of multi-pronged approaches on several former threads.
Please point me to them. But note well: if the "strategy" is just clearing away the supposed impediments and assuming things will be fine afterwards, that's not really a strategy.

As I said before - I didn't even know such a thing existed
It beggars belief that, a mere 24 hours after conceding this, you're ready to confidently declare not only that this attack wouldn't have happened otherwise, but that a particular "mindset" is to blame for its enacting, and--surprise!--it happens to be exactly the mindset you've been complaining about for years.

How do we start working on preventative & defensive strategies when we are constantly undermined by a government & country full of people who practice and indoctrinate others with an ideology (PC) that literally sets us up for destruction?
This isn't a real question: it's a statement which takes the very thing under dispute (whether the PC mindset "literally sets us up for destruction"), acts as if it's been established, and then asks a question based on that. In other words, it's talking right past everything I'm pointing out, and just doing more of it.

I'm not a fan of political correctness. I think in many cases it leads people to ignore clear and present threats, like terrorism. But that belief does not logically imply, by itself, that this mindset is stopping our ability to combat terrorism, or that terrorism wouldn't be a problem otherwise. You seem to make this assumption with no real acknowledgement or supporting evidence. And, as I've pointed out, this is a very psychologically convenient thing to assume, because it sidesteps the hardest questions about terrorism in favor of much simpler, more convenient enemies that you can berate personally. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Captain Steel]

Yoda - it's kind of like the gun control argument - most calling for greater controls aren't claiming that it's going to end all gun violence, they know that's not the case. What they are saying is close up the gaps WHERE WE CAN to at least help limit, prevent or make it less easy for unscrupulous people to get their hands on guns. Of course it's realized that they can carry out violence in any number of ways that don't involve firearms, but the argument is we can tighten the chain by repairing some areas of broken links and maybe save a few more lives that might otherwise be lost if we allow gaps to remain.

I'm applying the same argument here. I said I realize there is no solution for terrorism, but we can do things to help prevent it.
This immigration lottery is analogous to terrorism like various loopholes are to gun violence. We don't need loopholes. Close them.

[Yoda]

Yoda - it's kind of like the gun control argument - most calling for greater controls aren't claiming that it's going to end all gun violence, they know that's not the case.
And much like the gun control debate, most of the arguments are about restrictions that wouldn't necessarily have stopped the attack in question, and are tellingly focused on people rather than policy.

There's a quote in The West Wing, from one of the few conservative characters allowed to be thoughtful or articulate, where they say something like "It's not that you don't like guns. It's that you don't like people who like guns." That's what it sounds like here. You care about terrorism as any feeling person would, but c'mon, anyone can see what gets you really fired up, and it ain't fighting terrorism. It's fighting people who you think aren't fighting terrorism. You guys aren't fighting a war, you're trying to execute deserters.

I'm applying the same argument here. I said I realize there is no solution for terrorism, but we can do things to help prevent it.
This is demonstrably not what you're doing. It's what you did for a few posts. And you'll notice I didn't take issue with any of them.

Then, as almost always happens after lip service is paid to terrorism itself, the focus shifts onto the real target: political correctness. I find that plenty disagreeable in its own right, but all I see in this reflexive pivot is the same kind of tactics applied to a different end, which I don't find to be much better.

[Powdered Water]

I wish these things would stop. I am never going to believe that it has to be this way. To date: I have NEVER killed a person for ANY reason. And I have a lot of reasons (Ha!). When are we gonna stop killing each other? There has to be another way. All I see is talk, talk ,talk. and more violence. What does it take to change an entire planet's thinking? We just seem so set on a path of mental apathetic inevitability when dealing with these horrible incidents.

[Captain Steel]

And much like the gun control debate, most of the arguments are about restrictions that wouldn't necessarily have stopped the attack in question, and are tellingly focused on people rather than policy.

There's a quote in The West Wing, from one of the few conservative characters allowed to be thoughtful or articulate, where they say something like "It's not that you don't like guns. It's that you don't like people who like guns." That's what it sounds like here. You care about terrorism as any feeling person would, but c'mon, anyone can see what gets you really fired up, and it ain't fighting terrorism. It's fighting people who you think aren't fighting terrorism. You guys aren't fighting a war, you're trying to execute deserters.


This is demonstrably not what you're doing. It's what you did for a few posts. And you'll notice I didn't take issue with any of them.

Then, as almost always happens after lip service is paid to terrorism itself, the focus shifts onto the real target: political correctness. I find that plenty disagreeable in its own right, but all I see in this reflexive pivot is the same kind of tactics applied to a different end, which I don't find to be much better.

