• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Truck attack in NYC

Recommended Posts

wv@gt    2,563

So after the Las Vegas Shooting Trump and Fox (Hannity) blasted Dems for trying to politicize the attack and that now was not the time for talk on gun control. Sean Hannity spent a good 20 mins talking about how time after time the Left uses these massacres to push their agenda, but the right doesnt. That was less than 24 hours after the attack. And logically I agree with in the first 24 hours is probably not ok. However we are less than 24 hours after the NY attack and you can see how different the tone is on the right versus the left, and of course Hannity is silent on this push on the right and Trump to start pushing their agenda on Vetting. Now I don't disagree that something has to be done on both the mass shooting side as well as the terror side, but can we just put party aside / agenda aside and work to fix both these issues? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Red King    2,466
14 hours ago, Tailwind said:

Terrible.  Glad he wasn't shot dead though so he can face justice.

Your sense of Justice wastes judicial resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    13,735
1 hour ago, wv@gt said:

So after the Las Vegas Shooting Trump and Fox (Hannity) blasted Dems for trying to politicize the attack and that now was not the time for talk on gun control. Sean Hannity spent a good 20 mins talking about how time after time the Left uses these massacres to push their agenda, but the right doesnt. That was less than 24 hours after the attack. And logically I agree with in the first 24 hours is probably not ok. However we are less than 24 hours after the NY attack and you can see how different the tone is on the right versus the left, and of course Hannity is silent on this push on the right and Trump to start pushing their agenda on Vetting. Now I don't disagree that something has to be done on both the mass shooting side as well as the terror side, but can we just put party aside / agenda aside and work to fix both these issues? 

 

 

It is hard ... as soon as it comes out that a perpetrator is from a foreign country people start yelling to lock down the borders or pointing fingers (in a general nonspecific sense).

 

The real questions should be asked if anything was missed (during his VISA application), was he on anyone's watch list and if not...why (was he just a regular person without a criminal record... with no known radical leanings).  If he was being watched...what was missed and why. That is something I'm sure the FBI will investigate.

 

If you're going to blame immigration for these types of attacks...you'd need to address the white male problem (Vegas, Sandy Hook. Aurora, Charteston, etc)

 

Anyway, just tired of these things being politicized ... less than 24 hours after the attack before all facts are known. Some people are crickets after mass shootings by US citizens (mostly done by white males) ... but become very vocal if done by an immigrant.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Evil Overlord    18,442
1 hour ago, J. X. Maxwell said:

Your sense of Justice wastes judicial resources.

Your sense of entitlement and xenophobia wastes oxygen, so I guess we all lose.

Honestly, you're doing nothing to advocate America as a forwards thinking, progressive world leader nation. If anything, your mentality is just reinforcing the opposite.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euphoria    2,031
1 hour ago, wv@gt said:
So after the Las Vegas Shooting Trump and Fox (Hannity) blasted Dems for trying to politicize the attack and that now was not the time for talk on gun control. Sean Hannity spent a good 20 mins talking about how time after time the Left uses these massacres to push their agenda, but the right doesnt. That was less than 24 hours after the attack. And logically I agree with in the first 24 hours is probably not ok. However we are less than 24 hours after the NY attack and you can see how different the tone is on the right versus the left, and of course Hannity is silent on this push on the right and Trump to start pushing their agenda on Vetting. Now I don't disagree that something has to be done on both the mass shooting side as well as the terror side, but can we just put party aside / agenda aside and work to fix both these issues?

So you are either not getting the point or deliberately avoiding it... it is not the means by which the act was delivered but the person who delivered it...

 

Why are Democrats not being as vocal about banning rental trucks as they are about banning guns? There were already several incidents in the US and abroad in which a driver hurt and killed multiple pedestrians. Hypocrisy maybe?

 

So according to you, talking about the motives of the terrorist and how to prevent further terrorists from executing similar plans is wrong?

 

Yes it would be great if both parties can work together on finding a solution, but as left is fixated on destroying the current administration, this will sadly never happen...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,583
54 minutes ago, J. X. Maxwell said:

Your sense of Justice wastes judicial resources.

Reprehensible as the guy's actions were, he's still entitled to due process.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka    4,092
1 minute ago, Euphoria said:

Why are Democrats not being as vocal about banning rental trucks as they are about banning guns? There were already several incidents in the US and abroad in which a driver hurt and killed multiple pedestrians. Hypocrisy maybe?

Yea, vehicles should have registration and licenses and insura- owait.

 

Should we also ban knives? There is enough gun policy that they decided that using actual lethal instruments is harder than just running people over. I'd call that a moderate success.

 

It isn't hypocrisy. It is 1) Not being "all or nothing" as you are, 2) Realizing that, as per point 1, the best we can do is not going to be entirely effective. The point is to make it as effective as possible.

