Oregon shooting

[BlaqueKatt]

Well, that's the absurd thing. A straw purchase is punishable by up to 10 years in prison under Federal law. But only on weapons purchased from federally regulated gun stores. Straw purchases outside of said regulated stores do not fall under this Federal law.

So the penalty is harsh but the Federal law doesn't apply beyond regulated dealerships.

and they don't apply if the judge doesn't think it's "fair" either.

And you've got crap like this going on. 27 straw purchases(55 federal charges), with false ID and not a single day in jail, he got 5 years probation for buying guns for felons.

[protege]

To be blunt, greenday, the issue is that if the government is granted whatever powers it wants, without having to justify them, then the USA will sleepwalk into becoming a totalitarian state. It's closer than you would think at the moment. (routine monitoring of the population- yes, the NSA are (allegedly) only looking for information on terrorist plots.

It's nothing more than a massive fishing expedition. There's no reason to compile an archive of everyone's texts and emails...other than the Feds using 1984 as an instruction manual. Nor is there a reason for wiretapping everyone's phones. Yet this crap goes on...because our government can justify it, not to mention making it totally legal.

Don't believe me? The Stasi did similar things in East Germany until the Wall came down.

[s_stabeler]

That, and any search of said database would have an absolutely horrific false positive rate.

My point is that, while it can be justified, to take such an extraordinary measure requires the government prove exactly why it needs to take such a measure. That means they need to give examples of situations where plots have succeeded because the measures were not taken- NOT just that it was difficult to catch terrorists, but that there was a failure to catch said terrorists because this measure was not taken.

[Gravekeeper]

Not to mention, IS is grown beyond a "simple" terrorist group; they're practically their own country in all but name by now. In their conquered territory, they provide emergency services, repair the infrastructure, even build up a functioning healthcare system. These aren't some Al Qaida suicide bombers living in caves, and to view them as such vastly underestimates the dangers they pose for the region.

Actually, the ironic thing is that its this very thing that makes it easier to combat than Al-Qaeda. Because they're trying to behave like a traditional invading military by taking and holding territory it makes them vulnerable to traditional military attacks such as air power. The ones living in caves are the hardest ones to combat.

Acting like a state has made them entrenched in their core territory so they're going to be around for a while. But they're also limited in what they can really do and have little influence outside of the region itself. Their standing military force isn't actually that large ( hence they're not having much luck with the Kurds, who outnumber them 3 to 1 ) and they're currently losing as much as they're gaining.

The main thing they have is money and a good grasp of PR ( which Americans buy hook line and sinker because it makes for great ratings. Not to mention a new unending threat to make political hay out of. ). They make use of shock value and western media eats it up giving them the attention they crave.

Al-Qaeda was an international network bent on striking targets all over the world. These guys literally want to take over the world one foot at a time. The former is honestly more dangerous. The latter is causing a lot of noise and shock but try to picture them actually fighting a direct war with any world power. They wouldn't get anywhere.

Without existing regional instability to take advantage of they wouldn't have gotten this far as is.

[protege]

Acting like a state has made them entrenched in their core territory so they're going to be around for a while. But they're also limited in what they can really do and have little influence outside of the region itself. Their standing military force isn't actually that large ( hence they're not having much luck with the Kurds, who outnumber them 3 to 1 ) and they're currently losing as much as they're gaining.

That's exactly it. They're trying to set up a caliphate in the Middle East, so they're not going to be going anywhere. Also, because their military force isn't that large...sooner or later they'll over-extend themselves. Much like the Nazis in WWII. It was only a matter of time--after they pissed off the Soviet Union with an ill-fated invasion--that things started to turn. They were fighting a war on two fronts, and simply didn't have enough soldiers (and the required supply chain) to keep defending that much territory.

The reason ISIL is keeping the infrastructure and emergency services going is simple. They're trying to promote goodwill and make themselves appear to be better than the people they're fighting. Remember the photos and commentary about Iraqis not being able to get basic supplies during the invasion...and how some citizens joined the insurgency because of it?

The main thing they have is money and a good grasp of PR ( which Americans buy hook line and sinker because it makes for great ratings. Not to mention a new unending threat to make political hay out of. ). They make use of shock value and western media eats it up giving them the attention they crave.

