Pesident Clinton

[planters]

Nil,
This is going nowhere. If they want to hold those positions so vigorously then you are wasting your time trying to reason. This is why we vote. If Clinton wins we will see more of the same. If Trump wins we will see some changes.

The importance of insight is that you can anticipate the future and prepare. Remember the joke about the two fishermen up in Alaska? They were fly fishing together in a stream when a bear appears on the bank and the one nervously asks the other, "look, he's awfully close, aren't you worried"? "Nope" says the other, "I have my Nike's". Smirking, the first fisherman says, " even with those shoes you can't outrun a bear". His companion replies, "who says I have to outrun the bear? I only have to outrun you."

[buffo]

What I and I believe others mean by no go zones is areas where many people from other groups have a very high risk when visiting and local authorities either have lost partial control over or have huge difficulties enforcing the law. To keep it short, areas where people can be harassed and even assaulted for not meeting certain criteria (clothing) and police as well and there are gangs "controlling" the areas by doing that.

By this very loose definition, there are significant portions of the US that meet your definition of a no-go zone. Portions of Harlem, the South-east side of Jacksonville, Park Mesa Heights in LA... Not to mention some of the militant militia compounds found in Montana and other western states.... And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself if you concentrate for a moment. This is why Swami took issue with your statement.

If you disagree with this definition of a no go one you are simply wrong and I can link you to sources as well.

Well, yes, we do disagree, because as I just pointed out, your definition applies to lots of groups right here in the US, yet none are caused by radical Islamic terrorism. But more importantly, none of the presidential candidates are talking much about these problems, despite the fact that some of these bad neighborhoods have existed for decades. And if they have existed for decades, it's clear that they're not the dire threat you make them out to be.

So maybe, JUST MAYBE, everyone would be wise to ratchet down the end-of-the-world rhetoric for a moment and just think. Ask yourself why you are so emotionally invested in this. Is it fear? Because it sure sounds like fear to me. And where is that fear coming from? Is it rational? Reasonable? Seriously now - think about it for a while.

Yes, extremist Islamic terrorists are scary. But so is a blood-feud between the Crips and the Bloods. Why worry about one and not the other (particularly when the other is far closer to home and has been here far longer)?

Yes, the thought of Sharia law here in this country is scary. But the CHANCES of that happening are basically zero. The chances of you being affected by radical Islamic terrorism is also near zero. Hell, you have a far better chance of being killed by a drunk driver as you drive to work tomorrow! The terror threat is tiny, but it makes for good news and good ratings, which is why it's on the TV 24-7. It's manufactured hysteria designed to sell advertising.

You appear to be caught up in the hysteria. So do many others here, and even more people around the nation. Indeed, some of our politicians are also caught up in it. But that is a terrible place to be when you're forming opinions that affect our nation's foreign policy. Snap out of it!

Honestly, some of the talk here sounds suspiciously like Mccarthyism. OK, maybe not quite that bad, but damned if we aren't on the express train to a terrible, intolerable place right now. And it seems that the entire nation is along for the ride.

Where are the voices of reason? Where is the temperance? Where is our nation's BACKBONE? I can't believe how frightened people are by all this. After the terrible struggles of the 1960's, are we going to throw all that experience away and return to the xenophobic attitudes of the 1950's? Really? Is this who we have become? Because I don't want to be remembered like this.

I know we are better than this. It's time we started acting like it.

Adam

[swamidog]

thank you adam.. very well said.

By this very loose definition, there are significant portions of the US that meet your definition of a no-go zone. Portions of Harlem, the South-east side of Jacksonville, Park Mesa Heights in LA... Not to mention some of the militant militia compounds found in Montana and other western states.... And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself if you concentrate for a moment. This is why Swami took issue with your statement.



Well, yes, we do disagree, because as I just pointed out, your definition applies to lots of groups right here in the US, yet none are caused by radical Islamic terrorism. But more importantly, none of the presidential candidates are talking much about these problems, despite the fact that some of these bad neighborhoods have existed for decades. And if they have existed for decades, it's clear that they're not the dire threat you make them out to be.