 

What more, dear superior, shall we do to prevent these assaults? I certainly don't have a solution. The guy was a professional driver. How would you have screened him out years ago?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euphoria    2,031
18 minutes ago, Jim K said:

It is hard ... as soon as it comes out that a perpetrator is from a foreign country people start yelling to lock down the borders or pointing fingers (in a general nonspecific sense).

Nobody is yelling to lock down the borders.. this is liberal left propaganda... what people are yelling is to better job at vetting the immigrants.

 

Quote

The real questions should be asked if anything was missed (during his VISA application), was he on anyone's watch list and if not...why (was he just a regular person without a criminal record... with no known radical leanings).  If he was being watched...what was missed and why. That is something I'm sure the FBI will investigate.

Finally something we agree on, vetting all visa applicants especially ones coming from high risk countries with Muslim background...

Quote

If you're going to blame immigration for these types of attacks...you'd need to address the white male problem (Vegas, Sandy Hook. Aurora, Charteston, etc)

Sure there are internal problems that have to be addressed too but we have to start somewhere, right?

 

Quote

Anyway, just tired of these things being politicized ... less than 24 hours after the attack before all facts are known. Some people are crickets after mass shootings by US citizens (mostly done by white males) ... but become very vocal if done by an immigrant.

Define crickets... as Vegas had a lot of coverage but FBI has been quiet on anything related to the shooter.

Dont blame the people, blame the governmental institutions responsible for handling these issues

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wv@gt    2,563
14 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

So you are either not getting the point or deliberately avoiding it... it is not the means by which the act was delivered but the person who delivered it...

 

Why are Democrats not being as vocal about banning rental trucks as they are about banning guns? There were already several incidents in the US and abroad in which a driver hurt and killed multiple pedestrians. Hypocrisy maybe?

 

So according to you, talking about the motives of the terrorist and how to prevent further terrorists from executing similar plans is wrong?

 

Yes it would be great if both parties can work together on finding a solution, but as left is fixated on destroying the current administration, this will sadly never happen...

Definitely not saying that. I think both incidents should be looked at equally. 

After Vegas, the right blasted the left for talking too soon on gun violence and the left blasted the right for ignoring domestic terrorists etc

After this, the roles are flipped. 

 

However, I will say how many instances of rental truck terrorism have we had in this country so far versus, gun massacres? And why are the people that are usually against trying to talk about preventing gun massacres suddenly wanting to vet people on getting a rental car? To me its all the same argument, but one is a constitutional right I guess while the other isn't, or is it the color of their skin and nationality? Is that the thought process? 

 

I don't want to avoid either issue, I'm just pointing out the sheer bias / hypocrisy on both sides. Ill admit that I've been hypocritical as well in the past, I just wish we as a country could look at both issues equally I guess 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euphoria    2,031
5 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

What more, dear superior, shall we do to prevent these assaults? I certainly don't have a solution. The guy was a professional driver. How would you have screened him out years ago?

Haha :) well I am far from being or feeling superior, but thank you for the compliment.

 

A professional driver? How does working for uber making him a "professional" driver?... He had a car and drove people for cash while plotting how to hurt people in his deranged mind.

 

How to screen him, for one "diversity visa lottery" is like picking a random person from a billion people list. Sooner or later you will get a psycho.

We could have checked his background in regards to education, job skills, ideological believes, affiliations with different groups and people, and not just let him in because he won the lottery and he seems not to have had any criminal records.

 

I believe that going forward, in this age of global connectivity and big data, using data analytics to compile a profile of an applicant should not be that difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wv@gt    2,563
10 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

Haha :) well I am far from being or feeling superior, but thank you for the compliment.

 

A professional driver? How does working for uber making him a "professional" driver?... He had a car and drove people for cash while plotting how to hurt people in his deranged mind.

 

How to screen him, for one "diversity visa lottery" is like picking a random person from a billion people list. Sooner or later you will get a psycho.

We could have checked his background in regards to education, job skills, ideological believes, affiliations with different groups and people, and not just let him in because he won the lottery and he seems not to have had any criminal records.

 

I believe that going forward, in this age of global connectivity and big data, using data analytics to compile a profile of an applicant should not be that difficult.

As I mentioned above, you could say the same for the gun massacre issue. Obama wanted to prevent people who were on the no-fly list from getting a gun...but that was a no-no from those on the right because of the 2nd amendment. What about those background checks, I thought those didn't work as well. However what I am seeing now is that the same precautions are only a method if it's not a gun... 

