Islamic Terrorism

[FireChan]

I think that whatever we've been doing has been working. I don't think there is a reason so single out any group for anything other than heightened scrutiny. There has to be a reason why the US has not had a bombing attack of this nature since 911. I'm sorry but the Boston bombings to me are more along the lines of a couple of nut job loners. I was talking with my wife about that this morning about what we've been doing is working. How hard would it be to build bombs and walk across the southern border with them and start blowing up shopping malls? Maybe we're getting great cooperation from Mexico but knowing how corrupt things are there I highly doubt it.

 

Anyone willing to offer opinions as to why, with our porous southern border we've not had anything like what happened in Brussels happen here. Or is it just a matter of time?

Proximity.

[Deranged Rhino]

Let's be clear about what it is I'm actually arguing. I'm getting a lot of "it's just a conspiracy theory" (which in and of itself isn't a valid rebuke) instead of actual discussion of the meat of the subject matter. I have a lot of fun with conspiracy theories for my own purposes, and while I do think the evidence of a deep state existing in some form is overwhelming and undeniable once you actually do the homework -- I'm not bringing any of that into this discussion. I save that for my own entertainment purposes. For the sake of the conversation (and in my day to day life) I concede that there is no grand design or conspiracy orchestrating these events (or many others).

 

There doesn't need to be one for what I'm arguing to in fact be true.

 

The facts are 9/11 presented an opportunity for the federal government, one they have been taking advantage of since the 12th of that same month. 43's administration used this opportunity to pass some of the most authoritarian assaults on our constitutional rights to privacy and due process. This was shoved down the public's throats without much of a debate and they were shameless in how they used the attacks on New York and Washington to justify the new legislation. The passage of the Patriot Act alone should give us all a clear example of how overreacting (at best), fearmongering (at worst) can be used to force people into poor decisions. But 43's administration was just warming up. On the heels of the Patriot Act came the creation of several brand new agencies with sweeping power and giant budgets: DHS, TSA, the expansion of FISA courts, et al.

 

This was all done in the name of national security, not necessarily malice. However the results were the same. More federal money, more federal jobs, more federal control over the population. A happy accident perhaps, but it certainly benefited the federal government in numerous ways.

 

This was followed by an invasion (paid for on a credit card) of a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 despite every effort being made to blur that line by the media and government. The express purpose of the invasion was not only to topple a dangerous dictator, but to draw out the enemy and force them to fight in one location rather than on American soil. Americans were told to go shopping to support this effort. Shop and live your lives or the terrorists win. In short, don't question. Just accept your new reality. While Americans bankrolled the war with their future, it was the private companies that reaped the actual spoils of war. We were promised the war would pay for itself -- but instead it only served to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Which, is pretty par for the course when it comes to war in general.

 

The next administration came to power promising to roll back the assaults on the constitution and to end the endless war. Instead, 44 doubled down. His administration not only continued the erosion of our constitutional protections but expanded the number of theaters we're actively engaged in. Under this current administration we've seen more war, not less. More loss and more rollbacks on our rights as US citizens. We've also seen the continuation of presidents ruling by executive order rather than going through the traditional legislative process, setting a dangerous precedent.

 

You could rightfully argue that this is caused by the view being different once you're in office than it is when you're running for office. There's undoubtedly some truth to that. There's also little doubt that the mentality that began this mess has only metastasized in the ensuing decade.

 

These aren't conspiracies, these are the events that actually happened. There's no doubt that radical extremism is a threat, and I'm not arguing it's some sort of intentional invention by the west.

 

Merely taking advantage of the idiots seems too unpredictable to maintain control for over a decade, as you indicated.

 

Fear has been used as a method for control since the first forms of "government" arose. Having a constant source of fear that can be deployed whenever it suits your political aim isn't unpredictable at all, it's the opposite of that.

 

 

Not to get all Band-Aid on you, I say "we" as "the world."

