If someone has the mindset to do something like this I don't see how its possible for law enforcement and or intelligence to stop it 100% of the time , could you ever see a day where Islam is banned and communities are forced out of certain countries, what if 100,000 or more were killed at one time , would you still say they will not change our way of life or our values.
In a free society how could you ever stop a attack like manchester
- Thread starter joelefty
- Start date
We can't stop them -- not all of them, anyway.
Ergo, where should our focus be trained?
Immigration, If you look at most of these idiots they are 2nd generation refugees, Same as the Mexican gang problem , most immigrants come to a nation are grateful for a new beginning its the following generations who fail to assimilate.
Mmm, OK. I don't entirely disagree. But that's not really what I was getting at.
After all, neither we nor Europe is going to be able to undo what has already been done with immigration....even if opportunist politicians say we can and they will.
so what are options? quit assembling in crowds, I have no answers , I could see the day when they pull off a massive attack and who knows what the reaction will be, how hard would it be to shoot hundreds of rpgs into a open air football stadium?
We need to become absolutely intolerant of radical Islamist theology and ideology -- and, more importantly, take measures which impose pressure on Muslim nations to do likewise.
That is the root cause of all of this. And, because Western civilization is built upon a foundation of freedom of thought (and religion, etc), we've been understandably reluctant to do that.
I can only think of two ways on the international side. One involves killing a whole bunch of people and the other involves squeezing their economies and making their lives more miserable than they are. Either of those could backfire but the idea would be to end the status quo. Right now, the day to day Muslim may not really agree with the Islamists or they may disagree with their methods but unless you are in certain areas they probably do not impact you. If you are being deprived goods or having bombs dropped on your head because of the approval of indifference, it can lead you to turn on the people causing you to feel that pain. You just have to hope they blame the right people.
Whether we want it or not, I believe we are heading towards a reckoning with Islam one way or the other. Eventually the Islamists will pull off something so terrible, we will have to respond.
Well, Germany successfully did it with Nazi ideology. It is expressly forbidden there. Let's take a page from what they did.
I think the harder part would be applying external pressure to the Saudi Arabias of the world (let alone places like Syria). We seem very reluctant to ever hold their feet to the fire on this issue.
But, more and more, the jihadists are home-grown. The perp in this case was born and raised in the UK. His parents had been refugees from Qaddafi's Libya . But that, in and of itself, is likely incidental. Time will tell, of course. But I'd say chances are good that his parents weren't ever radicalized. But he was -- and understanding more about how radicalization happens is key to detecting and preventing it. We need to infiltrate the networks, disrupt the radical clerics, and enlist the assistance of friendly Muslims to uproot radicalization.
similar to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan , don't see that being the long term answer , I rarely agree with you but you just made the dumbest statement ever for a solution, I say the day comes when freedom of speech and religion is abandoned in the name of survival.
is it really incidental? seems like its always the case is the European attacks.
Well, first, let's establish that Europe is not going to turn its current milkshake back into ice cream and milk. What are they going to do, kick out all the refugees like this guy's parents (not to mention all their kids)? That's not a plausible approach to this problem. And, frankly, I think it would be inefficient anyway -- expending resources on lots and lots of people because they suspect (however rightly) that some among them are either radicalized or headed that way.
Rather, I think they need to think more about turning some of these people into helpful assets in uncovering the forces of radicalism within their communities. It's radical beliefs which are the problem, not somebody's national origin. As such, that's what we all need to get more vigilant about going after. We're making efforts along these lines now, of course. But I think they need to be amped up in a big way. And I gather that what's holding that back is our very deep-seated devotion to freedom of thought and religion. That devotion is nothing but a good thing -- but it can also be an obstacle when we're dealing with a threat that has religious belief at its core.
Of course, we always need to be careful to properly delineate between radical and non-radical strains of Islam, too. But, there again, the best people to help navigate that are moderate Muslims who are willing and able to help this cause.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Cmon dude, get real. Eliminating Nazi ideology is pretty easily implemented because it's easily identified and has a name.
Who gets to write the rules about what extremist ideology codewords / flags are that will be expressly forbidden? And who is going to go into the mosques to monitor them?
You're speaking in extreme over simplification and you're way smarter than that.
Yeah, that's one ridiculous "solution".
Bin Laden couldn't have hoped for a better western response in his wildest hopes and dreams.
