Unreported Terrorist Attacks covered up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Mayo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3_Dog_Night said:
Donald Trump is not going to go away. We have 3 years, 49 weeks and 3 days by my calculations until the next President of the United States will be sworn in – no matter who that will be. So unless there is a catastrophic event, plane crash, ICBM strike that takes out Washington DC, plague, massive heart attack or stroke (you get the idea), President Trump is going to be with us for a while. I get that his style is brisk and abrasive. I get that he doesn’t do politically correct speech. But he is President. For anyone to have the type of success he has had in business and in life, he is doing something that works.

Yeah, he may not be your style. Yeah, he may not be doing what you like. Yeah, he says some tough stuff – truths people don’t want to hear. Yeah, he says things in ways that I prefer he would have said differently. But this man has kept more campaign promises in three days shy of three weeks than the entire House and Senate combined. So is every single day going to be another drama, another temper tantrum, another shrill scream? So are people so wedded to party platform and identity politics that they would rather see the country burn than to see the country come together for the good of the nation?
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Seamus_L said:
I believe we have serious attacks in America in which the motive is kept hidden from the public. The DC snipers were probably the best example.
Click to expand...
I kinda think this too, you know stories that start out looking like it might be a terrorist and then the FBI comes in and you never hear anymore about it… I thought it was the previous administration not wanting to publish the facts… You know, not wanting to cause fear… Like the Fort Hood thing for example. Saying it was work place violence??? Maybe it was that but maybe so much more??? this is just my own take on it.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/04/exclusive-5-year-old-victims-father-saw-video-of-twin-falls-refugee-rape/amp/?client=safari

Could be fake news. Could be a cover up. The story was silenced after fed involvement.
Click to expand...
That would be this story, that wasn’t covered by the “mainstream media”?

idahostatesman.com/news/state/idaho/article84829787.html

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/23/an-alleged-sexual-assault-fuels-rumors-that-turn-an-idaho-town-against-muslim-refugees/?utm_term=.343dc0754fd7

nydailynews.com/news/national/story-syrian-refugees-raping-idaho-girl-false-authorities-article-1.2683369

boiseweekly.com/boise/times-news-snopescom-call-foul-on-report-of-islam-link-to-twin-falls-sexual-assault/Content?oid=3826684

Of course, that’s not the story some would have liked to have seen written, which I guess (for some) amounts to “covering it up.”
 
Michael_Mayo said:
But there were 14 other Republican candidates. Why did you choose him?
Click to expand...
,

This is just my take… There were 17 other candidates but they were dropping out like flies, why? Well the MSM was giving so much time to DT that they couldn’t get any air. Still I was wondering why??? On the Dems side, the liberals were doing all kinds of weird stuff to make sure Hilary won the Primary. Rolling dice, cutting for high card… giving Hilary questions during the debates… weird stuff. Then it began to become clear. (By the time the Primary got to my state, Trump, Cruz and Casich were the only ones left…y To me it seemed that the media wanted Trump. I didn’t think the other two could beat Hilary. Cruz was throwing a hissy fit, and Casich was laying low… I thought Hilary was a terrible candidate on many levels. It seemed like I said, the Media wanted Trump and then He won the Primary. Oh my. suddenly the women’s abuse stories started coming out and then the private tape on the bus by the Bush guy… I really think the MSM and the liberal Dems thought that was enough to defeat Trump in the General. But Trump had change for America, make us safe; put us to work; follow law and order; appoint a conservative SCOTUS; etc… and all Hilary did was harp on DT’s short comings… No plan, except to put those coal miners and coal companies out of work… Good Lord, we need jobs… That’s my story…
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I guess trumps point might well be the ever changing definition of terrorists.
So by your own admission trump is correct that they were largely ignored as terrorist attacks. You just happen to not believe they were.
Click to expand...
I said Trump was incorrect. That at least some on his list were not ignored. As I learned about them on CNN or MSNBC.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I guess trumps point might well be the ever changing definition of terrorists.
So by your own admission trump is correct that they were largely ignored as terrorist attacks. You just happen to not believe they were.
Click to expand...
I happen to think Sandy Hook was among the worst terrorist attacks we’ve had. Little children who now should be just in fifth grade shot to death at school by a deranged person. Why isn’t that terrorism?
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I happen to think Sandy Hook was among the worst terrorist attacks we’ve had. Little children who now should be just in fifth grade shot to death at school by a deranged person. Why isn’t that terrorism?
Click to expand...
The difference is that the motive at Sandy Hook was, as you say, that the man who did it was “deranged,” and had no rational motive.

