sturg33
I
I'm still not clear on what the threat is? What is the consequence if the US turns a blind eye?
Note - I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure why my solution is until I understand what's at stake
France attack...
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
I'm still not clear on what the threat is? What is the consequence if the US turns a blind eye?
Note - I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure why my solution is until I understand what's at stake
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
If the US turns a blind eye, the rest of the world could still possibly do what's necessary if they act together and (relatively) soon. That's certainly an option, and I'm personally tired of feeling like our country is the only one really fighting. But after all this effort, it seems like our allies finally see the threat and we are still in the best position to push this in the direction it needs to go. Without us, it could still happen. With us, it stands a much better chance of happening sooner and with more efficiency and success.
The only way this works is if we have a unified effort. Have to find a way to get China on board as well because the coming together of all these world powers without China at the table will make them unsettled. Russia can just go rot internally for all I care.
sturg33
I
I'm still not clear on what you consider to be the threat? You keep saying "if we act, we can stop the threat" but what do you think the threat is?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Do you (and Dalyn) think that the fact that the rest of the world isn't "on board" is significant. Russia has the Caucasus. China has the Uighurs. Still, we're working at cross purposes. Which is more likely: that the threat you've described is indeed a threat to all non-Muslim nations, or that the threat is being manipulated by all sides to achieve political and strategic goals.
Think back to the GWB War on Terror days. Putin was glad to embrace Bush and decry the menace of terrorism because it gave him latitude to operate in the Caucasus without restraint. Turkey refused to let us use their airspace for OIF in part because of our relationship with the Kurds in northern Iraq. I had two Turkish friends that I talked to a good bit in those days and they were fond of reminding me that, while Bush was declaring a global War on Terror, their country was the frequent victim of terrorist bombings carried out by Kurdish separatists. Those Kurds were friends of our friends, or at least enemies of our enemies, so the violence against the Turks somehow didn't rate. The rabid anti-Bush sentiment in Turkey was mostly just manipulation and misdirection by Turkish politicians, but it was at least grounded in legitimate opposition to that hypocrisy.
I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I see a tendency towards oversimplification.
sturg33
I
I'm asking Dalyn. I already know you think I should be sleeping with one eye open
Not one eye open. Just not ignorant to what's happening around ththe world. I guess you're ok with groups that shoot people for not being able to read from the Koran getting more power. Let's just ignore these things because it could never affect us.
I understand there are larger geo political agendas being pushed underneath the veil of getting the terrorists. I'm not happy about that but I think the real enemy is clear though. You can't have these people running around the world committing these heinous acts and expect it to not reach our borders at some point on a more consistent basis.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
That's a good question, and I think the answer is both. But I also want to point out that the threat we are talking about is more of a threat to Muslim nations than perhaps any other place in the world. Look what they've done to that area and to the people. It's sad.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
Ron and Rand Paul.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
To be more specific than I already have (or to clarify a few points), I think the immediate threat is from people who (to simplify it) are strapping bombs to their chest and taking as many people with them as they can. Sometimes that is literal, sometimes they use guns or other weapons. The only thing they all seem to have in common is that they pray to Allah. Which brings me back around to what I already said was the real threat: religion. That's a much bigger problem and one that requires intellectual warfare. In my opinion, before we can make progress in that area, we need to remove Muslim (and after that all the other governments headed by a national religion) governments or (ideally) empower the people to remove them on their own.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
An older article, but some of it resonates even more now than in 2007.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_urbanities-steyn.html
"I still think—or should I say hope?—that the sheer operatic insanity of September 11 set back the Islamist project of a “soft” conquest of host countries, Muslim countries included. Up until 9/11, the Talibanization of Pakistan—including the placement of al-Qaida sympathizers within its nuclear program—proceeded fairly smoothly. Official Pakistani support for Muslim gangsters operating in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and India went relatively unpunished. Saudi funds discreetly advanced the Wahhabist program, through madrassa-building and a network of Islamic banking, across the globe. In the West, Muslim demands for greater recognition and special treatment had become an accepted part of the politically correct agenda. Some denounced me as cynical for saying at the time that Osama bin Laden had done us a favor by disclosing the nature and urgency of the Islamist threat, but I still think I was right. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have had to trim their sails a bit. The Taliban will at least never be able to retake power by stealth or as a result of our inattention. Millions have become aware of the danger—including millions of Shi’a Muslims who now see the ideology of bin Laden and Zarqawi as a menace to their survival. Groups and cells that might have gotten away with murder have wound up unmasked and shut down, from Berlin to Casablanca.
Of course, these have not been the only consequences of September 11 and its aftermath. Islamist suicide-terrorism has mutated into new shapes and adopted fresh grievances as a result of the mobilization against it. Liberalism has found even more convoluted means of blaming itself for the attack upon it. But at least the long period of somnambulism is over, and the opportunity now exists for antibodies to form against the infection."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_urbanities-steyn.html
"I still think—or should I say hope?—that the sheer operatic insanity of September 11 set back the Islamist project of a “soft” conquest of host countries, Muslim countries included. Up until 9/11, the Talibanization of Pakistan—including the placement of al-Qaida sympathizers within its nuclear program—proceeded fairly smoothly. Official Pakistani support for Muslim gangsters operating in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and India went relatively unpunished. Saudi funds discreetly advanced the Wahhabist program, through madrassa-building and a network of Islamic banking, across the globe. In the West, Muslim demands for greater recognition and special treatment had become an accepted part of the politically correct agenda. Some denounced me as cynical for saying at the time that Osama bin Laden had done us a favor by disclosing the nature and urgency of the Islamist threat, but I still think I was right. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have had to trim their sails a bit. The Taliban will at least never be able to retake power by stealth or as a result of our inattention. Millions have become aware of the danger—including millions of Shi’a Muslims who now see the ideology of bin Laden and Zarqawi as a menace to their survival. Groups and cells that might have gotten away with murder have wound up unmasked and shut down, from Berlin to Casablanca.
Of course, these have not been the only consequences of September 11 and its aftermath. Islamist suicide-terrorism has mutated into new shapes and adopted fresh grievances as a result of the mobilization against it. Liberalism has found even more convoluted means of blaming itself for the attack upon it. But at least the long period of somnambulism is over, and the opportunity now exists for antibodies to form against the infection."
I'm so glad someone so rationale as yourself who can articulate this point much more clear than I could ever dream of is on the right side. This has been an issue brewing for hundreds of years and the agenda that has been set forth is a direct threat to how free people want to live.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
I appreciate you saying so.
Incredibly well stated piece of the article:
The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders.
The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders.