But…but…but…if walls don’t work…….?
Security at the Sports Complex during the Democratic National Convention next month will include “no-scale fencing” to enclose the Wells Fargo Center and Xfinity Live!, the Secret Service special agent in charge said in an interview Thursday.
But exact boundaries of the security perimeter around the sports arena, where the convention will take place July 25-28, are not yet finalized, Special Agent James Henry told NBC10.com.
“We’re not quite there to talk about the perimeter yet,” Henry said. “We’re probably a couple weeks away from finalizing that. But expect some closures.”
For the second time in less than a year, Philadelphia is playing host to an event that brings with it the designation of National Special Security Event (NSSE). Last year’s papal visit was hailed a success in the days and weeks after Pope Francis came to the city for a historic weekend. But it caused months of angst leading up to the event. Much of the unease settled around what became the planned shutdown of Center City to vehicle traffic.
Henry cautioned that the DNC is very different from the papal visit last September.
“This is not the papal visit. This is much smaller in scope and much smaller in scale. So the security footprint is going to be much smaller,” Henry said. “The impacts are really minimal. We’re fortunate the sports complex is more isolated, certainly than the papal visit in Center City.”
For more democrat hypocrisy, go here
To be fair, have you seen the crowds at some of Hillary’s events? Maybe the wall is to keep people in rather than wall people out.
They don’t need a wall, then.
Just a decent lock on the closet door.
Are you imagining that the 2016 national convention of the DNC wouldn’t be considered a primary target for Islamic terrorists? If you think that it wouldn’t be, your imagination must be faulty.
Why would it be? democrats are their best friends
It might clarify the situation a bit to compile a list of ISIS, Taliban, al Qaeda, and affiliate leadership cadre who have been methodically targeted and killed by the Obama administration over the past 7 years. It will be a long list. The most recent name would be Abdullahi Haji Da’ud, the top military commander of al-Shabab, who was blown to bits in Somalia by a U.S. drone strike earlier this month.
Add to that the estimated 26,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria who have been eliminated by the Obama administration’s U.S. backed coalition.
They hate Obama. They also hate Clinton, who was part of his administration and who would likely be an even more aggressive enemy.
@Petercat: Or a booth handing out free popcorn.
You completely ignored what was pointed out in Post #5, I notice.
Anyone who doesn’t understand why ISIS or ISIS-inspired elements would consider the 2016 Democratic National Convention to be an enormously inviting terrorist target hasn’t been paying enough attention. It’s a combination of both the symbolic value of an attack and of the event’s extremely high media profile.
I’ll be relieved when both conventions are over.
You ignore your own propaganda. Muslims are peaceful, the authorities handle everything and no one needs or deserves the right of self defense.
Of course, the Republicans have a double threat to worry about… ISIS and you guys.
You sound like an Islamaphobe. You should get that looked at.
If you ever thought outside of your right-wing propaganda bubble, you might realize that people on the left commonly take a view of Islam that’s more complex than simply being the other side of the right-wing view. Reality is more complicated than that. Even the either-right-or-left model is overly simplistic.
@Greg: What you on the left do is look for a reason NOT to act. It is Islamaphobic to suspect Muslims are preaching radicalization to their flock. It is fear mongering to see the threats and prepare to defend ones self. It is hateful to identify an administration that directs its attention towards everyone but the actual problem.
Oh, but when Democrats perceive a threat? Build a wall and arm the guards. Let’s require photo ID and suspect everyone.
Damn, Greg… my three year old granddaughter can understand things better than you.
You’re generalizing. The fact that some Muslims are unquestionably terrorists does not mean that all Muslims are inclined to terrorism. In fact, Muslims are by far the most common targets of Muslim terrorists. The problem is coming from a minority of fundamentalist extremists.
The fact that this sort of generalization is illogical is not really the serious problem with it. The serious problem with it is that, if a distinction isn’t made between the two:
(a) it’s not possible to focus effectively on the actual enemy; and
(b) treating them all as the enemy will invariably create a lot more enemies.
Hmm… “generalizing”. I see.
So, targeting the group that commits ALL the terror is generalizing, but targeting EVERY legal, law abiding gun owner because of criminals is not?
Yes, it absolutely is. If the PC shield had not been raised because Mateen was Muslim. His coworker complained about his violent nature, his anti-gay rants and radical support but, because he was Muslim, no action was taken. Because the Obama DOJ has made targeting and profiling Muslims illegal, the warning signs must be ignored. How about tracking the hateful Imams that preach murder? How about tracking the congregation? Saying it can’t be done is the cowardly way out… the only reason it can’t be done is because you leftists cannot admit you are wrong.
Treating them as our friends will invariably create more mass killings. But, those killings serve a left wing political purpose (blame Republicans, blame guns, blame Christians) so actually finding a REAL solution is not the goal.
As we learn more about Mateen we learn that this slaughter could have been avoided. Mateen SHOULD have been stopped. This is yet another Obama failure. It’s not the gun’s fault… it is Obama’s.