So maybe, JUST MAYBE, everyone would be wise to ratchet down the end-of-the-world rhetoric for a moment and just think. Ask yourself why you are so emotionally invested in this. Is it fear? Because it sure sounds like fear to me. And where is that fear coming from? Is it rational? Reasonable? Seriously now - think about it for a while.

Yes, extremist Islamic terrorists are scary. But so is a blood-feud between the Crips and the Bloods. Why worry about one and not the other (particularly when the other is far closer to home and has been here far longer)?

Yes, the thought of Sharia law here in this country is scary. But the CHANCES of that happening are basically zero. The chances of you being affected by radical Islamic terrorism is also near zero. Hell, you have a far better chance of being killed by a drunk driver as you drive to work tomorrow! The terror threat is tiny, but it makes for good news and good ratings, which is why it's on the TV 24-7. It's manufactured hysteria designed to sell advertising.

You appear to be caught up in the hysteria. So do many others here, and even more people around the nation. Indeed, some of our politicians are also caught up in it. But that is a terrible place to be when you're forming opinions that affect our nation's foreign policy. Snap out of it!

Honestly, some of the talk here sounds suspiciously like Mccarthyism. OK, maybe not quite that bad, but damned if we aren't on the express train to a terrible, intolerable place right now. And it seems that the entire nation is along for the ride.

Where are the voices of reason? Where is the temperance? Where is our nation's BACKBONE? I can't believe how frightened people are by all this. After the terrible struggles of the 1960's, are we going to throw all that experience away and return to the xenophobic attitudes of the 1950's? Really? Is this who we have become? Because I don't want to be remembered like this.

I know we are better than this. It's time we started acting like it.

Adam

[planters]

By this very loose definition, there are significant portions of the US that meet your definition of a no-go zone. Portions of Harlem, the South-east side of Jacksonville, Park Mesa Heights in LA... Not to mention some of the militant militia compounds found in Montana and other western states.... And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself if you concentrate for a moment.

Agreed.

Yes, extremist Islamic terrorists are scary. But so is a blood-feud between the Crips and the Bloods. Why worry about one and not the other (particularly when the other is far closer to home and has been here far longer)?

This too I agree with. I would worry about this as well. BLM is a domestic example of such violent intolerance and both should be condemned. Neither should be ignored. The question began with why I have a problem with Muslims. It has followed this thread.

Careful, I might agree with you if the hysteria is laid on both sides. But if you suggest that one side is hysterical and the other is merely responding then that one sided criticism is more of an attack.

Where are the voices of reason? Where is the temperance?

I see it here. If you believe that your nation and your civilization is threatened it IS reasonable to respond. It is not intemperate to discuss it and to disagree. It is intemperate to kill cops and to drive a truck through citizens in Nice.

Honestly, some of the talk here sounds suspiciously like Mccarthyism.

There were communists that had infiltrated our government. McCarthy was relentless and unfair and finally driven from the scene, but that does not mean his issues were completely wrong.

I know we are better than this. It's time we started acting like it.

Maybe we are, but I'm not sure we agree on who the "we " are.

[Nii]

By this very loose definition

It's not a loose definiton, just one of the two definitions and the more commonly used one.

there are significant portions of the US that meet your definition of a no-go zone. Portions of Harlem, the South-east side of Jacksonville, Park Mesa Heights in LA... Not to mention some of the militant militia compounds found in Montana and other western states.... And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself if you concentrate for a moment.

So your argument that there aren't muslim no go zones in Europe is that there are non muslim no go zones in US which aren't called no go zones by the officials? I'm sorry what's your point? For example if I point out that terrorism kills people and you point out that car accidents kill people too does that mean terrorism is not a problem? This is not an either or situation, both can be a problem, you can't disprove one problem by pointing out there's another probem as well.
You could call them "islamist ran ghettos", wouldn't change a thing.

Well, yes, we do disagree, because as I just pointed out, your definition applies to lots of groups right here in the US, yet none are caused by radical Islamic terrorism.

