Newark Execution Murders

[Occhidiangela]

O I agree with you. We in the Netherlands also have the nasty habit of trying to arrange business in and for other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) while at home things are not going to good. Of course we don't have gangs like this, but if we continue our politics (internal and external) it will be a matter of a few years.

But it is good to see that you got my point.

And you completely missed mine.

@ Jester: Indeed.

Eppie, Jester bothered to inform himself about MS-13. Even wiki has it mostly right. Take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

What happens in Nuevo Laredo increasingly spills into Laredo and other areas in South Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...13.2e3e193.html

Occhi

[Taem]

And you completely missed mine.

@ Jester: Indeed.

Eppie, Jester bothered to inform himself about MS-13. Even wiki has it mostly right. Take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

What happens in Nuevo Laredo increasingly spills into Laredo and other areas in South Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...13.2e3e193.html

Occhi

Well obviously deportation doesn't work if they end up back in the USA within a month's time, but if these other countries have a HARD-HAND law enforcement of MS-13 members, how are they able to get out so quickly and re-enter the states? Or is being deported more like a slap on the wrist and not really illegal in any country?

[Occhidiangela]

Well obviously deportation doesn't work if they end up back in the USA within a month's time, but if these other countries have a HARD-HAND law enforcement of MS-13 members, how are they able to get out so quickly and re-enter the states? Or is being deported more like a slap on the wrist and not really illegal in any country?

My opinion is that members of MS-13 should be shot on sight. This is not a Boy Scout Troop.

Occhi

[Thecla]

From an NY-times article:

But in a way, the intense focus on MS-13 adds to its mystique and potency, providing a dangerous model for teenagers looking for trouble.

MS-13 was formed in Los Angeles in the 1980s by refugees from El Salvador, and the F.B.I. estimates the gang now has 10,000 members operating in cells or “cliques” in 42 states and an additional 50,000 members in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. Like other gangs, MS-13 initiates members by beating them. In 2004, the F.B.I. created the MS-13 National Gang Force to respond, the agency said, to the gang’s growing threat.

“MS-13 has the unique, unfortunate ability to replicate themselves in similar ways across the United States, exactly like a virus,” said Brian Truchon, the director of the task force. “It is known for its ability to operate between borders, to effectively communicate and move between Central America and the U.S.”

But critics question whether the federal government is overstating the gang’s reach. According to F.B.I. estimates, other gangs have far more members nationally. For instance, the agency puts membership in the 18th Street gang somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000; the Bloods at between 15,000 to 20,000, and the Gangster Disciples at between 50,000 to 100,000.

Not to downplay the severity of the effects in the US of MS-13, or many other gangs, but raising that particular gang to the level of a boogey-man simply adds to their mystique, as it has for Al Qaeda and anyone else claiming to be associated with them. The current right-wing anti-immigrant backlash in the US makes MS-13 a particularly convenient target.

[kandrathe]

" The current right-wing anti-immigrant backlash in the US makes MS-13 a particularly convenient target."

I keep seeing that "Anti-Immigrant" label, but in reality the back-lash is that one group wants law enforcement and national integrity, and the other group wants to invite all the down and out citizens of the world to cross our porous borders to suckle at the teat of government handouts thus increasing the size and power of government. Both major parties are complicit in doing this.

These are the same open borders that give safe harbor or sanctuary in "ignored immigration law zones" that would allow illegal immigrants favor over those "LEGAL" immigrants that go through the proper channels, get background checks and wait in line.

These are the same open borders that make THE WAR ON TERROR a joke, since the reason we went to war was to prevent another 9/11 and we have done NOTHING domestically to protect ourselves from a similar incident. Instead, we have harassed and inconvenienced our own peaceful citizens seeking to fly from city to city and prevented them from cutting their food with plastic knives or travel with cigarette lighters.

These are the same open borders that allow heinous evil like MS13, or Al Queda to propagate with impunity across cities all over the Americas.

In my opinion, this is a world wide battle between the civilizing forces of law and order against the anarchy of lawlessness, the power of personal violence, and the injustice of theocracy. The NYT can call that a racially motivated right wing assault on immigrants if they like, but I think that shows with which of the propaganda machines they have sided. People need to start understanding the meaning of the inalienable right of FREEDOM and why the founders wanted a limited government. It means that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or as the original text stated, the protection of property. What we have now is a government of vote pandering blithering buffoons who ban plastic utensils, breeds of potentially dangerous dogs, nail polish remover, any means of defending your property and watering your lawn.

Or... As Pete would say, we got what we deserved.

