cornographic Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Ok, well, on the topic of Islamic extremism, I have done a fair amount of armchair research into the subject, and the idea of global asymetric warfare--i.e., terrorism--was more or less dreamed up by a German guy named Max Von Oppenheimer back in WWI as a strategy to get various sects of the Muslim world--Muslim Brotherhood, mainly--to fight the Brit and French allies in their Mideast colonies. Well, Hitler continued the trend in WWII when he recruited the Muslim Brotherhood(founded in Egypt), forming the Islamic SS, adding Eastern Europe/Caucuses/Balkan States into the theater of conflict for the additional purpose of fighting the Commies(USSR). The USA National Security State(CIA, Dpt of Defense, etc) piggy backed off of what the Germans had going, back in the 80s, in Afghanistan mainly, funding Bin Laden and his crew(Al Qaeda), also to fight the Commies. And then the Saudis have since gotten into the action of funding Al Qauda/ISIS to do their various proxy dirty work in the region. ISIS, apparently, has it's epicenter coming out of disgruntled former members of Sadam's Bathist party and Republican Guard...etc. Today, it's a combo of all of the above, with clandestine high finance networks as complex as a switchboard, and it's not always easy to discern whether or not the terror groups are working for their masters or have gone rogue(i.e., blowback) at any one time, as the situation is always fluid. So, in short, the creation and funding of Al Qaeda/ISIS have always come from the most elite factions of the various countries mentioned above, and the leadership of these groups also tend to come from members of elite, very wealthy and highly educated/doctrinal, Muslim Brotherhood/Wahabi/Sunni families, with the rank and file warriors, as is always the case, drawn from the poorer, disaffected portion of the society. As usual, poor folk fight rich men's wars. Jihadism is the warrior version of Islam that is used as propaganda to give the rank and file a reason to fight and I think and the Muslim Brotherhood has always had the idea of establishing a Caliphate as central to their purpose. Basically, they've wanted the Infidels, the colonialists, out of their lives for a very long time, and who can blame them, considering the long term genocidal track record of Western intervention into the region. Oh yeah, and then there's the Israeli/Palestinian issue, how could I forget. The Israeli occupation has been pissing them off since they showed up in the neighborhood back in '48 and slaughtered 3/4 mil Palestinians right off the bat. Not a good way to endear yourselves to the region. I dunno, the subject makes your head spin, but suffice it to sat, ISIS seems clearly to have a vendetta against the West at this point and guess what, this is not going away anytime soon--not this century anyway, so get used to it, I'm sorry to say. Not exactly sure who Al Qaeda's fighting for these days, but the US really pissed Bin Laden as the crew when they established military bases in Saudi Arabia--their holiest of Holy Lands--back in the 90s. Some say that's what flipped him. Asymetric warfare, I wouldn't say you can't defeat it, it's just nearly impossible to defeat. No doubt, it will continue as long as the West--and Russia--keeps conducting imperialistic wars(oil wars) in the region. The more you bomb them, the more they recruit. Cutting off their funding is probably the best approach, but good luck with that, as most of their arms are coming from US manufacturers who basically don't give a flying F who's utilizing their products, as long as they're making a profit. War, it's an industry. I'm interested in a link that points to this. Ok, well, we all know that ISIS has been scavanging US made military equipment from Iraq and what not. Here's an example: According to Reuters, the U.S.-made weaponry that fell into enemy hands including 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles, at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems, plus small arms and ammunition.... They've gotten some Blackhawk helicopters, too: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10/al-qaeda-militants-capture-us-blackhawk-helicopters-iraq So, if the US made military equipment is being left in Iraq and ISIS is getting it, then ISIS if being supplied--indirectly--by US arms manufacturers. But let me clarify another supposition. It has been strongly alleged that ISIS has been receiving $ support from private Saudis and Qatar: Today, Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria. Arab Gulf donors as a whole -- of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable -- have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups. There is support for ISIS in Saudi Arabia, and the group directly targets Saudis with fundraising campaigns, : https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis Well, the Saudis buy a good deal of their arms from the US. Is it possible that along with helping finance ISIS, the private Saudi groups could also being supplying them with said arms? Just a hypothesis, I have no proof. ISIS has also been selling the oil they've gotten hold of, so is it possible they are buying US made with with that $, either directly or indirectly? I think it's very possible. The point is, US or any arms manufacturers don't care who's using their products, as long as it increases their bottom line. Link to comment