There are non-islamic terrorist in the world, there are non religious terrorists, domestic terrorists, that does not mean that islam is not the cause of radical islamic terrorism because it's not the cause of all forms of terrorism.

But more importantly, none of the presidential candidates are talking much about these problems, despite the fact that some of these bad neighborhoods have existed for decades. And if they have existed for decades, it's clear that they're not the dire threat you make them out to be.

The difference is while both are the problem, the second is a problem which grows. Both are a tumor, one is cancerous.

Ask yourself why you are so emotionally invested in this.

I'm not.
I hate when the other side of a conversation tries to be my personal psychologist and tries to find emotional basis for my views. That's disrespectful, get off your high horse if you want to talk.

The chances of you being affected by radical Islamic terrorism is also near zero. Hell, you have a far better chance of being killed by a drunk driver as you drive to work tomorrow!

Comparative data doesn't make something less dangerous just because it happens less than something else.
You have a very high chance dying from old age than terrorism. How the hell does that statement make terrorism less of an issue or even a non issue?

Where are the voices of reason?

You're ignoring it.

return to the xenophobic attitudes of the 1950's? Really? Is this who we have become? Because I don't want to be remembered like this.

I know we are better than this. It's time we started acting like it.

Am I xenophobic for opposing fascism? Am I xenophobic for being against any other kind of terrorism?
I don't want to be "better" because I'm not bad, if you stop being shit to me we might just have a constructive conversation. Otherwise I agree with planters that I'm wasting my time here.

[buffo]

BLM is a domestic example of such violent intolerance and both should be condemned. Neither should be ignored.

Completely agree. Although I think BLM is a greater problem (from both sides of the issue).

The question began with why I have a problem with Muslims. It has followed this thread.

Understood. My counter to this would be that having a problem with Muslims while *not* having an equal problem with other, equally dangerous elements of our own society is not rational. However, if you are equally concerned, then I withdraw my objection.

My larger point though still stands: while domestic threats are clearly far more pressing, they are not being debated in the media or by our current presidential candidates. Thus the reaction to radical Islamic terrorism appears to be out of proportion to the actual threat. And I believe this is, at least in part, an intentional effort by the media to get us glued to the TV so they can sell ads.

Careful, I might agree with you if the hysteria is laid on both sides.

Wouldn't that be something? I agree that the hysteria *IS* laid on both sides. In the 1970's the black panthers and the KKK were the boogie-man of choice. The difference, of course, is that back then the media was not 24-7, so while the threat was probably greater back then for the average american, the perception was that the threat was less. Today it's radical Islamic terrorism. Actual threat is pretty low, but perception is at an all-time high.

But if you suggest that one side is hysterical and the other is merely responding then that one sided criticism is more of an attack.

I agree that there are those on the left who are just as hysterical about this issue. (Social Justice Warriors have been mentioned more than once in this thread.)

For example, while I do not support Trump and I disagree strongly with some of his ideas, I am also reasonable enough to understand that if he becomes president the world will not end. No one man (or woman) has that kind of power in our government. Could he do damage to our nation's reputation abroad? Sure. But I can think of several other presidents who have also done that.

Likewise, I fully acknowledge that Hillary is a consummate politician who is keenly aware of how the system works. More importantly, she has spent her career learning how to manipulate this system to further her own agenda. And again, while I do not support her and I also disagree strongly with some of her ideas, I know that if she becomes president the world will not end.

For me, this election has boiled down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. (Like so many elections before.) But no matter who wins, the world will go on and in 4 years we'll be doing this same dance all over again. I'm not seriously worried about my long-term stability, and I don't believe you should be worried either.

If you believe that your nation and your civilization is threatened it IS reasonable to respond. It is not intemperate to discuss it and to disagree.

I believe you are overstating the threat, as Nii is. That's not to say there is zero threat. But in proportion to other threats we are facing as a nation, I think this one is tiny.

It is intemperate to kill cops and to drive a truck through citizens in Nice.