[Jester]

These are the same open borders that allow heinous evil like MS13, or Al Queda to propagate with impunity across cities all over the Americas.

Has there yet been an example of Al Qaeda using the poorly-defended borders of the United States to "propagate with impunity"?

Or is that still hypothetical?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Has there yet been an example of Al Qaeda using the poorly-defended borders of the United States to "propagate with impunity"?

Or is that still hypothetical?

-Jester

Not hypothetical. You might try to consider how 20-24 mostly Saudi nationals were able to legally or illegally enter the country and take down the World Trade Center towers.

Check out the case of Mahmoud Youssef Kourani as one example. US Border enforcement has arrested between 6 to 25 Middle Eastern nationals trying to cross the southwestern border per month, meaning they are missing a substantial portion in numbers similar to the ratio of non-Islamic illegals getting across our border versus those apprehended.

See also; Hearing sought on Islamic, Mexican ties

The web site of Suad Leija author of Paper Weapons.

Here is Wikipedia article on one of the FBI's person of interest list Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah who lived in the US for fifteen years and who's mother still lives in Florida.

You can keep that tongue firmly implanted in your cheek if you like, but the TRUTH is more sobering.

[eppie]

These are the same open borders that make THE WAR ON TERROR a joke, since the reason we went to war was to prevent another 9/11 and we have done NOTHING domestically to protect ourselves from a similar incident. Instead, we have harassed and inconvenienced our own peaceful citizens seeking to fly from city to city and prevented them from cutting their food with plastic knives or travel with cigarette lighters.

These are the same open borders that allow heinous evil like MS13, or Al Queda to propagate with impunity across cities all over the Americas.

I agree with you very much here.

In my opinion, this is a world wide battle between the civilizing forces of law and order against the anarchy of lawlessness, the power of personal violence, and the injustice of theocracy. The NYT can call that a racially motivated right wing assault on immigrants if they like, but I think that shows with which of the propaganda machines they have sided. People need to start understanding the meaning of the inalienable right of FREEDOM and why the founders wanted a limited government. It means that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or as the original text stated, the protection of property. What we have now is a government of vote pandering blithering buffoons who ban plastic utensils, breeds of potentially dangerous dogs, nail polish remover, any means of defending your property and watering your lawn.

Or... As Pete would say, we got what we deserved.

And here I would draw a slightly different conclusion. I think your government (and to prevent being called an america basher again I have to clearly state that I also mean mine and most other european governments) knows this. I mean they are not stupid.......they know that these very visible 'anti terrorist measures' don't work, but do keep the people scared, and ready to support every scheme they have to e.g. invade another country. While at the same time the real threats can just walk in whenever they want.
(this is taking me make so much to a 2004 discussion here on the lounge...).

Well actually this was the same conclusion you drew.

[Archon_Wing]

I mean they are not stupid...

Don't be so generous.;)

But in essence, people want solutions that fit in one sentence or catchphrase. "Attack iraq" "Send more troops" "Patriot Act". Then they act surprised when it doesn't work. The war on terror is about as efficient as using a nuclear weapon on a cockroach infestation. People need their symbols of evil to be as concrete as possible-- they need to be recognized as obvious targets to focus on. Then of course, when the real evil creeps in, it comes in unnoticed.

Then of course, I suppose fear mongering is a great way to detract from actual issues. Fear mongering seems to be favorite tactic for a number the Republican presidential hopefuls except for one notable exception (of course, the Democrats aren't really any better)

I think the first part of this video summarizes it pretty well; I thought of it as I was reading your post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SsSZ-lvPfc

(yes, it's hardly objective, so take with a grain of salt but yea that's I just thought it was kind of funny tongue.gif)

[Munkay]

Don't be so generous.;)

But in essence, people want solutions that fit in one sentence or catchphrase. "Attack iraq" "Send more troops" "Patriot Act". Then they act surprised when it doesn't work. The war on terror is about as efficient as using a nuclear weapon on a cockroach infestation. People need their symbols of evil to be as concrete as possible-- they need to be recognized as obvious targets to focus on. Then of course, when the real evil creeps in, it comes in unnoticed.

Then of course, I suppose fear mongering is a great way to detract from actual issues. Fear mongering seems to be favorite tactic for a number the Republican presidential hopefuls except for one notable exception (of course, the Democrats aren't really any better)

I think the first part of this video summarizes it pretty well; I thought of it as I was reading your post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SsSZ-lvPfc

(yes, it's hardly objective, so take with a grain of salt but yea that's I just thought it was kind of funny:P)

I think we're in agreement on this Archon_Wing. As I see it, people need a tangible rational explanation to the heinous acts that human beings do to one another. They look for a face of evil, a specific place for evil, wrap everything up into one simple package. And I don't think any of us are excluded from this, it is a big part of human nature.

