Mass shooting in San Bernadino

[Berkut]

Agreed, lame. Same old stuff, nothing new about ISIS or going after terrorism. Fine that he talks about we shouldn't be going after Muslims in the US, but there really hasn't been any serious attacks on Muslims. He spent the most of it, some 30 percent, on guns and whatever else he doesn't like about what Americans are doing. Not enough on terrorism and nothing new.

And what "new stuff" should be said?

He's the President, he needs to figure out what will work. We were just hit with a terrorist attack and he goes on like his policy is working. For example, ISIS has been telling people that they don't have to come to the Mid East to join the fight, that they can make attacks where they are. Also social media, the propaganda war and other venues are likely places that can be beefed up. He could have talked about making changes there. Things like that for starters.

If this is the best ISIS can do because of the work the federal government is doing to stop these kinds of attacks, there really isn't anything different he needs to do - whatever he is doing is working wonderfully well.

The idea that there is ANYTHING a President could do to stop people already here from going out and getting a bunch of NRA protected assault rifles and shooting some place up is idiotic. From a policy standpoint, the only lever here to pull is making it harder for crazy people (whether they are motivated by religion, ideology, or anger at a missed promotion) from shooting a bunch of people is addressing the gun violence problem itself.

[viper37]

I agree with Berkut here.  Unless the US radically changes its way of life (and that may not be all good), there is not much that can be done to prevent someone already in the country, even if suspected of radicalism, from legally buying a weapon and shooting lots of people.

Just because he's a pro-ISIS muslim does not change the fact that these kind of attacks happen every week in the US.

[grumbler]

The biggest change the US could make, and could justify based on recent events, is a change to its attitude towards those who fund ISIS.  Clearly, the husband and wife were being funded by someone to acquire all of that weaponry and explosive-making gear, so the US should go after anyone it thinks is funding ISIS or cooperating with ISIS regarding smuggling et al.  If that pisses off some people*, good.  The abettors of terrorism should be pissed off. All the time.

*Mostly Turks, but also Gulf Arabs and Saudis - all excellent targets for a pissing.

[Syt]

The obvious solution is to make it mandatory for every American citizen over the age of 18 to carry a gun at all times. Only way to have a chance to stop every mass shooting.

[KRonn]

Agreed, lame. Same old stuff, nothing new about ISIS or going after terrorism. Fine that he talks about we shouldn't be going after Muslims in the US, but there really hasn't been any serious attacks on Muslims. He spent the most of it, some 30 percent, on guns and whatever else he doesn't like about what Americans are doing. Not enough on terrorism and nothing new.

And what "new stuff" should be said?

He's the President, he needs to figure out what will work. We were just hit with a terrorist attack and he goes on like his policy is working. For example, ISIS has been telling people that they don't have to come to the Mid East to join the fight, that they can make attacks where they are. Also social media, the propaganda war and other venues are likely places that can be beefed up. He could have talked about making changes there. Things like that for starters.

So two people shoot and kill 14 people and we need a to upend our terrorism strategy.  Three years ago one guy shoots and kills 20 people and nothing should happen?

Do you really think efforts have been going so well that the President couldn't have spoken about ramped up efforts in what was billed as a very important speech? As I said in another post, there have been a lot more than these two incidents! More attacks, like Boston Marathon bombing, recruiting station shooting, and other attacks. Many attacks foiled and more and more arrests made, FBI has too many cases to follow in the US, as I said before. Plus ISIS encouraging or sending people to the west to do attacks. Encouraging people to make attacks at home, no need to travel there. So yeah, the issue has really grown over the past year or so.

[mongers]

Well it doesn't really seem like yesterday's stabbing in the East London tube station was terrorism, much better categorised as a mental health originated attack, given what the family has described.

And the Met police have just confirmed concerned relatives phoned the police within the last few weeks because of their worries about his state of mind, seeing devils and other hallucinations. They were then directed towards the appropriate social service.

Interesting his brother, who seems to have be his major career reported much of his condition seems linked to sustained cannabis use.

[Razgovory]

The biggest change the US could make, and could justify based on recent events, is a change to its attitude towards those who fund ISIS.  Clearly, the husband and wife were being funded by someone to acquire all of that weaponry and explosive-making gear, so the US should go after anyone it thinks is funding ISIS or cooperating with ISIS regarding smuggling et al.  If that pisses off some people*, good.  The abettors of terrorism should be pissed off. All the time.

*Mostly Turks, but also Gulf Arabs and Saudis - all excellent targets for a pissing.

You want us to attack a county health inspectors' office?