Well, sure. I have no problem admitting you've got me pegged... to a certain extent.

I'm not going to deny railing against political correctness. I'm proud to oppose the double standards, inequality and injustice this manipulative philosophy represents.

So, I'm not sure what your beef is with me this time. Yes, my complaints about PC are the same as they were in 2001 because the problem on the PC end hasn't changed.

Terrorism is the direct problem, PC is what helps keep the door open for it to keep occurring and what is constantly trying to distract people from the fact that it's holding the door open. PC is the enabler.

So of course I'm against the mindset people who rationalize terrorism, apply arguments of moral equivalency to it, deny it, want to appease it, try to misdirect the causes of it, tell us we should just accept it or who feel if we all ignore it long enough it will go away. I desire to open their eyes to reality - apologism, appeasement, and denial doesn't make terrorism go away, it only gives people a false sense of security, makes them more vulnerable, and less prepared when something does happen. Apathy in a world where terrorism exists is dangerous and irresponsible.

Granted I am far more against the terrorists themselves, but those who enable or embolden them with ill-thought-out policies, even when that is not their intention, bear some degree of accountability.

This case in particular is making many outraged because it is such a prime and obvious example of PC policies enabling and literally opening the door for terrorism.

[Dani8]

You keep making the claim the pc brigade encourage terrorists coming in through the door. Does not compute. Even trump wants him necked as everyone does but guess what, lethal injection stopped being handed out in your state in 2007.

[Captain Steel]

You keep making the claim the pc brigade encourage terrorists coming in through the door. Does not compute. Even trump wants him necked as everyone does but guess what, lethal injection stopped being handed out in your state in 2007.

Hi Dani, how are you?

What exactly doesn't compute?

The "PC brigade" developed this immigration lottery program that enabled a terrorist to get in. This wasn't a conservative "let's protect our people when we've been told by terrorists that intend to utilize these types of immigration programs" program.

Immigration shouldn't be a game. Except for those who developed this program or who are deeply steeped in the PC camp, I haven't heard anyone NOT condemn it now that they are aware that such an irresponsible and dangerous program was put in place. Most people either can't believe this program existed or they are outraged that our government plays games that put our safety in jeopardy. It may be a lottery for immigrants, but for the American people it is a game of Russian Roulette.

I have no opinion on the fate of the terrorist - I'm happy to let the justice system follow its course however it is determined to be applied in this case. I really don't care whether they classify him as an enemy combatant or as a felon. I am very glad he was taken alive - I always am, because we can get a lot more information, contacts and connections from this individual than if he'd been killed.

[Dani8]

Fine thnks cp. How are you you.

Bashing their tambourine about Sayfollo and how the lunatic is doing the work of ISIS says nothing about the pc drama llamas' power. They are not human rights advocates and never will be

[mark f]

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/diversity-visa/instructions.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

[Yoda]

Terrorism is the direct problem, PC is what helps keep the door open for it to keep occurring and what is constantly trying to distract people from the fact that it's holding the door open. PC is the enabler.
This case in particular is making many outraged because it is such a prime and obvious example of PC policies enabling and literally opening the door for terrorism.
How do you know this? Who proposed the policy? Who opposed it? When was it enacted? How have you determined that the person in question wouldn't have gained entry anyway? And so on.

Would I be correct in assuming you have absolutely no idea what the answers to these questions are? If so, does that mean this claim is based on nothing more than the idea that it just sort of sounds like a politically correct thing, at first blush?

[Captain Steel]

How do you know this? Who proposed the policy? Who opposed it? When was it enacted? How have you determined that the person in question wouldn't have gained entry anyway? And so on.

Would I be correct in assuming you have absolutely no idea what the answers to these questions are? If so, does that mean this claim is based on nothing more than the idea that it just sort of sounds like a politically correct thing, at first blush?

I heard on the news that Chuck Schumer was one of the people who proposed it. It was reported that several Republicans opposed it and the current administration opposes it and will try to get rid of it. Without looking it up, I think I read or heard it was enacted in the late 2000's.

There are lots of ways for a terrorist to gain entry.
As I said before we should be focused on closing those loopholes, limiting those means and working on improving both our immigration system and security as opposed to trying to increase "diversity" by allowing access to immigrants chosen at random and enabling potential terrorists to enter our country via lotteries.

[mark f]

It was enacted in 1990 as it says in the links I posted that apparently nobody read. I think you and Drumpf get your news from the same place.

[I. Rex]

He also ignored when I said this program does NOT give those that win it any special privilege to avoid the SAME security checking and vetting that every other normal immigrant goes through. So I dont get the carrying on and on about a "loophole" for terrorists. How is it that exactly? If its the same security process that all immigrants must go through to get in? The only difference again is that they dont need a sponsor and they get to skip the line.