The sad part, which you've pointed out, is politics are about manipulating human reactions like this. Rather than being the rational voice that calms people down and gets them to look at the facts of the situation, politicians amplify these reactions (whether it be fear-mongering, scapegoating, or drawing partisan 'us' and 'them' lines in the sand), and use them for their own gain.

And yes, of course that's the nature of politics itself. To expect a kind of morality that guides the people to good is naive. But the saddest part of all of this manipulation is the vast majority live in fear (of many things, not just terrorism), without much of anything being done to quell it. The republicans in the clip you linked to Archon_Wing are right - another terrorist attack is going to occur. What's frustrating is that the general public may actually believe that more wars in the middle east, allowing torture, or expanding terrorist jails are the cure all.

Meanwhile anyone can hop on an ATV and book it over the Canadian border into the US.

Cheers,

Munk

[Pantalaimon]

Meanwhile anyone can hop on an ATV and book it over the Canadian border into the US.

Okay, I'll bite. What do we do about that? The border is ~3x larger than your border with mexico, and we all know how succesful efforts to make that border secure have been.

[Jester]

You can keep that tongue firmly implanted in your cheek if you like, but the TRUTH is more sobering.

Especially when it's in all caps.

You might try to consider how 20-24 mostly Saudi nationals were able to legally or illegally enter the country and take down the World Trade Center towers.

I was under the impression that the 9/11 hijackers were almost all in the US under student visas, or as tourists. Did even one of them come across the Mexican border? Saudi nationals are not unwelcome in the US now, are they? Is there a planned ban on student and tourist visas? If so, I'd better look into it, seeing as I'm likely to be one, the other, or both within a few years.

There are dozens of ways to enter the US, legally, illegally, and everywhere in between. There is no way consistent with a free society to stop every potential terrorist from entering the US. Linking terrorism closely with the issue of the Mexican border may fit well with the various xenophobic paranoias of the Rush Limbaugh crowd, but it does not represent the actual methods of Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. Mexico is only one of a great many ways to get into the US, and as far as I can tell, it's not even the best, were one wanting to terrorize.

Sounds to me like what you need is better intelligence, not more restrictive borders. Picking terrorists out of the tens of millions of people moving in and out of the US by restricting the flow of documents is practically impossible. I suspect the effort would undermine itself, as more sophisticated methods of smuggling people into the US develop in response to the crackdown. (See: War on Drugs.) Al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group) does not care about getting 5 million migrant workers past the border easily; they only need a handful of agents, and will spare no expense to get them there.

Check out the case of Mahmoud Youssef Kourani as one example.

Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda, but the example of is welcome anyway. Good to know that there is at least one documented case of this ocurring, which is what I asked for.

See also; Hearing sought on Islamic, Mexican ties

This appears to be the usual paranoia from the Washington Times, mutating the obvious fact that there are Middle-easterners in Mexico (this has been true for 400 years) and that some of them are involved in the drug trade, into a terrorist threat.

The general tendency to ellide middle easterners and muslims with terrorism is rather disturbing. Like here:

US Border enforcement has arrested between 6 to 25 Middle Eastern nationals trying to cross the southwestern border per month, meaning they are missing a substantial portion in numbers similar to the ratio of non-Islamic illegals getting across our border versus those apprehended.

So all middle easterners are now suspect? The question is how many terrorists have made that crossing. That people of middle eastern descent are just as susceptible to the allure of life in the US as anyone else is hardly surprising, nor is it evidence of widespread terrorist migration.

Here is Wikipedia article on one of the FBI's person of interest list Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah who lived in the US for fifteen years and who's mother still lives in Florida.

I can't find any evidence that this man's entry in to the US was illegal. Was it?

The web site of Suad Leija author of Paper Weapons.

I'm somewhat confused by this. If your point is that there is a flourishing trade in illegal documents controlled by criminals, this much is fairly obvious. Restrict any commodity, and a black market appears. Aside from hypotheticals, is there an Al Qaeda connection there? I didn't dig through the entire site, perhaps some help?

-Jester

[Munkay]

Okay, I'll bite.

It wasn't baiting. If you read my entire post, you'll realize there's no troll hiding under this bridge.

What do we do about that? The border is ~3x larger than your border with mexico, and we all know how succesful efforts to make that border secure have been.