Like school shooters, terrorists try to kill a lot of people and they aim for civilians, but they also have a *purpose, *usually political. They do not do what they do because they are deranged or mentally ill (altho I would not be surprised if some were and then manipulated to commit the act).
 
St_Francis said:
The difference is that the motive at Sandy Hook was, as you say, that the man who did it was “deranged,” and had no rational motive.

Like school shooters, terrorists try to kill a lot of people and they aim for civilians, but they also have a *purpose, *usually political. They do not do what they do because they are deranged or mentally ill (altho I would not be surprised if some were and then manipulated to commit the act).
Click to expand...
I think that this is a reasonable distinction. It puts the Idaho case into perspective: it was neither under-reported not a terrorist attack.

What it was, was an attack by refugee immigrants. The food for thought is this:
Are we talking about protection from terrorism to camouflage our xenophobia?
 
In several attacks in America, the media and even the police seemed to want to stick with other theories until the evidence could no longer be denied. We heard claims that some shootings were actually the result of mental illness, family estrangement, workplace harassment, and even a theory that the bloodiest attack was allegedly carried out by a man who couldn’t accept his own homosexuality. An attack occurs and it’s like a number of people want to immediately suggest that it was anything but an Islamic terror attack.
 
dvdjs said:
I think that this is a reasonable distinction. It puts the Idaho case into perspective: it was neither under-reported not a terrorist attack.

What it was, was an attack by refugee immigrants. The food for thought is this:
Are we talking about protection from terrorism to camouflage our xenophobia?
Click to expand...
Our main fear wrt refugees and others from Moslem-majority nations is terrorism, but this case shows another problem, one which has been encountered a lot of Europe, and that is the differences in culture which manifest in some but not all people from these areas. There have been problems with honor killings, sex attacks, and genital mutilation. The sex attacks are the most worrisome as they tend to be committed against residents outside the ME community, ie, us.

I do not think that keeping those particular people likely to commit any type of crime out of our nation is evidence of xenophobia. Sure, we have criminals here already, but why add to the criminal population?
 
Seamus_L said:
In several attacks in America, the media and even the police seemed to want to stick with other theories until the evidence could no longer be denied. We heard claims that some shootings were actually the result of mental illness, family estrangement, workplace harassment, and even a theory that the bloodiest attack was allegedly carried out by a man who couldn’t accept his own homosexuality. An attack occurs and it’s like a number of people want to immediately suggest that it was anything but an Islamic terror attack.
Click to expand...
Ahhh so that’s it. We want the media to report acts as terrorists attacks before the facts are in. 👍
 
St_Francis said:
I do not think that keeping those particular people likely to commit any type of crime out of our nation is evidence of xenophobia. Sure, we have criminals here already, but why add to the criminal population?
Click to expand...
IMO this is xenophobia.

Key questions:
Likely? How likely?
Are rates of crime higher or lower among immigrant populations or natural-born citizens?
Does immigration increase crime rate or decrease it?
Why might we be more sensitive to crimes committed by people in an “out-group” that of our own group?
Do you think that the people who brought us links to this crime committed by juveniles in Idaho Fall can give us a link to a similar crime not involving immigrants in a similalry remote area? If not, why not? Why is this one newsworthy?
 
dvdjs said:
IMO this is xenophobia.

Key questions:
Likely? How likely?
Are rates of crime higher or lower among immigrant populations or natural-born citizens?
Does immigration increase crime rate or decrease it?
Why might we be more sensitive to crimes committed by people in an “out-group” that of our own group?
Do you think that the people who brought us links to this crime committed by juveniles in Idaho Fall can give us a link to a similar crime not involving immigrants in a similalry remote area? If not, why not? Why is this one newsworthy?
Click to expand...
I don’t offer this as evidence that we should refuse people from a particular area altogether, but as evidence for vetting, and evidence against porous borders. Wrt this particular case, obviously there would have been no way of picking up criminal tendencies as the perpetrators of the act are so young.

My only point is that any government should try to keep criminals out of their country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top