[Razgovory]

Do you really think efforts have been going so well that the President couldn't have spoken about ramped up efforts in what was billed as a very important speech? As I said in another post, there have been a lot more than these two incidents! More attacks, like Boston Marathon bombing, recruiting station shooting, and other attacks. Many attacks foiled and more and more arrests made, FBI has too many cases to follow in the US, as I said before. Plus ISIS encouraging or sending people to the west to do attacks. Encouraging people to make attacks at home, no need to travel there. So yeah, the issue has really grown over the past year or so.

Depends on what the generic "ramped up efforts" actually means.  The successful attacks were done by one or two people with no outside help.  Those are pretty difficult to stop.  If you have any ideas how to do that, please share them from the class.  Now imagine for a moment that the attack was carried out by a husband and wife team with no religious or political motive (like the hundreds of attacks that have occurred this year)  It would still be materially the same attack.  Would you still demand "ramped up efforts"?  If so how?

[dps]

Agreed, lame. Same old stuff, nothing new about ISIS or going after terrorism. Fine that he talks about we shouldn't be going after Muslims in the US, but there really hasn't been any serious attacks on Muslims. He spent the most of it, some 30 percent, on guns and whatever else he doesn't like about what Americans are doing. Not enough on terrorism and nothing new.

And what "new stuff" should be said?

He's the President, he needs to figure out what will work. We were just hit with a terrorist attack and he goes on like his policy is working. For example, ISIS has been telling people that they don't have to come to the Mid East to join the fight, that they can make attacks where they are. Also social media, the propaganda war and other venues are likely places that can be beefed up. He could have talked about making changes there. Things like that for starters.

So two people shoot and kill 14 people and we need a to upend our terrorism strategy.  Three years ago one guy shoots and kills 20 people and nothing should happen?

Do you really think efforts have been going so well that the President couldn't have spoken about ramped up efforts in what was billed as a very important speech? As I said in another post, there have been a lot more than these two incidents! More attacks, like Boston Marathon bombing, recruiting station shooting, and other attacks. Many attacks foiled and more and more arrests made, FBI has too many cases to follow in the US, as I said before. Plus ISIS encouraging or sending people to the west to do attacks. Encouraging people to make attacks at home, no need to travel there. So yeah, the issue has really grown over the past year or so.

Agreed, lame. Same old stuff, nothing new about ISIS or going after terrorism. Fine that he talks about we shouldn't be going after Muslims in the US, but there really hasn't been any serious attacks on Muslims. He spent the most of it, some 30 percent, on guns and whatever else he doesn't like about what Americans are doing. Not enough on terrorism and nothing new.

And what "new stuff" should be said?

He's the President, he needs to figure out what will work. We were just hit with a terrorist attack and he goes on like his policy is working. For example, ISIS has been telling people that they don't have to come to the Mid East to join the fight, that they can make attacks where they are. Also social media, the propaganda war and other venues are likely places that can be beefed up. He could have talked about making changes there. Things like that for starters.

If this is the best ISIS can do because of the work the federal government is doing to stop these kinds of attacks, there really isn't anything different he needs to do - whatever he is doing is working wonderfully well.

Agree with this, though that also leads me to agree with Yi that there's not much point in making a major Presidential speech about it.

[Syt]

Ever since the shooting I have Christie's song stuck in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAAqAho_BsU

[jimmy olsen]

Then the lawyers for the terrorists made a long TV appearance. They were a couple of lamers, making excuses, finding blame where ever. But of course they'll do that for their clients but they were mainly just disingenuous to the point of pissing off people.

Which terrorists are you talking about, because the two that attacked San Bernardino are dead and the dead usually don't get lawyers.

[KRonn]

Then the lawyers for the terrorists made a long TV appearance. They were a couple of lamers, making excuses, finding blame where ever. But of course they'll do that for their clients but they were mainly just disingenuous to the point of pissing off people.

Which terrorists are you talking about, because the two that attacked San Bernardino are dead and the dead usually don't get lawyers.

I think they're lawyers hired by some of the family.

[derspiess]

Trying to watch my language these days, but what the fucking fuck??

http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325

[Valmy]

Trying to watch my language these days, but what the fucking fuck??

http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325

Huh. So in order to prevent a backlash they did not reform a secret policy? Seems weird.

[DGuller]

I have no idea where the balance is between safety and intrusiveness.  But I know enough to know that there is one, and that saying "fucking fuck" instinctively isn't instrumental in judging whether you're on the right side.  It's especially hard to hit that balance right because single-celled organisms and political opponents of the administration will go "fucking fuck" when it goes wrong one way, but when it goes wrong the other way it will be unobservable.