Agreed. Although I highly doubt that ISIS had anything to do with the killing of cops, despite the shooter's claim otherwise. If anything, I look at it as a copy-cat killing. Unstable people see ISIS in the news, think that they want to belong to something powerful like that, and take up the name. But I do not believe the Dallas shooter was actively recruited, much less directed, by ISIS.

McCarthy was relentless and unfair and finally driven from the scene, but that does not mean his issues were completely wrong.

No, not completely wrong. Just mostly wrong! The problem with this line of thinking is that it's very hard to draw that line between fair and unfair, and heard mentality will often push otherwise normal people way past their comfort zone. That's why the constitution errs on the side of caution. People like McCarthy are the reason we always need to be on our guard against intolerance.

I'm not sure we agree on who the "we " are.

We as a nation. As a people who founded a country based on openness, on tolerance, on doing the right thing even though it's hard. That's who we are. Or at least, that's who we used to be...

So your argument that there aren't muslim no go zones in Europe is that there are non muslim no go zones in US which aren't called no go zones by the officials?

No, my argument is that you are over-stating the threat, because there are significant areas of our own country that pose a greater threat than your so-called no-go zones in Europe, yet you are either blissfully unaware of them or unwilling to even acknowledge their existence. And given that they are far closer to home and far more numerous, the fact that you place radical Islamic terrorism on a higher threat level is, to me, completely irrational.

For example if I point out that terrorism kills people and you point out that car accidents kill people too does that mean terrorism is not a problem? This is not an either or situation, both can be a problem

We do not have unlimited resources. We can solve some problems, but not all. Getting involved in xenophobic foreign policy issues to protect our nation against Sharia law is wasteful and pointless, particularly when we have more pressing matters to attend to domestically.

There are non-islamic terrorist in the world, there are non religious terrorists, domestic terrorists, that does not mean that islam is not the cause of radical islamic terrorism because it's not the cause of all forms of terrorism.

Agreed. So what? My point has nothing to do with the cause of radical Islamic terrorism.

I hate when the other side of a conversation tries to be my personal psychologist and tries to find emotional basis for my views.

Then explain your reasoning. Explain why you believe this to be such a dire threat to you personally, or to our nation as a whole. And be prepared to justify why you think it is more serious than any number of other threats we are currently facing. Because apart from fear, this reaction is completely disproportionate to the actual threat.

Comparative data doesn't make something less dangerous just because it happens less than something else.

Yes it does. That's actually the definition of comparative data. Chance of occurring times penalty for failure equals a number. Do that for two threats and compare numbers.

You have a very high chance dying from old age than terrorism.

I have an ever higher chance of dying from a preventable disease (heart disease, diabetes, and suicide top my list, for various medical history reasons). I definitely worry about these and take action to avoid unfavorable outcomes.

How the hell does that statement make terrorism less of an issue or even a non issue?

Because there are domestic threats that are closer, more prevalent, and far more likely to affect you or me than any threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism. That is why it's less of an issue. As soon as you understand why you can so easily dismiss these domestic threats, you will understand why I am not completely up in arms about radical Islamic terrorism.

You're ignoring it.

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that we are overly-focused on it right now, and it is leading us into dangerous territory. We as a nation are a thundering herd that has been spooked by this trivial threat. I'm arguing for some rational assessment of the actual threat, rather than knee-jerk reactions.

Am I xenophobic for opposing fascism?

Funny you should mention fascism. Because a lot of the rhetoric I've listened to lately sounds a hell of a lot like fascism. This is what I meant earlier when I said that we, as a nation, are better than this.

Am I xenophobic for being against any other kind of terrorism?

But you're not really against any other kind of terrorism, are you? The whole point here is that you're going off on radical Islamic terrorism as if it's the end of the free world. Here's a hint: Terrorism is everywhere. To put a very fine point on it: Where is your outrage when doctors are killed outside abortion clinics? If you can dismiss that, then you should equally be able to dismiss things happening 6000 miles away.

