In America terrorism is an abstract threat, and the original post and your comment both seemed to…
Benji Lampel

“In America terrorism is an abstract threat…”

For now. It was an abstract threat in France too, just a few years ago. And Sweden. Now, they have “events” occuring on a semi-regular basis, and there are ghettos which their own citizens cannot safely navigate through.

Oddly, it seems that many in the US are content until the same problems start here before addressing them.

In America, Trump is unnecessarily fear-mongering about terrorists.

America seems to be caught between two polar opposites. One pole insists there is nothing to worry about and there will NEVER been anything to worry about (and, worrying about it is raaaacist!), while the other insists that trouble is imminent.

There is a healthy reality between the two.

My “fallacious reasoning” is not that terrorism hasn’t been a problem, so it isn’t one.

Read my comment again. My point is simply that the past is not an indicator of the future. To think so is fallacious.

What evidence do you have that violent extremism will be a threat to Americans in the near future.

This is a rather shocking question from anyone who would even take the time to comment on the matter; what you are saying is that you believe that there is something…different about the US (compared to France, Belgium, and Sweden) that will inoculate us from the same problems that they’ve been challenged with.

What is your case that the US is so different, that taking in the same people here, rather than there, will lead to a different result? Please be specific. And, it must be said, the intelligence capabilities of the above countries are in every way, just as capable as ours.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.