You know I hate cliches, but that's the poster child for "If we do this, the terrorists have already won!" if I've ever seen it.
Well, forget the name -- that's not what's important. What's important here is that post-war Germans were intimately familiar with the ideology. That's what made it so easy for them to identify. There wasn't a German alive who couldn't spot it.
So....
Those who are intimately familiar with radical Islamist theology -- who can spot it and see it forming, and can distinguish between the good cholesterol and the bad cholesterol.
Just because you and I aren't intimately familiar with the finer details of the various strains of Islam doesn't mean that nobody is. There are people who are just as familiar with that as the postwar Germans were with Nazism. And, yes, I very much do think we could do a lot more to enlist -- in fact, demand -- their assistance in actively rooting this out.
You don't. Not easily, anyway. Economic development, particularly aimed at the extreme lower classes will help. The spread of liberal education will help. Ironically, the gradual opening of borders (in multiple ways, not just in terms of immigration) will help. But the fact is this: as long as humans have religion, some people will be radically religious. And without religion, they'd find something else to radicalize over. You can't stamp it out. All you can do is try to marginalize it.
If Islamic terrorism is the worst the West ever has to face in our lifetimes, we should consider ourselves very lucky.
We are not long removed from an era where humanity was frequently fighting massive ground wars, or even more recently massive, nuclear armed cold wars.
If I get blown up by a random lone wolf someday, so be it. It'll suck....but so would dying driving home tonight...and that's statistically a lot more likely.
So I guess best way to beat the ideology is to ignore it (publicly, not security behind the scenes). Like a toddler throwing a tantrum, giving it attention just causes more of it.
We are not long removed from an era where humanity was frequently fighting massive ground wars, or even more recently massive, nuclear armed cold wars.
If I get blown up by a random lone wolf someday, so be it. It'll suck....but so would dying driving home tonight...and that's statistically a lot more likely.
So I guess best way to beat the ideology is to ignore it (publicly, not security behind the scenes). Like a toddler throwing a tantrum, giving it attention just causes more of it.
No, it's not a cliche. And I think every other approach will prove futile.
I don't know of any nations that have made an absolute determination -- in word and deed -- of complete intolerance towards the indoctrination of radical Islamist thought. They're too busy awaiting radicals to act -- rather than disrupting the radicalization itself. I think part of that goes back to approaching this as a matter of criminality rather than war -- and that is definitely a problem. This should never be mistaken for mere criminality.
Let's refer back to Nidal Hasan. Lest we forget, the FBI investigated Hasan well prior to his actions at Fort Hood. The difference between where we are and where I think we should go is that, while they found some clearly disturbing things about Hasan's worldview, they determined it wasn't actionable (and it probably wasn't). Only later, with the benefit of hindsight and in the wake of 13 dead, did those pieces fit the puzzle.
What I'm saying is that I think we need to get out ahead of the actions themselves. Agree or disagree with that -- but it's not a cliche.
It seems pretty obvious that our constitution doesn't allow us to have a religious basis for this approach. So, we aren't going to be able to outlaw "strains" of Islam...only specific activity. Or are you proposing amending our constitution?
No. How does that fly constitutionally? It doesn't.
I'd rather live with a (very rare in the US) terrorist attack, than give up such powers to the state to act as they wish....in a never-ending martial law situation.
It does matter if it's religious. Freedom of thought/ideology is implied by the freedoms of speech and association. The first amendment would need to be repealed.
No, I was offering the cliche. Because it's the response your Orwellian solution demands.
I would agree with this -- but for one huge hitch: WMDs. They're a fact of life and we're never going to get that crap back in the horse. And I think they absolutely force us to deal with this threat as being existential in nature. I'm absolutely positive that these types of people have no interest in possessing WMDs as any kind of deterrent.
It would be great if the human psyche were capable of shrugging this off as you suggest. If it were, then it would render the tactic useless. But it's not -- and the terrorists know it all too well. That's why they perpetrate acts of terror, after all. And the bigger and more horrifying those attacks are, the more effective they are influencing peoples' thoughts and behaviors.
Alas, I don't think this is a real solution -- it would require a mass rewiring of the human psyche, and I don't think big pharma has developed that drug quite yet.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." -- Justice Robert Jackson, 1949.
If we can reasonably place limits on speech akin to "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", then why can we not reasonably place limits on what constitutes protected religious doctrine? If we agree that speech protected by the 1st amendment is not unlimited, then why does it follow that religion is protected (by the same amendment, no less) without any limits?