Yep, they're doing it all for the media attention. That's why the videos of captured enemies kept getting worse. All for the "shock and awe" of Western media...who will not only package that shit up and sell it, but keep the various stereotypes going, and stir up endless paranoia.

Al-Qaeda was an international network bent on striking targets all over the world. These guys literally want to take over the world one foot at a time. The former is honestly more dangerous. The latter is causing a lot of noise and shock but try to picture them actually fighting a direct war with any world power. They wouldn't get anywhere.

Agreed. The thing about Al-Qaeda, is that they are more dangerous. Because they aren't backed by a foreign power...they have nothing to lose. With the exception of the Taliban choosing to hide bin Laden, there's nobody to retaliate against. They'll take out anyone, and to hell with the consequences. They can get away with it, because they're not backed by any country.

Without existing regional instability to take advantage of they wouldn't have gotten this far as is.

That's exactly how these groups have become stronger. They feed on instability and people's emotions. Much like inner-city street gangs. "Join us and we'll take care of you." "You have somewhere to belong." "Join us, and we'll strike at the people who hurt you," etc. It's all public relations bullshit, and some people are lapping it up.

[Greenday]

That's exactly it. They're trying to set up a caliphate in the Middle East, so they're not going to be going anywhere.

Then why do I keep seeing articles about ISIS terrorism plots being stopped in America/Europe/Australia? Active recruitment in those areas? Did Charlie Hebdo?

[TheHuckster]

Al-Qaeda was an international network bent on striking targets all over the world. These guys literally want to take over the world one foot at a time. The former is honestly more dangerous.

You admit Al-Qaeda was a dangerous terrorist organization which, thanks to at least some of our efforts, was neutralized to a great extent. Yet, previously you've been saying terrorism wasn't a big deal that required a lot of attention by the government. Which is it?

As I've said before, there are efforts that are either too invasive to privacy or are way overblown budget-wise, but a large amount of the money was spent to decimate Al-Qaeda's efforts, something which greatly decreased our risk at attacks after 9/11.

That's exactly it. They're trying to set up a caliphate in the Middle East, so they're not going to be going anywhere.

IS has been involved in several attacks outside of their territory. Granted, they are somewhat isolated incidents, it doesn't mean we can write them off as a non-risk to other countries.

And, while I support the refugee immigration, I don't deny that the countries who let them in have to make efforts to ensure they aren't allowing a bunch of IS terrorists in with the legitimate refugees. If they do things the wrong way, Europe especially could be in jeopardy of a huge terrorist situation.

[Gravekeeper]

Then why do I keep seeing articles about ISIS terrorism plots being stopped in America/Europe/Australia? Active recruitment in those areas? Did Charlie Hebdo?

Charlie Hebdo was Al-Qaeda. Thanks for proving my point though. ;p

and no one said ISIS exists solely in the middle east and doesn't recruit. Just that international terrorism is not their objective unlike Al-Qaeda. Though I would like some citations on these articles of yours. Do you mean the Texas shootings?

Those were 3 Americans that pledged loyalty to ISIS on Twitter. Isis claimed credit, sure, but Isis has and does claim credit for attacks it has no involvement in. They were also fended off by a traffic cop. Not the NSA.

Copenhagen? Same thing. Dude said something on Twitter once. No real links to Isis. Stopped by local police.

You admit Al-Qaeda was a dangerous terrorist organization which, thanks to at least some of our efforts, was neutralized to a great extent. Yet, previously you've been saying terrorism wasn't a big deal that required a lot of attention by the government. Which is it?

No where in this thread did I say anything like that. You can readdress your "gotcha" argument to Canaar who I assume is who you are thinking of. Though I don't recall him saying anything in those words either.

As I've said before, there are efforts that are either too invasive to privacy or are way overblown budget-wise, but a large amount of the money was spent to decimate Al-Qaeda's efforts, something which greatly decreased our risk at attacks after 9/11.

The vast majority of that money was misspent though. It was not a multi-trillion dollar war or two that brought Al-Qaeda to heel it was intelligence and surgical strikes. Trillions of dollars, thousands of soldiers and millions of civilians lives were wasted and the main thing accomplished was destabilizing the region even more ( paving the way for shit like ISIS ) and making the US a pariah on the world stage.

All while playing directly into Al-Qaeda's hands.

IS has been involved in several attacks outside of their territory. Granted, they are somewhat isolated incidents, it doesn't mean we can write them off as a non-risk to other countries.