 

Again maybe its just me, but I just feel these are both the same issues when broken down 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka    4,092

Saipov was also a truck driver. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/sayfullo-saipov-manhattan-truck-attack.html

 

The "diversity through lottery" thing I am not familiar with, so I can not comment, beyond saying that sounds stupid. The kind of immigration I support allowing is far more managed than a lottery or quota of ethnicity.

 

I think that Americans (and Europeans to the same extent) are in a very tough position between preserving freedoms and security - that is an old trade off, but we're in a new era, and the impacts of both are larger. The point where I stop claiming knowledge is (in generic terms, not specific to this) how to catch people who have a demographic biased towards being the perpetrators without creating a police state or removing freedoms or making people a second class or enacting collective punishment on the majority for the acts of the few. And unlike some issues (like gang activity), this isn't local, it is in every corner of our territory.

 

In general I obviously don't support racial profiling or government surveillance, but I don't have any suggestions otherwise. Immigration is a hit or miss, but the "refugee cities" we've created are breeding grounds for awfulness.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal    12,482
13 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

How to screen him, for one "diversity visa lottery" is like picking a random person from a billion people list. Sooner or later you will get a psycho.

We could have checked his background in regards to education, job skills, ideological believes, affiliations with different groups and people, and not just let him in because he won the lottery and he seems not to have had any criminal records.

 

I believe that going forward, in this age of global connectivity and big data, using data analytics to compile a profile of an applicant should not be that difficult.

And lets say after all these background checks and data mining of applicant clears the person and is admitted into the country.  A few months later the person buys a truck and goes barreling down people in a park.  What's the excuse now? Hey what stops a US born citizen from doing the same because he's upset with the government?

 

The net is people just snap and there's no way to tell what that person is going to do when it happens.

 

You can tighten the border all you want it's not going to stop these types of attacks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euphoria    2,031
5 minutes ago, wv@gt said:

As I mentioned above, you could say the same for the gun massacre issue. Obama wanted to prevent people who were on the no-fly list from getting a gun...but that was a no-no from those on the right because of the 2nd amendment. What about those background checks, I thought those didn't work as well. However what I am seeing now is that the same precautions are only a method if it's not a gun... 

 

Again maybe its just me, but I just feel these are both the same issues when broken down 

 

 

Yes, there are two issues, or lets say two buckets of people. Domestic crazies and then imported crazies.

Importing more crazies to the domestic bucket will not help... so properly addressing immigration is a step in the right direction.

I do agree with you that American citizens with mental issues, or criminal records should not be allowed to purchase guns, the challenge here is how do you successfully prevent a bad guy from purchasing a weapon as a weapon can be anything in the hands of a lunatic...

As we have seen increasing security checks at the airports might have prevented hijacking and bringing explosives and other weapons onboard, but now they've figured out they dont need guns and explosives to do damage.... so what do we do now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,612
3 hours ago, primortal said:

Going republican does exactly what for this situation?

You get party that is increasingly more critical of loose immigration policies which were put in place largely by past Democratic congress's.  In contrast, the stated policy of the Democratic platform is to open the gates even wider. 


This steaming pile of putrid excrement came in on a Diversity Visa. Passed by a Democrat controlled Congress, the same visa lottery program which admitted Mohamed Hadayet (Egypt) - the 2002 LAX shooter. Lovely. I8

 

LAX attack wiki....

 

Our friendly neighborhood terrorist was interviewed by DHS in 2015 because he had contact with two suspected terrorists, one of which is actively being hunted. 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/feds-interviewed-suspected-nyc-truck-attacker-2015-terror/story?id=50859185

 

Sounds like he had contacts which were more than just casual. 

 

We really need to get away from  this PR/PC based notion of Lone Wolves being somehow distinct from terrorists who go over there and get trained. These guys get trained online using customized builds of first-person shooters, GTA etc. and other online sources about how to build bombs, get weapons & vehicles, select targets, organize and time the attack etc. Because of this the whole Lone Wolf designation is a distinction with an insignificant  difference. It's pure BS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal    12,482
1 minute ago, DocM said:

You get party that is increasingly more critical of loose immigration policies which were put in place largely by past Democratic congress's.


This steaming pile of putrid excrement came in on a Diversity Visa. Passed by a Democrat controlled Congress, the same visa lottery program which admitted Mohamed Hadayet (Egypt) - the 2002 LAX shooter. Lovely.

Again this has nothing to do with selecting a Republican governor or mayor for NY/NYC.  This is more of federal government issue than state correct?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,612
2 minutes ago, primortal said:

Again this has nothing to do with selecting a Republican governor or mayor for NY/NYC.  This is more of federal government issue than state correct?

Where do you think the Congresscritters who passed these legislative abominations come from? You think they just materialize from thin air ? They move up the Democratic Party food chain from state and local offices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brys    2,117
1 minute ago, primortal said:

Again this has nothing to do with selecting a Republican governor or mayor for NY/NYC.  This is more of federal government issue than state correct?