The thing we so often fail to understand is that Islamism is neither distinctly theological nor political -- it's actually a particularly volatile combination of both.
And I think the only way we're ever going to make genuine headway against radicalization is to become intolerant of it.
So my solution is Orwellian, but a solution of "let's just ignore it until it goes away!" is plausible?
Personally, I think it's kind of preposterous to say that uprooting genuinely radical anti-Western indoctrination is in any way Orwellian. But, still, at least it's something that exists within the realm of possibility.
You want to ask me how we'd pull this off? How about asking Twenty -- who, I should say, is a great guy whose opinions I value -- how we'd manage to pull off a massive silent treatment?
Do you know what Orwellian means? Because this sentence doesn't make any sense.
So, you DO want to amend the constitution and outlaw some religions. Talk about not being able to put the crap back in the horse.
Color me surprised. I thought you were a small government guy.
ofc, but the real danger is they get theri hands on chemcial/biological agents. Plus we don't want to live in a society where suicide bombings are the norm. Not fun.
yea and the scary thing is that trump doubled down on the exact opposite approach. 99% of these terror attacks are being carried out by sunni radicals. Sadly our entire govt is bought out by Saudi $ and the military arms complex. Trump too is in on the Saudi take. That's how you end up with a scenario where we completely turn a blind eye to saudi activities. Instead we full throatedly take thei side in a fight with iran, which is pure political propaganda. The saudis specifically use iran as a distraction in order to avoid internal unrest.
Well, first, I am a small government guy. But I'm not a no government guy.
Second, I think amending the Constitution in any way has become extremely difficult and amending the First Amendment would be virtually impossible. But I do not think embracing this approach towards radical religion -- which is better described as a form of doctrinal incitement -- would require an amendment, just an interpretation.
Again, we've had no issue accepting that there are limits to protected speech, right? So why is it so crazy to think there couldn't be limits to protected religion? Did finding limits on protected speech require an amendment to the 1st amendment?
Even a WMD in the hands of a terrorist group is not an existential threat. If they release a virus in Times Square and kill a significant number of New Yorkers, that would suck, but we'd survive it. If they set off a nuke in DC and decapitate a major portion of our federal government, that would be a crisis, but we'd survive it.
Talking about abrogating our most basic Constitutional freedoms is just nuts. Terrorism isn't that level of threat, and never will be.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
.
Bottom line, is that you're looking for an oversimplified solution for a very complex problem, and you and I are going to disagree all day long on the existential nature of this problem.
So are you only going to draw this box around religious ideology and extremism? Or are you going to extend it to Second Amendment nutjobs waving don't tread on me flag's and talking about how we'll pry their guns right from your cold dead hands? What about the comment section of any Breitbart.com article? You're on a very slippery slope, and you can't stop.
Bottom line, is that you're looking for an oversimplified solution for a very complex problem, and you and I are going to disagree all day long on the existential nature of this problem.
I'd say that society is a lot more immune to terrorism now than in prior years. In some ways, the more often they occur, the more they are shrugged off.
I saw the blurb last night on my phone, turned on cable news for maybe 2 mins, than went on with my evening doing other things.
The stock market is another great indicator. Global markets entirely ignored this event, US markets were flat to slightly up today.
Right or wrong, society has slowly adapted to this being a new normal. If that trend continues, widespread attacks may well crest and then recede significantly over the next generation.
Some other quotes from Justice Robert Jackson:
- The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. We could justify any censorship only when the censors are better shielded against error than the censored.
- American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442-43 (1950)
- I think that, under our system, it is time enough for the law to lay hold of the citizen when he acts illegally, or in some rare circumstances when his thoughts are given illegal utterance. I think we must let his mind alone.
- American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 444 (1950)
- The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.
- Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (10 November 1945)
- If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.
- Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (10 November 1945)
- We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.
- Nuremberg Tribunal.
- Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (10 November 1945)
- The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
- 319 U.S. 638
Last edited:
yea i agree. Im just pointing out the current death tolls are piddly winks compared to a chemical attack.
Personally, id prefer to get rid of the TSA, and take my chances.
eh it's a lot more common in western europe than here right now. If this happened in the heart of wallstreet the reaction may have been more negative. If there were daily suicide attacks to the point that people changed how they were going about their lives, it would have a significant impact on society.
Similar threads