Politics in contemporary America is enraptured in the public's emotions. More often than not the most commonly used emotion is fear. If you look at the link Archon_Wing posted, you'll see a bunch of candidates for president who have built a lot of their platform on America's fear of terrorism. Rather than calming those fears, they continue to use them as tools to get elected. Spouting the need for torture, threats of other invasions, doubling capacities of terrorist detention camps.

Now, with that said the threat of terrorism shouldn't be marginalized. It is something that Americans need to think about, and should have a small degree of rational fear about. Accordingly, issues like our health care system, a saturated market of unpayable variable interest rate mortgages, international trade woes, and violence at home (like this thread is about), should also garner a small amount of rational fear. The problem is that politics has become about preying on that emotion, on one or two topics, and amplifying the threat to the nth degree (kind of like the media and the 'bird flu pandemic' a few years ago. Sure its a risk, but where's that doomsday we were all in fear of?).

As a result the American people get caught up in the fear mongering, and vote for candidates(whether they be a democrat or a republican) with resolute solutions to the day's hot topic. Currently that hot topic is terrorism. Everyone is hyped into a fear of the 'Radical Islamic Threat', and are willing to vote people who have a solution. The funny thing is, there isn't one simple solution.

Building detention centers, starting a new war abroad, making peaceful negotiations with other nations, withdrawing from Iraq, all fall short. Because any terrorist with half a brain knows they can enter the US through its borders with little trouble. See, I bring up the border issue because its a paradigm example of 'no matter how hard you try, there's always going to be a way for bad people to do bad things'. You could build a 50 foot wall with armed guards across the border and still the US would be subject to terrorist attacks. So the border issue is a euphemism (does that make better sense now?).

To reiterate the bigger point, the problem with fear mongering politics is certain issues get amplified while other ones get pushed to the wayside. Accordingly, people react and become concerned and look for the correct solution. In the end the fear mongering gets people elected, makes it almost impossible to quell the fear, and in turn leaves the fear to the next round of elections. It's all in all a rather disheartening political strategy. Especially when the option exists for a political system to subdue people's irrational fears, and with honesty promise the best solutions they can, without pretending it will be a cure all.

Too bad a political system with a moral compass will never happen. That's the curse of being human, of being not much more than a bunch of monkey's;)

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

I'm somewhat confused by this. If your point is that there is a flourishing trade in illegal documents controlled by criminals, this much is fairly obvious. Restrict any commodity, and a black market appears. Aside from hypotheticals, is there an Al Qaeda connection there? I didn't dig through the entire site, perhaps some help?

Some of her evidence shows that these document forgers are helping anyone who pays, which is not surprising, but there is evidence that Islamic extremists are amongst the clients, which is also not very surprising.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Some of her evidence shows that these document forgers are helping anyone who pays, which is not surprising, but there is evidence that Islamic extremists are amongst the clients, which is also not very surprising.

So, the point is?

[Benamang]

Munk - extremely eloquent. I think you just summed up a large part of my disgust with government and politics, particularly in the US. I feel like printing out your post and hanging it on my wall.

No matter what a large government does, it will piss off at least half the people, and it will probably not achieve the intended results due to red tape and infighting. Sad but true, in my opinion. Wish there was a better way.

[Pantalaimon]

<Stuff>

My apologies - often in political forums if Canada + Immigration gets brought up, irrational flaming ensues. Depending on the environment, blame Canada can be nearly as popular a game as Blame Al Qaeda. Knee-jerk response on my part.

Nothing really else to add on point; tangent can be closed :P More like a tangent of a tangent at this point though.

[Munkay]

No problem Pantalaimon, I think I needed to be a bit more explicit with the reference the first time. Glad its cleared up though.

And thank you Benamang for your kind remarks.

Cheers,

Munk

[Jester]

Some of her evidence shows that these document forgers are helping anyone who pays, which is not surprising, but there is evidence that Islamic extremists are amongst the clients, which is also not very surprising.

Perhaps you could point me to it?

TIES TO TERROR?

In December, Suad and her husband went to Mexico City when her grandfather, Natividad Leija Herrera, the reputed head of the Leija-Sanchez family, told her that her stepfather had been arrested. The family was hoping Suad's husband, an American, would help get her father out of jail, she said. Her relatives had no idea her husband worked for the U.S. government. During the visit, Suad and her husband met with Natividad and her uncle, Juan Luis Echeveste, who is Natividad's bodyguard. She asked what would happen if the family's fake documents ever fell into the hands of a terrorist trying to enter the U.S. The answer was frightening, Suad said. "My grandfather said, `Terrorism is an American problem, not a Mexican problem. The organization is about money. Money is the business.'?'' Suad wonders if terrorists are already in the United States using documents her family produced. And she has good reason. "Document fraud has already killed thousands of people,'' said Boyd, the ICE spokesman. "Two of the terrorists who crashed the planes into the World Trade Center could board the plane because they (had) fraudulent documents.''