Well, number one: Now you're misquoting protege as me and number two: Who said to write them off as a non-risk?

Stop trying to make this into a black and white argument. Its not.

[protege]

Well, number one: Now you're misquoting protege as me and number two: Who said to write them off as a non-risk?

Sorry about that. What I *meant* to say was...that ISIL's main effort seems to be setting up that caliphate. Sure, they have been linked to some attacks. However, they seem to be more interested in gobbling up territory. That's not to say that they aren't dangerous. Far from it.

[Gravekeeper]

Sorry about that.

I meant Huck quoted you but put my name on the quote header.

[protege]

I know. But, I thought I should clarify the point I was trying to make

[Canarr]

Actually, the ironic thing is that its this very thing that makes it easier to combat than Al-Qaeda. Because they're trying to behave like a traditional invading military by taking and holding territory it makes them vulnerable to traditional military attacks such as air power. The ones living in caves are the hardest ones to combat.

Acting like a state has made them entrenched in their core territory so they're going to be around for a while. But they're also limited in what they can really do and have little influence outside of the region itself. Their standing military force isn't actually that large ( hence they're not having much luck with the Kurds, who outnumber them 3 to 1 ) and they're currently losing as much as they're gaining.

The main thing they have is money and a good grasp of PR ( which Americans buy hook line and sinker because it makes for great ratings. Not to mention a new unending threat to make political hay out of. ). They make use of shock value and western media eats it up giving them the attention they crave.

Al-Qaeda was an international network bent on striking targets all over the world. These guys literally want to take over the world one foot at a time. The former is honestly more dangerous. The latter is causing a lot of noise and shock but try to picture them actually fighting a direct war with any world power. They wouldn't get anywhere.

Without existing regional instability to take advantage of they wouldn't have gotten this far as is.

Agreed. The Kurds would probably have even more success against IS if they didn't have to keep the Turks off their backs simultaneously. You're right that the general instability in the region is IS' greatest advantage.

The point I was (mostly) trying to make: IS is dangerous for the people in the region they're trying to subdue. For those, they're a lot more than terrorists, they're an invading army (and a very hostile one). But for the Western countries, they aren't really a threat - they are simply not interested in sending suicide bombers all over the world, they want to carve their own caliphate out of the countries around them.

And, while I support the refugee immigration, I don't deny that the countries who let them in have to make efforts to ensure they aren't allowing a bunch of IS terrorists in with the legitimate refugees. If they do things the wrong way, Europe especially could be in jeopardy of a huge terrorist situation.

Yeah... no. We get a lot of that rhetoric from our politicians here in Germany, and it's bullshit. If - and that's a big if - IS had any interest in bringing suicide bombers or sleepers into Europe, they certainly wouldn't need to do that as fake refugees. Why would you send your agents on a journey taking weeks or months, on foot or in rickety boats, with a solid risk of dying, when you have the money to fly them first class, as regular immigrants or tourists, with real, official documents that you can easily produce from any number of government installations you control?

The vast majority of that money was misspent though. It was not a multi-trillion dollar war or two that brought Al-Qaeda to heel it was intelligence and surgical strikes. Trillions of dollars, thousands of soldiers and millions of civilians lives were wasted and the main thing accomplished was destabilizing the region even more ( paving the way for shit like ISIS ) and making the US a pariah on the world stage.

All while playing directly into Al-Qaeda's hands.

Exactly. Al Qaeda could never, not in a million years, have done the same damage to the US that the US did to themselves in the frenzied attempt to wage their "war on terror".

But to reiterate my original point: considering the lengths the US went to in their measures to combat a fairly negligible threat (if you look at the numbers), shouldn't there be more effort made to counter the very real, very present threat of guns in the US?

[TheHuckster]

The point I was (mostly) trying to make: IS is dangerous for the people in the region they're trying to subdue. For those, they're a lot more than terrorists, they're an invading army (and a very hostile one). But for the Western countries, they aren't really a threat - they are simply not interested in sending suicide bombers all over the world, they want to carve their own caliphate out of the countries around them.

That's quite a risky assumption you're making. Especially in the face of attacks having been made that IS openly admitted to being involved in between Canada, France, Australia, and other western countries. Do you really want to dismiss them as not a threat to people outside of the territory they are establishing as their own?

