Terrorist Sleeper Cells and Illegal Immigration

What moral obligations do you feel?

Do we know anything about illegal immigrants to the USA as a group? For example, what percentage of them belong to sleeper terrorist cells? Are fundamentalist Islamicists capable of learning Spanish, or is that -- like what they say in the 9/11 forum -- something that is beyond the capabilities of Al Qaeda, the "Muslim Brotherhood" in Egypt, the Iranian equivalent of the CIA, Hezbollah, etc?

to Arabs, right there.

Oh, and by the way: Restating a delusional assertion that you make in one thread as the OP of another thread doesn't make it any less delusional. You may want to go ahead and think about something else for a little while, just to give your psyche a little rest. Just a frindly suggestion.

If you want to inject the idea of "terrorist sleeper cells" into a discussion about adoption, you know that there just MIGHT be a reason why nobody responds to you. Think about that concept, OK?

Redstone

Edited to correct spelling.

...500+ years they ruled Spain and kept the light of civilization alive while the rest of Europe wallowed in the mud.

I'm still wondering why anyone would think that the intelligence services in Iran are staffed by a significant number of Arabs.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, would be largely staffed by Sunni Arabs. The Egyptian intelligence service could be expected to have a fair few as well.

"Never argue with someone who see things that aren't there."

I forgot my own rule when I answered this post, more's the shame on me.

Redstone

I'm going to engrave it on a stout piece of wood that I can hit myself over the head with whenever I feel tempted to comment on topics like this in future.

:hi:

to use our energy to debate only rational issues from now on, OK?

Like that North American Union business. That does require our attention.

Redstone

Here's my virtual hand to shake on the bargain. :inserthandsmileyhere:

Redstone

by someone and contradicted by someone else. No?

Recently I was discussing the question of measuring the intelligence of dolphins. Would you say that patience in dolphins would not be evidence that they are intelligent, but that their inability to learn Spanish would be evidence that they lack intelligence?

would not be evidence that the typist is intelligent, but that their inability to learn Spanish would be evidence that they lack intelligence?

If you're just talking about typing as in transcribing spoken language to a keyboard or typewriter, then I honestly don't know whether or not that is evidence of intelligence. Basically, it sounds as though you are asking whether or not software that might replace those who transcribe dictation would be true artificial intelligence and would displace human beings from a specialized occupational function that demands true human intelligence. Are you asking that?

Regarding inability to learn Spanish, I would not dare to question the intelligence of someone who is unable to learn Spanish. For one thing, language learning is a specialized kind of learning. There may be various disabilities that could significantly interfere with learning a second or third language. I don't think that the presence of a particular disability indicates lack of general intelligence. Also, we have to consider that it's much easier to learn a language linguistically similar to a language you already know than to learn a language that is very different from any language that you already know. Also, there seems to be a critical period when human beings are especially receptive to learning languages. If someone experiences a sharp transition, then can we say that the person suffered a loss of intelligence?

Sorry if that's not an answer. It's more of an indication of a train of thought. Were you looking for just a "yes" or "no" answer?

my own rule here, but I can't help it.

Redstone

How do you respond to people who raise various safety-related concerns, such as whether an oil tanker is at risk of spilling oil in Alaska or elsewhere; whether people are endangering their own eyesight or lives by squatting in a shantytown illegally located too close to a chemical processing plant; whether various fire detectors have working batteries; whether various fire extinguishers are in appropriate locations and are ready for use, etc?

more legitimate concerns such as the ones you noted, because their obsession with "sleeper cells" would make me think they were a nutbar...so their legitimate concerns would suffer because of their nutbarredness (Is that a word? It should be.) about "sleeper cells."

You could be Mother Theresa, dedicating your life to the poor of Calcutta, and the SECOND you start with the "sleeper cell" paranoia, you've lost the support of pretty much anyone who is rational.

That's the way life goes. I've tried to help here, but I know you won't listen.

But it's OK, because I tried. Good night, and good luck.

Redstone

Do you fault GWB for not having been "delusional" prior to that day?

1. The words assert something.
2. The words were made in one thread and are in the OP of another thread.
3. The words are inherently delusional words.

Edited to include a reminder of what I am replying to:

Is the question "what percentage" a claim that the percentage must be at least one percent and cannot be half a percent, a tenth of a percent, a hundredth of a percent, a thousandth of a percent, etc?