And he also ignored the point that all evidence points to this guy being radicalized AFTER he got in. So how is this program responsible for that?

[Captain Steel]

It was enacted in 1996 as it says in the links I posted that apparently nobody read. I think you and Trump get your news from the same place.

I said I wasn't going to look it up. I could have just cheated and looked every one of Yoda's questions up and provided answers... but I didn't. There's no appreciation for honesty here.

I did open your links last night, but only scanned them and did not read them.

(I didn't know there was going to be a pop quiz today that determines one's veracity based on a common-sense deduction they made upon hearing about "immigration lotteries" after one of the "winners" murdered 8 Americans... and deciding that such a thing is an all around bad idea!)

And, Mark... I never lie. ;)

[Captain Steel]

He also ignored when I said this program does NOT give those that win it any special privilege to avoid the SAME security checking and vetting that every other normal immigrant goes through. So I dont get the carrying on and on about a "loophole" for terrorists. How is it that exactly? If its the same security process that all immigrants must go through to get in? The only difference again is that they dont need a sponsor and they get to skip the line.

And he also ignored the point that all evidence points to this guy being radicalized AFTER he got in. So how is this program responsible for that?

The entire idea of vetting terrorists is a joke!

A lot of terrorists had perfectly clean backgrounds before they became a terrorist.
A lot of "radicalized" individuals seemed perfectly normal before they became radicalized.
ISIS has already set operatives up with false names, backgrounds, records and documents - they may be insane murderers, but they're not stupid.
Vetting from countries where one guy can have two dozen names, ten different families and a dozen different sets of legal records?
Vetting from countries that are so war torn, demolished or underdeveloped that they don't even have records?

"Please check box if you are or intend to become a terrorist."
"Note: checking box may delay your visa application."

[I. Rex]

The entire idea of vetting terrorists is a joke!

A lot of terrorists had perfectly clean backgrounds before they became a terrorist.

and if they had not yet "become a terrorist", then that means, logically, that they were NOT terrorists when they were vetted. So how can you blame this program at all for that?

A lot of "radicalized" individuals seemed perfectly normal before they became radicalized.
ISIS has already set operatives up with false names, backgrounds, records and documents - they may be insane murderers, but they're not stupid.
Vetting from countries where one guy can have two dozen names, ten different families and a dozen different sets of legal records?
Vetting from countries that are so war torn, demolished or underdeveloped that they don't even have records?

Just for the record, Uzbekistan is none of those things, unless you count their last war which occurred in the early 16th century as an indication that they are "war torn". But if Im hearing you correctly, it sounds like your issue isnt with this program in particular (since you acknowledge that you cant vet out a terrorist if they havent been radicalized yet) but with the concept of ANYONE from ANY country that doesnt pass your smell test immigrating AT ALL into this country. Whether they have ties to terrorism or not. Or maybe its just that you are fully anti-immigrant across the board and this program provides a convenient scapegoat for attacking immigration. Or its that you mistrust muslims and the fact that this one single muslim individual was allowed into this country through this program and later carried out an attack gauls you to no end. Well If its any of those things then I think you should just own it and say that and not sit here and hurumph and carry on about this particular program that does none of the things youve declared it does. It makes absolutely no sense to condemn a program that brings in immigrants and ignore it when their radicalization occurs WITHIN our own country. Why arent you going on and on about the internet? Thats apparently what made him decide terrorism was the right choice to make. And YouTube for allowing all the terrorist videos that apparently inspired him toward murder. Why do act like this particular program is the only reason we have terrorist attacks in this country? And what about the radicalization of those born here? Theres been a lot more of those then there have been of individuals who have carried out terrorist attacks after coming to this country through the green card lottery program.

[Yoda]

I heard on the news that Chuck Schumer was one of the people who proposed it.
Not really (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/01/donald-trump/was-diversity-visa-program-schumer-beauty-donald-t/).

It seems like "I heard it on the news" is a common refrain in these discussions. Not sure it's a great idea to form major parts of one's worldview (even arguing with people about them!) based on scattered, half-remembered news fragments, possibly not from particularly objective sources to begin with, that you then don't bother to verify.

It was reported that several Republicans opposed it and the current administration opposes it and will try to get rid of it. Without looking it up, I think I read or heard it was enacted in the late 2000's.
Please go back and read the very first reply to this thread. You responded to it, but now you're saying things that make it sound like you didn't read it.

There are lots of ways for a terrorist to gain entry.
Agreed. In fact, it's not clear we can stop them at all, let alone that this one particular program was the difference between this one person entering or not. These facts clearly preclude you from drawing the kinds of conclusions you've been so eager to draw.