Not to get all smart azz on you, but as an American, my life is more secure. I will just leave it at that. Would I still hold the same positiob as I did 13 years ago seeing how things have played out today. ABSOLUTELY!

 

As an American your life is more secure despite having less constitutional protections than you did 13 years ago, less of a voice in who is elected and how the country is governed and now nearly 4 terms of presidents who govern by executive order?

 

Are you sure about that? Or do you just think you're more secure?

 

The illusion of security is sometimes more comforting than the reality. Which is why the fearmongering narrative is pushed so often and by so many regardless of their political stripe.

 

 

I've been refuting your points for a while, but clearly it isn't sinking in. Who's profiting from this perpetual war? DoD spending has been on a decline as % of GDP and on real US$ basis over time, and is a fraction of the spending levels in Vietnam & Cold Wars.

 

And if you invoke neocon theories into your discussion, at least you should understand that neocons know that a lot more profits are made in economies at peace than economies in war. There's not even a debate about it among adults.

 

The creation of massive new federal agencies sucking up well over half a trillion in spending in less than a decade, the usurpation of constitutional powers by the executive and the intelligence services in the name of security, and the outsourcing of the military to private contractors and corporations are not factoring at all into your analysis?

 

If you narrow the scope down far enough, you can disprove anything. Be honest about what you're trying to disprove before you dismiss it entirely.

 

This is about control. It's about hubris. It's not about economics. It's about a group of politicians who believed they could control terrorism by creating a sandbox for the US Military to engage them in away from American soil. It's about the fallout from that poorly thought out plan and how, whether by intention or luck, it's worked out in the favor of authoritarianism around the globe.

[B-Man]

In the Aftermath of Brussels, There Is a Mistake We Shouldn’t Make

by David French

It’s happened. Again. Another significant terror attack in another great European city. London, Madrid, Paris, and now Brussels. It should go without saying that this is exactly what happens when nations open their borders to Islamic radicals and then allow the spirit of jihad to flourish within their cities. It should go without saying that these radicals cannot be “won over” even by the best of intentions, the most politically correct policies, or the most fervent desires for multiculturalism. Europe tries to “win over” Islamists. Islamists merely try to win.

We’ve known these normal rules of terrorism for years — even if we don’t want to face them. Large Islamic communities can and will shelter jihadists, protecting them with their silence even if they don’t actively facilitate their attacks. Terrorist safe havens that used to exist mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Afghanistan/Pakistan now exist in the heart of Europe. Jihadists laugh at Western squeamishness (Belgian law actually prohibits nighttime police raids — a policy terrorists have exploited before) and use our sensitivities to facilitate mass murder.

But here’s what we often don’t know. Here’s the mistake we always make after a major terror attack — we believe this is what jihad looks like, and that stopping jihad means stopping violence. But the reality is that terrorist bombings represent merely an aspect of jihad — the most spectacular and bloody, to be sure — but only a part of the sinister whole.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were treated to a parade of “experts” who assured a worried public that jihadists were perverting the meaning of the term, that the term really and truly only referred to a peaceful, internal struggle — the quest for goodness and holiness. We’ve learned to laugh at this nonsense, but in so doing I fear that we’ve wrongly narrowed the term. To us, jihad is a bomb. It’s a beheading.

No, jihad is an eternal, all-encompassing unholy war against the unbeliever. It is waged in the mind of the believer, to fortify his or her own courage and faith. It is waged online and in the pages of books and magazines, to simultaneously cultivate the hatred and contempt of the committed for the kafir — the unbeliever — while also currying favor, appeasement, and advantage from the gullible West. Jihad is the teaching in the mosque. It is the prayer in the morning, the social-media post in the afternoon, and the donation to an Islamic “charity” in the evening.

There is jihad in predatory, coordinated sexual assault, there is jihad when Western camera crews are chased from Muslim neighborhoods, and there is jihad when Muslim apologists invariably crawl from the sewers of Western intelligentsia, blaming Europeans for the imperfections in their life-saving hospitality.