Damn, I just broke my own Rule # 3 again.

Redstone

When I post a reply to my own thread, I hazard the guess that it's usually a follow-up thought rather than one persona of a multiple personality responding to a post by another persona of the same multiple personality.

No need to impress me with that knowledge via PM.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stay out of my inbox entirely, to tell you the truth. and that goes for all of your "personae" as well.

Redstone

Redstone

you a private message, then you are giving me the option of sending a private message in future so that you can accuse me of rudeness or so that I can tell you something that you might be interested in?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I sent you a single, short sentence that begins with a capital and ends with a question mark. Please do not publicly discuss the contents of private messages that I send you.

If you feel that you must say something on public threads about private messages that I send you, then please do not misrepresent the nature of those private messages. Remember, we're in computer land. There's no paper trail that you can shred.

Since it was in answer, I am quoting the entire PM here. You didn't answer, just asked more questions. Perhaps you don't have a purpose, since you seem unwilling to share the purpose, this far into the thread.

Random musings, checking conclusions drawn from other forums/postings, rhetorical questions, bigoted questions, what?

both at the same time, UP. I'm off to the Land of Nod.

Redstone

What principles does one rely upon to arrive at the conclusion that a given question is bigoted or to arrive at the conclusion that a given question is not bigoted?

You know, MS-13, and their attempts to spread their territories northward. The gangs are the greatest danger resulting from porous borders--just ask the overburdened cops who have to deal with the influx every day.

with "drugs and gangs"? Don't give GWB any ideas, please.

Your average "illegal immigrant" is not looking for publicity as it is, and if you have "illegal immigrant sleeper terrorist cells" it can only be more so with them. I would bet there are plenty of latino muslims too, who knows what they could be plotting? And they would not even need to learn Spanish first.

that AQ needs to pay a coyote $10,000 to get someone across the border? or Hezbollah, Iran or Egypt? please. that is way too risky. States, and quasi state actors, have other, more secure methods of smuggling humans.

second, immigrant communities, especially undocumented ones, tend to be very tight knit communities, in my neighborhood, for instance, there are discrete El Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran communities, (just as my old neighborhood was Ethiopian, Somali and Eritran) these are not easy communities to break into, you need references to hide there, I doubt you can just show up and say 'hola, I am from Honduras" and be welcomed for long without it being true.

thirdly: yes, there are terrorist 'sleeper' cells in the US. I am certain of itl. if they had much capability or willingness, why haven't they done anything? Also, I would put money on the idea that there are Soviet sleeper cells, or the remmnants of them, still in the US, probably a few straggling Nazi ones as well. Our society is based on the type of openness that allows such groups to form, even while it discourages them with every act. getting the types of infiltration you are talking about is not a bug in our system it is a feature. and we will endure the eventual terrorism and violence to keep the much greater benefits of having a freer and more open society.

a society that does not enforce its own immigration laws?

but anyway, we do, in fact, enforce our laws, we are not draconian about it. Immigration is a federal issue, not a local or state one, and it should be handled only at the federal level. the US has decided, for better or worse at this point, to not have 100% enforcement of basically any laws (ever sped on the highway and not gotten caught? bet you have, there's that free and open society thing again) We take a reactive approach to immigration issues, not a proactive one. and trust me, you don't want to live in a place that has a proactive one. Imagine a place in which everyone had to be able to prove citizenship or residency to any officer of a government, at any time. We don't do that, because there is the assumption that, once you are in the US, you have a legal right to be, unless otherwise shown. we like it that way.

Personally, I want it the other way. I want every police officer, sherriff, deputy, whatever, to have an obligation to verify citizenship of everyone they encounter. Imagine, you are out for a jog, and get stopped to prove your citizenship. don't have papers? oh well, we will make sure by taking you to jail until you can affirmatively prove citizenship. let's set up random roadblocks to verfiy citizenship. Sure, we will get some innocent americans inprisoned, but hey, it's a small price to pay.

got your papers, comrade?

citizenship or residency to any officer of a government, at any time."

You are able to imagine an extreme enforcement scenario. That sounds like a classic straw man attack. Aren't you merely designing an imaginary policy that is both bad and quite different from the policy that you support? Can you prove that there are only two possible policies: the bad policy you imagined and the policy that you support?