The issue is that no one is really "scattered" with the internet and social media. Radicalization can and does still take place.
Yes, but attempting to get the newly minted radicals together to train, plan and execute the plan is more difficult the farther dispersed the individuals.
We live in a time where one crazy person with a gun can kill several people. How much organization does that really require?
That's a waayyyy further extrapolation than the one I presented. I mean, the brilliant medical student vs. the criminal? Is that the only choice available? How about the decision between a brilliant ME doctoral student and an American criminal? The ideas that it's just utopian or due to shared history or something is shit we say to make ourselves feel alright about doing it. I'm included in this, so it's not as if I'm presenting myself as some holier than thou angel, as I certainly paid more attention to the events in France rather than the bombing Kenya. All I'm saying is that we do this all the time, treating people with unfamiliar beliefs and cultures as monolithic Others to be feared as a whole. I don't think it's in any way utopian to think that sort of attitude can be corrected or ameliorated in some manner, so, in one sense, we don't see these refugees as one entity where we would see French refugees as individuals.
Again, same verse from the 1800s. "Hey, I made it here and benefited from the policies I'm now wanting to deny to you. Tough shit". Americans seem to love self-serving justifications for their own benefit.
Even if it were utopian, I don't see why working towards a better world is something to be dismissed.
If using it as a stepping point to recruit more radicals, at a minimum, communication. And when there is communication, there is structure, and discussion, and then changing targets, and maybe someone suggests adding another member. I mean, one lone person does not a cause further, in most instances.
Not as easily as you can do it face to face. It's why you've seen so few online recruited, trained, planned and executed attacks to this point. And a good deal of it is the idea that all communication is monitored. Which isn't true. But the perception does help. So too is that online, you don't know who you are talking to. How do you verify that your anonymous new recruit is actually a recruit? How do you arm them? Are they capable of getting the weapons they say they are capable of getting?
You're confused as to what I mean. I'm saying I'm grateful for the benefits from living in this country, but I don't think the door should close behind me.
Yeah, I don't think it should be unfettered, but just saying "**** everyone else, I got mine" shouldn't be the policy, nor has it been good for our history when we start promoting this concept. I work with, although less so than before, a number of Kurdish and Somali refugees in Nashville, people from pretty dangerous areas, especially the Somalis, and they are perfectly good people who contribute very nicely to the community. Accepting refugees, and 10,000 is really a paltry number, isn't nearly the burden and danger it sometimes is purported to be.
Tell me again how they all seemed to attack at the same time in Paris last Friday? Did they just happen to all pick the same time?
Did they all use the Internet and social media to plan, and not face to face meetings? And to clarify: I'm actually asking this question, not suggesting something by some ham handed attempt to trap you in some far too obvious way.