As I said before we should be focused on closing those loopholes, limiting those means and working on improving both our immigration system and security as opposed to trying to increase "diversity" by allowing access to immigrants chosen at random and enabling potential terrorists to enter our country via lotteries.
I agree with all that. What I don't agree with is the relatively unsupported claim that this attack is the result of political correctness. I don't think you know that.

[Yoda]

(I didn't know there was going to be a pop quiz today that determines one's veracity based on a common-sense deduction they made upon hearing about "immigration lotteries" after one of the "winners" murdered 8 Americans... and deciding that such a thing is an all around bad idea!)
I don't get it. You're sarcastically asking why you should have to know something about an issue before you post accusatory monologues about it?

The "common-sense deduction" here is that first-glance judgments about complex issues are inherently suspect, and that conclusions which flatter or immediately reinforce our preexisting views deserve more scrutiny, not less.

[Des]

I would definitely ban immigration lottery because it is a likely potential terrorist gateway into the USA.
I would also study up on the Australian immigration system, which is primarily merit based.
What would make America stronger is a higher quality of immigrants, those that can contribute through qualification or financial resources.
If we are to remain strong, we need to adapt to changing times and stop clinging to old ways, excused by old ways.
We need to focus on excellence, instead of wallowing in all inclusiveness.
Diversity for the sake of diversity does not promote excellence.
Our focus should be to protect our borders and ensure that all those that are legally here can pursue excellence, without bias.
Even then, like in any group, big or small, there will always be those who fail to make the cut on their own.
I believe in helping those that really want to help themselves.
I am anti-leach!

[I. Rex]

What would make America stronger is a higher quality of immigrants, those that can contribute through qualification or financial resources.
If we are to remain strong, we need to adapt to changing times and stop clinging to old ways, excused by old ways.
We need to focus on excellence, instead of wallowing in all inclusiveness.

So at what point would you bulldoze the Statue of Liberty then?

[Powdered Water]

So at what point would you bulldoze the Statue of Liberty then?

Too expensive to get bull dozers to Liberty Island. The new plan would be to "give" it to Mexico and then they can scrap it, sell it back to us for that big construction project they got going on down there.

[Captain Steel]

Get ready - here comes another one (in Texas).

Now, the question is start a new thread for it or what?

[Yoda]

Seems like you like starting threads for each attack because it allows you to reboot the discussion and lead with the same things you said before, while leaving the unaddressed counterarguments from the previous threads behind.

So, my answer is: no, not unless you have something totally new to say about it, or plan to use it just to discuss the news itself. If you're going to use it to pivot to the same talking points, then you should continue one of the existing discussions waiting for your reply, instead.

[Captain Steel]

Seems like you like starting threads for each attack because it allows you to reboot the discussion and lead with the same things you said before, while leaving the unaddressed counterarguments from the previous threads behind.

So, my answer is: no, not unless you have something totally new to say about it, or plan to use it just to discuss the news itself. If you're going to use it to pivot to the same talking points, then you should continue one of the existing discussions waiting for your reply, instead.

It's too bad there couldn't just be one thread for this stuff so that reports of these continuing acts could be confined to one place for those interested, who want to vent or discuss, or who want to keep abreast of news and updates. It's becoming obvious that unfortunately these attacks seem to be becoming a regular occurrence. Maybe you could start one, Yoda, that way it might insure that it not get closed?

[Captain Steel]

Seems like you like starting threads for each attack because it allows you to reboot the discussion and lead with the same things you said before, while leaving the unaddressed counterarguments from the previous threads behind.

So, my answer is: no, not unless you have something totally new to say about it, or plan to use it just to discuss the news itself. If you're going to use it to pivot to the same talking points, then you should continue one of the existing discussions waiting for your reply, instead.

I thank you for the guidance.

Regarding saying I want to use each thread to make the same points - it's funny because Ash is the gal recently asked why my points were so different between the LV attack and the NYC attack - and I answered that with different types of attacks, different methods, different circumstances, unknown vs. known motives, my points are going to be as different and varied as the information provided pertaining to very different attacks.

Right now we know nothing about Texas. Any points I end up making will be determined by the info provided.

[Yoda]

Er, we were literally just talking about it, in this very thread. People pointed our this latest accusation wasn't consistent with the facts, and you responded with sarcasm.

I'll believe you want to have a discussion when you actually see one of them through. If you continually avoid substantive points and pivot back to venting as if nothing had been said or addressed, then I'll naturally assume you just want to rant. And no, I'm not going to start a thread to house your rants about terrorism. As I've said every other time someone has tried to pass ranting off as discussion: you don't need other people to rant. Start a blog.