Looking through some of the text stuff, I found this, which I am presuming is your reference.

It is, again, hypothetical. There is no evidence in there (perhaps there is elsewhere, I haven't looked exhaustively by any means) that links this group with islamic extremists.

-Jester

Edit: There is also the list here...

A Pakistani detainee who worked as a doctor and guard for the Taliban was detained at John F. Kennedy airport for attempting to enter the U.S. with a forged passport.
o An Iraqi detainee bought a fake Moroccan passport for about $150 and used it to enter Turkey, where he was arrested
. o An Algerian detainee requested asylum in Canada after entering that country with a fake passport
. o A Yemeni detainee acquired a false Yemeni passport and was able to get a Pakistani visa.
o An Algerian detainee obtained a French passport using an alias and used it to travel to London. Cost of the passport: about $530.
o An al-Qaida terrorist cell in Spain used stolen credit cards in fictitious sales scams and for numerous other purchases. They also used stolen telephone and credit cards to call Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon and other countries. False passports and travel documents were used to open bank accounts where money for the mujahedeen movement was sent to and from countries including Pakistan and Afghanistan. Source: Testimony by John S. Pistole, FBI assistant director for counterterrorism

But this is just a list of cases where forged documents were used to conduct terrorism. That this happens is obvious. But where is the Mexican connection? These documents could have been forged from anywhere, the border with Mexico and the penetration of Latin American gangs is a sideshow in that particular problem.

[Ashock]

It wasn't baiting. If you read my entire post, you'll realize there's no troll hiding under this bridge.
Politics in contemporary America is enraptured in the public's emotions. More often than not the most commonly used emotion is fear. If you look at the link Archon_Wing posted, you'll see a bunch of candidates for president who have built a lot of their platform on America's fear of terrorism. Rather than calming those fears, they continue to use them as tools to get elected. Spouting the need for torture, threats of other invasions, doubling capacities of terrorist detention camps.

Now, with that said the threat of terrorism shouldn't be marginalized. It is something that Americans need to think about, and should have a small degree of rational fear about. Accordingly, issues like our health care system, a saturated market of unpayable variable interest rate mortgages, international trade woes, and violence at home (like this thread is about), should also garner a small amount of rational fear. The problem is that politics has become about preying on that emotion, on one or two topics, and amplifying the threat to the nth degree (kind of like the media and the 'bird flu pandemic' a few years ago. Sure its a risk, but where's that doomsday we were all in fear of?).

As a result the American people get caught up in the fear mongering, and vote for candidates(whether they be a democrat or a republican) with resolute solutions to the day's hot topic. Currently that hot topic is terrorism. Everyone is hyped into a fear of the 'Radical Islamic Threat', and are willing to vote people who have a solution. The funny thing is, there isn't one simple solution.

Building detention centers, starting a new war abroad, making peaceful negotiations with other nations, withdrawing from Iraq, all fall short. Because any terrorist with half a brain knows they can enter the US through its borders with little trouble. See, I bring up the border issue because its a paradigm example of 'no matter how hard you try, there's always going to be a way for bad people to do bad things'. You could build a 50 foot wall with armed guards across the border and still the US would be subject to terrorist attacks. So the border issue is a euphemism (does that make better sense now?).

To reiterate the bigger point, the problem with fear mongering politics is certain issues get amplified while other ones get pushed to the wayside. Accordingly, people react and become concerned and look for the correct solution. In the end the fear mongering gets people elected, makes it almost impossible to quell the fear, and in turn leaves the fear to the next round of elections. It's all in all a rather disheartening political strategy. Especially when the option exists for a political system to subdue people's irrational fears, and with honesty promise the best solutions they can, without pretending it will be a cure all.

Too bad a political system with a moral compass will never happen. That's the curse of being human, of being not much more than a bunch of monkey's;)

Cheers,

Munk

Let's suppose you're right. How do you explain that both the Congress and the Senate passed to the hands of the Democrats in the last election? If the hot fear topic is terrorism (and it is) and fear is what drives voters in the US, then shouldn't both of the houses still firmly be in Republican hands?