So don’t make the mistake of believing that Europe or America only “periodically” or “rarely” deal with jihad. We confront it every day, just as the world has confronted it — to greater or lesser degrees — ever since Muslim armies first emerged from the Arabian peninsula. While not all Muslims are jihadists, jihad is so deeply imprinted in the DNA of Islam that the world will confront it as long as Islam lives.

And so combatting jihad isn’t simply a matter of firepower — though that is certainly vital to the work — nor is it a matter of perfecting intelligence and police tactics. It’s the spiritual and intellectual effort of generations. And while the West currently enjoys unmatched military superiority, its mind and spirit aren’t just grotesquely decayed, they’ve been intentionally vandalized. Unless we can reverse that decline — and rediscover the eternal truths that defined our civilization — our guns, bombs, and magnificently-trained troops will merely constitute the rear guard, the force that delays the inevitable.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433093/brussels-terrorist-attack-jihad-everywhere

[Deranged Rhino]

I think that whatever we've been doing has been working. I don't think there is a reason so single out any group for anything other than heightened scrutiny. There has to be a reason why the US has not had a bombing attack of this nature since 911. I'm sorry but the Boston bombings to me are more along the lines of a couple of nut job loners. I was talking with my wife about that this morning about what we've been doing is working. How hard would it be to build bombs and walk across the southern border with them and start blowing up shopping malls? Maybe we're getting great cooperation from Mexico but knowing how corrupt things are there I highly doubt it.

 

Anyone willing to offer opinions as to why, with our porous southern border we've not had anything like what happened in Brussels happen here. Or is it just a matter of time?

 

Or... it's not as big of a threat as you're made to believe. That has to be a possibility.

[Chef Jim]

Proximity.

Yes but how hard would it be for them to fly to Mexico and set up shop. We are the great satan and the snags they'd to to us by blowing up a few malls would be huge.

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes but how hard would it be for them to fly to Mexico and set up shop. We are the great satan and the snags they'd to to us by blowing up a few malls would be huge.

 

They've tried. Check out the Showtime documentary The Spy Masters ( http://www.sho.com/sho/reality-docs/titles/3420665/the-spymasters---cia-in-the-crosshairs#/index) you get all of the (recent) heads of CIA on camera talking about a lot.

[B-Man]

Not The Onion

 

 

Salon ‏@Salondotcom 6h6 hours ago

The real tragedy of terrorist attacks is that they hurt the pro-immigration consensus

 

 

 

 

 

Cruz on Brussels attacks: “We don’t need another lecture on Islamophobia”

[Chef Jim]

 

They've tried. Check out the Showtime documentary The Spy Masters ( http://www.sho.com/sho/reality-docs/titles/3420665/the-spymasters---cia-in-the-crosshairs#/index) you get all of the (recent) heads of CIA on camera talking about a lot.

 

It can't be both? Not as big a threat and they've tried?

[meazza]

I think that whatever we've been doing has been working. I don't think there is a reason so single out any group for anything other than heightened scrutiny. There has to be a reason why the US has not had a bombing attack of this nature since 911. I'm sorry but the Boston bombings to me are more along the lines of a couple of nut job loners. I was talking with my wife about that this morning about what we've been doing is working. How hard would it be to build bombs and walk across the southern border with them and start blowing up shopping malls? Maybe we're getting great cooperation from Mexico but knowing how corrupt things are there I highly doubt it.

 

Anyone willing to offer opinions as to why, with our porous southern border we've not had anything like what happened in Brussels happen here. Or is it just a matter of time?

 

Time.

[Chef Jim]

 

Time.

 

That's my thought.

[meazza]

 

That's my thought.

 

 

It's ok. Just do the wave.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/22/obama-castro-do-wave/82126066/

 

 

 

 

From the growing annals of Things We Never Thought We'd See comes this GIF from theIndependent Journal of President Obama doing the wave with Cuban President Raul Castro on Tuesday.

[4merper4mer]

It is Europe not the US, but if this article is close to true, it is just a matter of time before things spread.