[Captain Steel]

Er, we were literally just talking about it, in this very thread. People pointed our this latest accusation wasn't consistent with the facts, and you responded with sarcasm.

I'll believe you want to have a discussion when you actually see one of them through. If you continually avoid substantive points and pivot back to venting as if nothing had been said or addressed, then I'll naturally assume you just want to rant. And no, I'm not going to start a thread to house your rants about terrorism. As I've said every other time someone has tried to pass ranting off as discussion: you don't need other people to rant. Start a blog.

Honestly, Chris, the reason I didn't debate your former posts was I wanted to consider if I was indeed as wrong and off base as you were saying I was, and look into a bit more to see if that's the case. I admitted right off that until the attack on Halloween, I'd never heard (or imagined) there was an immigration lottery in an era when we are faced with international terrorism. So, all I knew about it at the time I made this thread was that it was the means a terrorist used to get into the country and murder 8 people.

(Since the "Diversity Lottery" issue has been an almost week-long point of contention since the NYC attack, through many media outlets, it's apparent that it's an issue involving a lot of opinion, and someone who holds an oppositional opinion toward it is not just some uneducated loonie who's coming up with random biases toward it when there are individuals, groups and parties all over the country, including in high levels of government, who share that opinion and are taking actions to change the policy for the very reason that a terrorist utilized it as a means of access. Also, if it's such an unrelated, unfounded, unwarranted position to say it defies common sense in a post 9/11 world, then why has it been the central point of discussion and controversy on various news outlets for the last week?)

I don't get why you argue that I don't want to have a discussion or see one through. What is your interpretation of "seeing one through"? Having someone say you changed their opinion, that you out debated them? That you won?

Sometimes people just can't continue an argument on another's time frame because they have real stuff they have to go out and do, and by the time they get back here they may want to talk about something different or get distracted by something different (including immediate events that just occurred) rather than go back and try to tie up every single loose end of every conversation they took part in.

[Yoda]

Honestly, Chris, the reason I didn't debate your former posts was I wanted to consider if I was indeed as wrong and off base as you were saying I was, and look into a bit more to see if that's the case. I admitted right off that until the attack on Halloween, I'd never heard (or imagined) there was an immigration lottery in an era when we are faced with international terrorism. So, all I knew about it at the time I made this thread was that it was the means a terrorist used to get into the country and murder 8 people.
Exactly. You launched into an accusatory rant while admitting you didn't know much about it. Why not learn more first, to see it it applies? Could it be because the ranting is not actually a response to the events, but rather, that the events are just a pretext for it?

Since the "Diversity Lottery" issue has been an almost week-long point of contention since the NYC attack, through many media outlets, it's apparent that it's an issue involving a lot of opinion, and someone who holds an oppositional opinion toward it is not just some uneducated loonie who's coming up with random biases toward it when there are individuals, groups and parties all over the country, including in high levels of government, who share that opinion and are taking actions to change the policy for the very reason that a terrorist utilized it as a means of access.
Who's saying this, exactly? Is anyone in this thread even really arguing that the program should continue?

Also, if it's such an unrelated, unfounded, unwarranted position to say it defies common sense in a post 9/11 world
This isn't the argument.

then why has it been the central point of discussion and controversy on various news outlets for the last week?
Probably because cable news discusses everything to death whether it merits it or not. Also, you're basically saying "if it's such a bad argument, why are people making it?"

I don't get why you argue that I don't want to have a discussion or see one through. What is your interpretation of "seeing one through"? Having someone say you changed their opinion, that you out debated them? That you won?
No. My interpretation is of "seeing it through" is either articulating a coherent objection, or incorporating the counterarguments into the view in some form. Maybe this means tweaking the original claim, or maybe it means explaining why it doesn't hold/doesn't apply. The only thing I'm objecting to here is whistling on by like none of it happened, repeating the same things people have already replied to without replying to those replies.

Sometimes people just can't continue an argument on another's time frame because they have real stuff they have to go out and do, and by the time they get back here they may want to talk about something different or get distracted by something different (including immediate events that just occurred) rather than go back and try to tie up every single loose end of every conversation they took part in.
Not having time to participate in a discussion is reasonable. So is losing interest. But none of that applies to situations where the same basic topic is discussed again later, which is what we're talking about.

[Captain Steel]

Good advice, Yoda.
And, you may think I'm ducking you again, but I have to go make dinner for my mom.
I'm not being dubious or working to undermine anything - will try to check back later or tomorrow.

[I. Rex]

Looks like Des already beat him too it.