Personally, I'd like to see a nation-wide movement to address inequities with our justice system. For one, stop shooting police officers! And second, make a national, concerted effort to equip officers in all 50 states with body cameras. Yes, I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's a start. And hopefully by showing some positive action towards the problem, we can dissuade further BLM (and other protests) from becoming violent. To me, this is a far more credible threat than anything ISIS can dish out.

Honestly, I think the divisiveness of the whole radical Islamic terrorism issue is the only real threat ISIS poses to us. It's leading us to ideologies that are completely at odds with our nation's core principles.

Adam

[logsquared]

@Buffo. Well put.

Only thing I disagree with is:

We as a nation. As a people who founded a country based on openness, on tolerance, on doing the right thing even though it's hard. That's who we are. Or at least, that's who we used to be...

I have never really bought into the "good ole days" idea. Even though I made some negative assertions about people in my state earlier, I honestly believe we are getting better as a whole. Its just moving at a snails pace. I think this slow pace is party the reason why so many of us (on both sides of the argument) are so frustrated. Politicians like Pence want to push us backwards. That is why I am so against him. I think Trump's popularity is party due to people thinking he is some sort of "quick fix".

[Nii]

No, my argument is that you are over-stating the threat, because there are significant areas of our own country that pose a greater threat than your so-called no-go zones in Europe, yet you are either blissfully unaware of them or unwilling to even acknowledge their existence.

It's not "my" "so called" no go zones.
Perhaps you are blissfully unaware of what is going on in Europe? You say no go zones do not exist. I have said that if you google "Sweden 55 no go zones" you will see the Swedish police acknowledging the existence of no go zones. That's officials saying it. You also have planters saying he was in Birmingham. You can disregard the latter as anecdotal evidence and the official sources as racist zealot fascist politician making those statements. What will it take to prove anything to you?

And please tell me why you think the ghettos of US are more dangerous than no go zones in Europe, which unlike ghettos are growing at an alarming rate btw.

Also, did I say no go zones of Europe are a direct threat to US? No. Was I only talking about issues of US? No. You made a strawman.

We do not have unlimited resources. We can solve some problems, but not all. Getting involved in xenophobic foreign policy issues to protect our nation against Sharia law is wasteful and pointless, particularly when we have more pressing matters to attend to domestically.

Not letting thousands of people with completely different culture into your country without checking what they believe in and having them form gangs, ghettos, them and their children comitting terrorist attacks when there are dozens of neighboring countries with the same culture which could take them as refugees instead is not spending resources, it's saving resources.
You can imply we are xenophobes or fascists and use as label us with as many -isms as you like but all that does is make you obnoxious to have an intelligent conversation with.

Then explain your reasoning. Explain why you believe this to be such a dire threat to you personally, or to our nation as a whole.

I don't have to consider this as a threat to me personally to consider it an issue, wtf? As for the nation, just look at what is happening in Europe from the migration and refugee decisions they made, then notice how US is moving the same direction. What more do you need?

And be prepared to justify why you think it is more serious than any number of other threats we are currently facing.

I don't have to do this either. It doesn't have to be the #1 issue for us to talk about it. I aven't said it is so I don't have to do this for you.

Yes it does. That's actually the definition of comparative data. Chance of occurring times penalty for failure equals a number. Do that for two threats and compare numbers.

No it doesn't. Murder is dangerous, because it happens less than death from natural causes I don't see people saying it's not dangerous because it's only x% of total deaths. It's not just about numbers. Just because numbers are lower than some other numbers doesn't mean it's less of an issue or not an issue. Also there's more to murder and terrorist attack than just the result (death). Not all deaths are equal in pain and suffering

Because there are domestic threats that are closer, more prevalent, and far more likely to affect you or me than any threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism. That is why it's less of an issue.

Oh I guess if it doesn't affect us directly for now it's less of an issue? I see your reasoning. Well this is more of an issue for me because it does affect me directly through relatives and close friends from Europe.

No, I'm not ignoring it.