[Nanker]

And W was criticized for reading a book to children in grammar school on 911 and not immediately coming back to the District.

B.O. is lauded for watching a baseball game with Castro while the European Capital is attacked by these monsters.

Then again, he took off to California for fund raising the morning after his Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans were savagely murdered.

[keepthefaith]

And W was criticized for reading a book to children in grammar school on 911 and not immediately coming back to the District.

B.O. is lauded for watching a baseball game with Castro while the European Capital is attacked by these monsters.

Then again, he took off to California for fund raising the morning after his Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans were savagely murdered.

W left the school almost immediately and was flying around in AF1 for security reasons and was on the phone with advisors. Obama won't react strongly because that would send a signal to Americans that he sees ISIS as a big problem and an adversary.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

It's ok. Just do the wave.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/22/obama-castro-do-wave/82126066/

 

 

 

I'd rather do The Curly Shuffle.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

It can't be both? Not as big a threat and they've tried?

 

Sure it can.

 

I'm in no way denying there aren't a lot of bad guys out there who want to do us harm. I'm also not saying the threat of terrorism hitting home isn't real either -- clearly there's too much evidence to the contrary. What I'm questioning is the likelihood of them succeeding. We have very proactive (and excellent) intelligence services in regards to fighting terror, as much grief as I give them for occasionally overstepping, I've never questioned their ability or importance. They've risen to the occasion more than once in the face of this threat (which is why I recommend that doc regardless of where you land on this issue, it's a good glimpse at all the personalities involved, most of whom are deeply conflicted over how best to deal with the entire issue).

 

Your odds of being in a terrorist attack are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of your odds of being struck by lightning. Yes, it happens. But living your life in fear of it happening is a touch dramatic and potentially debilitating.

[Tiberius]

Your odds of being in a terrorist attack are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of your odds of being struck by lightning. Yes, it happens. But living your life in fear of it happening is a touch dramatic and potentially debilitating.

I actually agree with this. If its live we want to save we could expand health care to all citizens

[meazza]

I actually agree with this. If its live we want to save we could expand health care to all citizens

 

[Tiberius]

 

Brilliant!

[GG]

 

The creation of massive new federal agencies sucking up well over half a trillion in spending in less than a decade, the usurpation of constitutional powers by the executive and the intelligence services in the name of security, and the outsourcing of the military to private contractors and corporations are not factoring at all into your analysis?

 

If you narrow the scope down far enough, you can disprove anything. Be honest about what you're trying to disprove before you dismiss it entirely.

 

This is about control. It's about hubris. It's not about economics. It's about a group of politicians who believed they could control terrorism by creating a sandbox for the US Military to engage them in away from American soil. It's about the fallout from that poorly thought out plan and how, whether by intention or luck, it's worked out in the favor of authoritarianism around the globe.

 

Mighty broad strokes there, without a single counter to the main point that military spending post 9/11 is still well below the norms established after WWII. Of course military spending went up after 9/11, but that's only because Clinton gutted the military with his naive Peace Dividend theories.

 

And let me give you another lesson in neocon theories, and that is the firm belief that economic, religious and political freedoms are intertwined and the world is a better place when the US takes a leading role for the rest of the world to follow to achieve that true holy trinity. Of course its American exceptionalism and hubris that drives it, but please convince me that the world isn't better off with America leading the charge. Don't for a second think that it's just a coincidence that all hell is breaking loose because America has been leading from behind in the last seven years.

 

That's why it's ridiculous that you believe that neocons wish for a global war because it cements the power, when global war actually reduces overall economic activity. Neocons are about opening up markets and freeing trade, and having a strong military has been crucial for the US to protect its lives and economic interests.

 

And that's always been the difference between US and banana republics. The smart men in the US know that open markets create natural disruptions and today's champions are tomorrow's losers, which in turn will give birth to tomorrow's champions.

 

The US is much better in dealing with change than the rest of the world. Or I should say, it used to be better.