Finding a car and running over people has literally nothing to do with who is in charge of the place you're doing that in. Sure, ban all cars from the united states, they can come in with a car from mexico or canada. Oh, but they're not "legally allowed" to. Sure. They care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,612
1 minute ago, Brys said:

Finding a car and running over people has literally nothing to do with who is in charge of the place you're doing that in. Sure, ban all cars from the united states, they can come in with a car from mexico or canada. Oh, but they're not "legally allowed" to. Sure. They care.

People from high-risk areas, who then have contact with other high-risk people, shouldn't be here in the first place.  If they aren't here the rental becomes moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brys    2,117
5 minutes ago, DocM said:

People from high-risk areas, who then have contact with other high-risk people, shouldn't be here in the first place.  If they aren't here the rental becomes moot.

Yeah but that's the thing, it's prohibitively hard to

  • define high-risk areas. Yes you can be as wide as you want with your definition but with a bit of convincing you can convince a swiss guy to turn to terrorism. It's not about refusing entrance from places where you would obviously fear terrorism, it's about not letting just the single one attacker through, because he's enough.
  • define high-risk people. Yes, again, you can (actually I'm not sure you can) scrutinize the actions and habits of everyone and build very complex social engineered maps of people and so on but, so you can single out obvious threats, but again, if just one guy that doesn't appear threatening and doesn't have weird connections gets convinced he's enough.
  • stop people from physically come in. All the other points mean nothing even if you solve them, because even if you decline entry to the attacker, he can still come in physically and you're assuming you can stop him before he performs his attack. I mean, your borders are huge. Your coasts are huge. I don't want to say you should build a wall, but as much as this idea is absurd, I can't find a good solution.

 

Plus who cares about rental, just steal a car.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Evil Overlord    18,442
15 minutes ago, DocM said:

People from high-risk areas, who then have contact with other high-risk people, shouldn't be here in the first place.  If they aren't here the rental becomes moot.

From where I'm standing, I don't see how that fixes the issue. It would only serve to isolate a nation. (Uganda for example)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but history has shown multiple acts of 'terrorism' (irrelevant of perpetrator's motive) globally. But I also class a mass shooting/stabbing/bombing as an act of terrorism, as a 'terrorist's' first and foremost goal is to inflict terror and panic from the intended public in the form of death and a general feeling of not being safe anywhere. IS may think they're doing it in the name of Allah, but that's total ######## ######. (I remember thinking something similar in the Vegas shooter thread, and thought if that lone gunman did it in the name of Jesus, would he have been reclassified?)

I do agree that this guy is a terrorist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal    12,482
2 hours ago, DocM said:

Where do you think the Congresscritters who passed these legislative abominations come from? You think they just materialize from thin air ? They move up the Democratic Party food chain from state and local offices.

Again this still a federal issue and not at the state level that a governor nor mayor can mandate.  Sure a republican congressman can be a representative of NY but those few people still isn't going to directly impact NY without a passed bill.

 

Did you know that Schumer wanted to remove the program back and 2013?

Quote

 

In 2013, Schumer was part of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” group that came up with a sweeping bipartisan proposal to revamp U.S. immigration laws. Among other things, that proposal called for eliminating the diversity lottery.

 

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another member of the Gang of Eight, defended Schumer, recalling that the group had tried to end the program.

 

The bill passed the Senate but died in the House.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/01/extreme-right-gins-up-a-culprit-for-n-y-terror-attack-chuck-schumer/?utm_term=.8484af733d8b

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal    12,482

Looks like the driver was, “radicalized domestically” while living in the United States (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-truck-attacker-planned-for-weeks-and-carried-out-rampage-in-the-name-of-isis-officials-say/ar-AAuj5TF?ocid=spartanntp).

 

So even if his immigration was merit based, it still wouldn't have stop this tragic event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,636
4 hours ago, Zagadka said:

What more, dear superior, shall we do to prevent these assaults? I certainly don't have a solution. The guy was a professional driver. How would you have screened him out years ago?

 @ctebah and myself, we both have written a lot here about this.

 

You should have your foreign policy straightened out and stop this double game which the U.S. has been playing.

 

You just can't, on one hand, flirt with the terrorists by giving them money, weapons, ammo, air protection, and political cover and using them as a tool to remove sovereign leaders whom you don't like, and, on the other hand, pretend to fight terrorism.

 

Quote

If they aren't here the rental becomes moot.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka    4,092

I agree on principle. But we have the situation we got ourselves into. Aside from changing behavior to avoid similar situations in the future, we need to find several realistic steps to address what we have without losing too much of what we are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.