Yeah... no. We get a lot of that rhetoric from our politicians here in Germany, and it's bullshit. If - and that's a big if - IS had any interest in bringing suicide bombers or sleepers into Europe, they certainly wouldn't need to do that as fake refugees. Why would you send your agents on a journey taking weeks or months, on foot or in rickety boats, with a solid risk of dying, when you have the money to fly them first class, as regular immigrants or tourists, with real, official documents that you can easily produce from any number of government installations you control?

Because if you are processing a couple hundred people who arrived on a flight through an immigration system that's designed to prevent terrorists and other dangerous from coming through, it's much more difficult to get through that way versus picking the few bad apples from thousands of refugees coming in.

A lot of the refugees have money to fly in, too. Contrary to popular belief, a good number of them aren't in poverty and are, at least, middle class people who are displaced by a civil war fought between two crazy factions. The immigration process in the airports aren't letting them immigrate via the conventional manner, just as they wouldn't let terrorists in via the conventional manner. The agents have a greater risk of being discovered by going through the conventional means of immigration.

I'm not saying we shouldn't let the refugees in. I'm just saying some measures should be put in place to minimize the threat of terrorists falling through the cracks. In other words, don't just give automatic amnesty to every refugee that comes in without doing the proper checks you would do with any immigrant.

[Gravekeeper]

That's quite a risky assumption you're making. Especially in the face of attacks having been made that IS openly admitted to being involved in between Canada, France, Australia, and other western countries. Do you really want to dismiss them as not a threat to people outside of the territory they are establishing as their own?

Isis doesn't "admit" anything. They will claim responsibility for attacks they weren't even involved in and most attacks outside of their realm of influence are only inspired by them so to speak ( Twitter ) with the attackers simply claiming they did what they did for Isis. PR is part of their MO.

There has not been a single attack in Canada, France, Australia or the US that was actually planned or directed by Isis. Not one. Seriously. Go check. All of the attacks that Isis has actually executed itself have been within countries that Isis has declared as part of their territory. There has not been a single attack planned and executed by Isis in any western country.

And stop saying we're dismissing them. That is not the argument. The argument is that the US response has been disproportionate to the actual threat presented ( which was the whole point of said terrorism to begin with. You gave them precisely what they wanted and more. ).

No one is saying we should do absolutely nothing about terrorists.

I'm not saying we shouldn't let the refugees in. I'm just saying some measures should be put in place to minimize the threat of terrorists falling through the cracks. In other words, don't just give automatic amnesty to every refugee that comes in without doing the proper checks you would do with any immigrant.

There has not been a single legitimate case of a terrorist slipping in as a refugee. I also assume you mean asylum, not amnesty. Amnesty is something different altogether. And who is granting automatic asylum to everyone without any proper checks? Have you not seen the deplorable situation in Europe? Do you think Germany is just letting everyone in without so much as a question?

I mean, Germany is about the only one even showing any humanity over there and even they are quietly throwing out refugees from the "wrong" places as they take in Syrian ones.

[s_stabeler]

I mean, Germany is about the only one even showing any humanity over there and even they are quietly throwing out refugees from the "wrong" places as they take in Syrian ones.

um, not quite.(as in, Germany being the only ones to show humanity)- it's just that Germany declared they'd let in something like 100,000 refugees that had alreadymade it to Europe. The UK said it would take refugees straight from the refugee camps- the argument isn't over taking refugees- as such, there ARE arguments about how many- the argument is how to take them so as not to enrich people-smugglers at the same time. The criticism of Germany taking refugees was more-or-less that they would encourage people to use people-smugglers- in those unsafe, overloaded rickety boats that seem to sink more often than they actually make it- instead of taking them from the camps, and presumably flying them straight to their new country in a far safer- not to mention likely both cheaper and more comfortable- way.

not to mention that, IIRC, there has been exactly ONE country that has actively refused entry to syrian refugees.

Oh, and as for the refugees from other countries- that's a little bit more complicated. It does happen, but basically? refugees from Syria, because it's a hot news topic, are more likely to be accepted as genuine refugees. More-or-less, people from other countries are claiming to be from Syria to get an easier time getting let in. However, they do check, and lit casts doubt on if thye are legitimate refugees. Yes, it's not really fair that refugees from other countries are treated differently. However, they are NOT being turned away just for not being from Syria.