Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam

I think you need to look up the meaning of the term racial profiling:

 

If you are targeting an area to provide more protection because they need it, then explain to me who is the victim? the criminals? And also nothing i said meets your definition. I don't encourage cops to suspect someone based off color of their skin. I do expect to them to allocate resources to more troubled areas because they need more help. This is quite often African American communities. .

 

You keep trying to spin this as a protection of the people you are targeting.

Simply put, you believe there is a crime problem. But instead of targeting all criminals, you target African American criminals. Now you believe there is a terrorism problem. And instead of targeting all terrorists, you target Muslims.

Gee, where would we see something like that happening?

 

In the analogy you gave, that is the purpose. But it is a terrible analogy you made.

how the hell does one target all terrorists? you make it sound so easy. lets only suspect the bad guys.......

I would assume, since nobody has provided anything to the contrary, that intelligence is saying the best way to 'target terrorists' as you say, is to focus on Islam as that's the biggest threat. Nobody has provided any evidence that Trump is ignoring warnings from Homeland.

 

I've been staying away from these threads as the Trump admin is not even a 100 days old.

Prepare for the worst, pray for the best.

 

We need a dedicated thread if we want to argue (again) about whether Nazis should really be considered left or right. For the sake of this thread, I'll simply point out that it is the common shorthand to talk about the Nazis and the Fascists as being on the right. But, it doesn't even matter anyway, because we're dealing with a simple binary of Islamic Terror vs. All Other Terror. Maybe it'd help to point out that the new focus would also exclude violent antifa groups, the New Black Panthers (except the Nation of Islam members, perhaps), and eco-terrorists.

Agreed, those agencies should determine the material threats for the purposes of allocating federal resources. They've already told us that white supremacists are a big threat. Trump can wave his magic wand and all of a sudden the FBI can tell us that they were wrong about that. He can also have the EPA tell us that global warming is not a threat to public health. He can get a surgeon general to tell us smoking doesn't cause cancer or that Trump is the healthiest man to grace the Oval Office. That doesn't really make it true though. It's his prerogative to allocate his resources as he sees fit, and I reserve the right to be internet-outraged about it.

Now I'm sure there are actually plenty of programs and agencies that all do their part on terrorism, including still the right-wing terrorists aside from the CVE program. We don't necessarily need to have CVE also looking at right-wing terrorists. It doesn't mean the FBI stops looking at them just because the CVE did. So the whole complaint is really based on the optics. But, I think that's where people should be drawing their comfort -- that CVE is just a tiny cog in a giant machine -- and not from an argument that white supremacists aren't really a terror threat.

 

I agree it is a common lie/misconception to pretend nazis or facism is on the right side of the political spectrum.

No intelligence officer has said this is a misallocation

obama can wave the same wand and have the FBI say white supremacists are a danger. You contradict yourself if you take the word of the FBI above that's it's a threat then ignore it now.

 

It is interesting that you chose this as your example. Like the comparison of Islamic vs. non-Islamic terrorism, when you look at the per capita statistics, black people have much higher rates of criminality (just like Muslims have much higher terrorism rates than "right wing" people). If half of the attacks are coming from 13% or 1% of the population (blacks and Muslims respectively), it makes sense to focus on that 13% or 1%, because each dollar you spend there is going to be much more effective.

 

So, please tell me in plain language, you think that for Trump to be successful his anti-terrorism program should target Muslims, just as you believe any anti-crime program should target African Americans. Since, you want to increase effectiveness and all...

 

Racial profiling saves money eh?

 

Never underestimate Stupid's ability to stack the deck against minorities while pretending not to.

 

It's pretty sad that only Muslims now will be targeted...it really is scary - they are using Muslims as a scapegoat - it's quite clear what Bannon's strategy is here. How far will they take it is now the question.

 

Dark times. Dark times. And Republicans are either quietly supporting him, or rationalizing his actions.

Also how he lists 78 terrorist attacks the media "under-reported" but he has not commented or barely said anything on attacks by white nationalists.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/terror-attacks-trump-wont-talk-about-white-supremacists

Too bad we know bigdog won't click on that.

 

Not really contradicting myself. I trust the FBI. So, they said it and I believe it. They actually have been saying it since the 1990s, through Democratic and Republican presidencies. But, there is also a robustness to the claim. I also see it on TV with the couple of big examples of right-wing terrorism, like the shoot-up of the historic black church or the OKC bombing. And, NGOs that are focused on terrorism also say right-wing terrorism is a significant threat. So, the claim has some credibility with my own anecdotal experience, the word of the FBI, and the contributions of NGOs all reaching the same conclusion. If the FBI were to cross themselves (which they have not done, so far as I know), they'd run against the grain of what they've said before, what I've seen, and what other organizations are reporting, with the only material change to explain the reversal being a change of ideology at the top -- that's not a recipe for credibility. That would look like an agency caving to political pressure. There's no contradiction or hypocrisy there, just a little rational epistemology.

But, it's all for naught anyway. Trump changed the focus of some body I've never heard of anyway (maybe it's effective and important, I have no idea). The FBI is still led (for now) by a professional and they'll still go after right-wing terrorists when they pop their heads up. So, I'm not worried. I am concerned when people want to start saying right-wing terrorism isn't a problem for their own ideological reasons, when we can all see that it is a problem and the FBI and NGOs are telling us it's a problem. Whether a bomb is planted by an Islamic terrorist or a white supremacist, you can be dead just the same.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-li...cists-or-islamophobes-1d1a66f4b2dc#.w37534omy

 

edit to add more charts.....The link has tons of data and is extremely well sourced.

SINCE 1975

 

The probability of you dying from terrorism is so small. Getting in your car is probably the most dangerous thing we do, but do we ban driving? People just don't understand math.

 

The left has no answer to Islamic Extremists? Go and look and see how many American's were killed on US soil in terrorist attacks under Bush, and compare it to under Obama.

The idea that one political party is far better on handling Islamic extremists is silly.

 

Yes. If you want to catch a marlin, you don't spend your time evenly fishing in lakes, rivers, the ocean, and the local pond, you fish where the marlin swim. There are finite resources available for each thing the government wants to do. In the anti-terrorism budget, you can spread the money around evenly to make sure that no one cries discrimination, or you can spend more money on the group that has carried out attacks vastly out of proportion to their population size. In the local police force, you have a certain number of cops available to patrol on each shift. You can choose to have them spaced evenly around the city, so that no area receives special consideration, or you can have them patrol the areas where there is more crime more heavily. One of these methods appeals to social justice warriors, and the other appeals to logic and reason.

It's less that it saves money, and more that it more effectively uses the same resources. If you are looking for the stickup artist that robbed the local liquor store, don't check out the 90 year old Jewish grandmother just to be fair to everyone. That is a waste of resources.

CometsWin will miss no opportunity to claim that logic is racism.

 

Using your example, instead of having the goal of catching fish... you are attempting to catch a specific fish. So instead of catching terrorists, you are trying to catch Muslim terrorists. Going back to your example, I would rather put a lure that would ave a good chance of getting any fish, since I might catch a marlin, or I might catch a sail fish. I have improved my odds of catching a fish.

And now putting it in real terms... profiling Muslims would have missed these terrorists:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/terror-attacks-trump-wont-talk-about-white-supremacists