NYC Mayor Says Islamic Terror ‘Vanishingly’ Rare, calls for more Muslim migrants

Lifezette ^ | Sept. 20, 2016 | Brendan Kirby

[free-in-nyc]

"They voted for that dumbass let them suffer the terrorist attacks because of it"

We didn't all vote for him...

[kaehurowing]

These liberals who refuse to acknowledge Islamic mass terrorism are the same folks who want to put Christians (now named by Hillary as deplorable and irredeemable) in prison for declining to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

[from occupied ga]

We didn't all vote for him...

75% of you did. Almost 90% in Manhattan and the Bronx. If a terrorist bomb went off in Manhattan and killed 10 people most likely 9 of them would have deserved it - Kind of rough on the tenth one though.

[Enchante]

Problem is that there were no decent candidates for mayor in NYC. A Giuliani there is a rare event. Most election cycles they’re lucky if they can get a turd like Bloomberg instead of a commie like DeBlasio.

[Inyo-Mono]

de Blasio actually has a point here! It’s kind of like the bad rap the Japanese Empire got on December 7, 1941. The huge majority of American cities were NOT attacked on that date. Yet everybody got all upset at the Japanese.

Good one!

[free-in-nyc]

"We didn't all vote for him...

75% of you did. Almost 90% in Manhattan and the Bronx. If a terrorist bomb went off in Manhattan and killed 10 people most likely 9 of them would have deserved it - Kind of rough on the tenth one though.

Actually, the results in Manhattan were about 72% for DeBlasio, 25% for Lhota (Republican), and 3% other. In the Bronx it was 86% for DeBlasio, the highest of any of the five boroughs and within the range you mentioned. Per Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Mayoral_Election,_2013#Results_by_Borough

Despite my quibbling over numbers, I have to say I agree with you on your other post above about the liberal mindset - they are generally impervious to reality, even if things blow up in their face.

[Captain Rhino]

Same thing for Obama.

Unless the terror threat is “existential,” don’t get excited.

Jeez, existential at what level? T

International? National? Regional? State? County? City? Neighborhood? Family? Individual?

Kind of reminds me of classes and lectures I attended on the spectrum of warfare. Generally, the theorists break the spectrum into three levels: low intensity conflict, mid intensity conflict, high intensity conflict. Only the definition of high intensity conflict includes reference to the national existence and the relatively unconstrained use of force (up to and including nuclear weapons). The other two levels are bounded by limitations on the size of the conflict area and the scale of conventional forces and weapons being employed.

The problem is, as a number of infantrymen have noted, at the point of execution, all three levels tend to look like high intensity conflict.

So, the President, in his lofty perch and huge security bubble, has one one perspective and John and Jane Average American have another. Both are valid but only one is being called exaggerated and fearful.

So whether it’s a shoot up night club, a massacre at a holiday party, or a terror attack at a mall, none of these threaten the national existence.

So, no sweat and carry on.

Swell, Mr. President. Just f’n swell.