What you said by your own words was that there was no voices of reason here. For the second time I'm mentioning the situation in Sweden.

Funny you should mention fascism. Because a lot of the rhetoric I've listened to lately sounds a hell of a lot like fascism.

Look, just because you imply I'm sounding like a fascist is not going to make me feel bad and change my views. So quit it with the labeling already.

But you're not really against any other kind of terrorism, are you?

WTF again, who told you that?

The whole point here is that you're going off on radical Islamic terrorism as if it's the end of the free world.

No I'm not. What?

Where is your outrage when doctors are killed outside abortion clinics? If you can dismiss that, then you should equally be able to dismiss things happening 6000 miles away.

Who says I'm not outraged by that? Who are you talking to?

Personally, I'd like to see a nation-wide movement to address inequities with our justice system. For one, stop shooting police officers! And second, make a national, concerted effort to equip officers in all 50 states with body cameras. Yes, I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's a start. And hopefully by showing some positive action towards the problem, we can dissuade further BLM (and other protests) from becoming violent.

I agree. Cameras are incredibly cheap.

To me, this is a far more credible threat than anything ISIS can dish out.

I disagree. By your own comparative data logic, check the number of deaths from violent protests vs only islamic terrorism this year.

[planters]

This issue is expanding into too many comparisons between different threats. No one here is arguing that there are not multiple threats that "we" face both personally and as a nation.

The posters here and primarily buffo are drawing us away from the original point of this topic. This point originated with the question, "why do I have a problem with Muslims" The problem with bringing in various threats and using the relative magnitude of these threats and the various solutions makes this thread so huge that the posts are even becoming time consuming to read let alone to write. It also means that when a point is made and posted with a dozen others, the responses can be selective and move further along a tangent without actually addressing a particular point.

This is actually a debating strategy, but it is not furthering the discussion which I am becoming less interested in following. Maybe I should post the original question in a new post?

[buffo]

It's not "my" "so called" no go zones.

Yes, it is your term. Or rather, one you have appropriated as a result of the news outlets you've been listening to. You are drawing on inflammatory statements in the foreign media which overstate the problem. When Swami countered that other sources deny such a thing as a true no-go zone (where there is no law enforcement presence at all), your explanation is that because someone people (including some police) feel threatened, that counts as a no go zone. My counter to that is that there are areas here in our country right now that meet your criteria and then some, yet no one is seriously proposing a change in national policy because of this.

To wit: listen to what your local media has to say regarding the urban decay and increased crime in Detroit. Everyone knows it's bad and getting worse, right? Now read this: http://www.detroitmi.gov/2015-Crime-Statistics
How you feel on an issue depends greatly on whom you are listening to.

Perhaps you are blissfully unaware of what is going on in Europe?

Quite the contrary. I am well aware of what is going on in Europe. What I am concerned about is the disproportionate effect it is having here on our nation's future direction.

And please tell me why you think the ghettos of US are more dangerous than no go zones in Europe, which unlike ghettos are growing at an alarming rate btw.

Because US ghettos are closer to home, and thus are more likely to affect you or me. Many people here on this forum live/work/drive near them each day. I have only met a handful of Muslims in my entire life. Conversely, I've actually done at least 4 commercial laser shows in neighborhoods that would qualify as a ghetto. To the point that for 2 of them, I was explicitly warned by the venue manager and the site security chief to not leave the front-of-house booth during the show, and to avoid all bathrooms except the staff-only one behind the bar.

That being said, I have also traveled to Honduras twice. (Note: Honduras is the murder capital of the world.) Was I concerned about the risk? Sure. Did it dominate my decision to go? Of course not, no more than the existence of those ghettos influenced my decision to do the laser shows in those venues.

If I'm not overly concerned about these threats, why would I be overly concerned about troubled areas in some European communities? And more to the point, why would I seriously consider changing US foreign policy based on this minimal threat?

Also, did I say no go zones of Europe are a direct threat to US? No.

Good! So you agree they are not a credible threat then, right? Excellent. Then we can dispense with this topic, since the thread is about our presidential election and how each candidate could best provide for and protect America's interests.

If you want to discuss threats to Europe, you should probably be posting in the Brexit thread, not here.

The concern I have for our presidential candidates is that I do not want them to get caught up in this ISIS-generated hysteria, or worse, USE that hysteria to further a private agenda in the name of protecting America. (Patriot Act, anyone?)

Not letting thousands of people with completely different culture into your country without checking what they believe in

Bzzt! Wrong answer. We don't persecute people based on their beliefs, remember? That's why America was founded.

We hold people accountable for their ACTIONS. Not their beliefs. Does that mean that sometimes we get bit in the ass? Yes, yes it does. That's the price you pay for an open society. Don't like it? There are plenty of closed societies you can choose to live in. But woe unto you if your beliefs don't match up 100% with theirs...

As an aside, I find it so interesting that the same people here in the US who rail fervently against Sharia law have no problem quoting the Bible to advance their own version of what is right and wrong.

You can imply we are xenophobes or fascists

If the boot fits... OK, that was a cheap shot, I admit. But the general tone of discourse in our country today is not nearly what I think it should be.

just look at what is happening in Europe from the migration and refugee decisions they made, then notice how US is moving the same direction.

Except we're not moving in the same direction. You're just assuming that we will.

What more do you need?

More than just your fears that what happened in Nice will happen here.

Murder is dangerous, because it happens less than death from natural causes

And murder is currently happening right here in the USA, at a far more alarming rate than any caused by terrorists. But you'd rather worry about terrorism? That's not rational.

It's not just about numbers. Just because numbers are lower than some other numbers doesn't mean it's less of an issue or not an issue.

It absolutely is about numbers. If you have a 1 in 100 million chance of being murdered by a radical Islamic terrorist's bomb verses a 1 in 10,000 chance of being murdered by a street thug with a stolen handgun, which one is the greater threat? Which one is worth spending our limited resources on?

And more importantly, which one is worth compromising our nation's core principles for? (In my mind, the answer to this question is "neither one".)

Oh I guess if it doesn't affect us directly for now it's less of an issue?

Exactly. Note that I didn't say it is a non-issue. Just that it's not anywhere near as important as other, more pressing matters.

This is more of an issue for me because it does affect me directly through relatives and close friends from Europe.

Fair enough. I'm sorry you have friends/relatives who are being affected by this. But I, too, have family in Europe. (Well, I consider them family - I lived with them for 6 months and have kept in touch.) I also have many friends I've met through PL that live all over Europe. And while all of these people are affected insofar as they are local to recent events (some very local, in fact - a short car ride away even), they all realize that even with their proximity to these events, the overall risk is low. Just as I understand that my proximity to under-developed neighborhoods also places me at risk, but that risk is low.

I do not deny that there is a problem with some communities in Europe. I do not deny that there are some serious problems in Iraq and Syria. I do not deny that the US, along with other nations, share some of the blame in creating the power vacuum that lead to the creation of ISIS. And I fully admit that I do not have a solution for everything. But I do know that any action we take needs to be measured, cautioned, and controlled. And that is not what I'm seeing so far.

What you said by your own words was that there was no voices of reason here.

No, I did not say that. I ASKED where the voices of reason were.

By your own comparative data logic, check the number of deaths from violent protests vs only islamic terrorism this year.

Let's do exactly that. How many deaths here in the USA due to radical Islamic terrorism so far this year? I'd say none, but just to be charitable I'll grant you the Dallas shooter, even though his connection to ISIS is tenuous at best. So that makes 5 dead. 6 if you count the shooter. Now, how many deaths from violent protests so far this year? Would you believe that there have been 11 police ambushes and 26 police officer deaths? And that's just POLICE OFFICERS. And it's not even August yet.

Yes, our nation has a problem. Hell, we have lots of problems. We have so many problems we sometimes don't know what to do. And when we're in that state of mind, we're easily influenced by arguments that appeal to our base emotions. That is exactly what I want to avoid.

Adam