cornographic Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 ^^^ this is correct. The US relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to end. How you gonna drive your Sports Futility Vehicle then? Your Wahabi Wagon? Being the #1 consumer of petroleum products in the world, it's not at all likely the US would end a relationship with the #1 source of petroleum in the world. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share Posted November 23, 2015 Ok, well, on the topic of Islamic extremism, I have done a fair amount of armchair research into the subject, and the idea of global asymetric warfare--i.e., terrorism--was more or less dreamed up by a German guy named Max Von Oppenheimer back in WWI as a strategy to get various sects of the Muslim world--Muslim Brotherhood, mainly--to fight the Brit and French allies in their Mideast colonies. Well, Hitler continued the trend in WWII when he recruited the Muslim Brotherhood(founded in Egypt), forming the Islamic SS, adding Eastern Europe/Caucuses/Balkan States into the theater of conflict for the additional purpose of fighting the Commies(USSR). The USA National Security State(CIA, Dpt of Defense, etc) piggy backed off of what the Germans had going, back in the 80s, in Afghanistan mainly, funding Bin Laden and his crew(Al Qaeda), also to fight the Commies. And then the Saudis have since gotten into the action of funding Al Qauda/ISIS to do their various proxy dirty work in the region. ISIS, apparently, has it's epicenter coming out of disgruntled former members of Sadam's Bathist party and Republican Guard...etc. Today, it's a combo of all of the above, with clandestine high finance networks as complex as a switchboard, and it's not always easy to discern whether or not the terror groups are working for their masters or have gone rogue(i.e., blowback) at any one time, as the situation is always fluid. So, in short, the creation and funding of Al Qaeda/ISIS have always come from the most elite factions of the various countries mentioned above, and the leadership of these groups also tend to come from members of elite, very wealthy and highly educated/doctrinal, Muslim Brotherhood/Wahabi/Sunni families, with the rank and file warriors, as is always the case, drawn from the poorer, disaffected portion of the society. As usual, poor folk fight rich men's wars. Jihadism is the warrior version of Islam that is used as propaganda to give the rank and file a reason to fight and I think and the Muslim Brotherhood has always had the idea of establishing a Caliphate as central to their purpose. Basically, they've wanted the Infidels, the colonialists, out of their lives for a very long time, and who can blame them, considering the long term genocidal track record of Western intervention into the region. Oh yeah, and then there's the Israeli/Palestinian issue, how could I forget. The Israeli occupation has been pissing them off since they showed up in the neighborhood back in '48 and slaughtered 3/4 mil Palestinians right off the bat. Not a good way to endear yourselves to the region. I dunno, the subject makes your head spin, but suffice it to sat, ISIS seems clearly to have a vendetta against the West at this point and guess what, this is not going away anytime soon--not this century anyway, so get used to it, I'm sorry to say. Not exactly sure who Al Qaeda's fighting for these days, but the US really pissed Bin Laden as the crew when they established military bases in Saudi Arabia--their holiest of Holy Lands--back in the 90s. Some say that's what flipped him. Asymetric warfare, I wouldn't say you can't defeat it, it's just nearly impossible to defeat. No doubt, it will continue as long as the West--and Russia--keeps conducting imperialistic wars(oil wars) in the region. The more you bomb them, the more they recruit. Cutting off their funding is probably the best approach, but good luck with that, as most of their arms are coming from US manufacturers who basically don't give a flying F who's utilizing their products, as long as they're making a profit. War, it's an industry. I'm interested in a link that points to this. Ok, well, we all know that ISIS has been scavanging US made military equipment from Iraq and what not. Here's an example: According to Reuters, the U.S.-made weaponry that fell into enemy hands including 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles, at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems, plus small arms and ammunition.... They've gotten some Blackhawk helicopters, too: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10/al-qaeda-militants-capture-us-blackhawk-helicopters-iraq So, if the US made military equipment is being left in Iraq and ISIS is getting it, then ISIS if being supplied--indirectly--by US arms manufacturers. But let me clarify another supposition. It has been strongly alleged that ISIS has been receiving $ support from private Saudis and Qatar: Today, Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria. Arab Gulf donors as a whole -- of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable -- have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups. There is support for ISIS in Saudi Arabia, and the group directly targets Saudis with fundraising campaigns, : https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis Well, the Saudis buy a good deal of their arms from the US. Is it possible that along with helping finance ISIS, the private Saudi groups could also being supplying them with said arms? Just a hypothesis, I have no proof. ISIS has also been selling the oil they've gotten hold of, so is it possible they are buying US made with with that $, either directly or indirectly? I think it's very possible. The point is, US or any arms manufacturers don't care who's using their products, as long as it increases their bottom line. Nothing you said proves the bolded part of your post. Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Good responses here: Quora: Why has there been no groundswell of outrage by so-scalled moderate Muslims against terrorism done in the name of Islam? Link to comment
cornographic Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Ok, well, on the topic of Islamic extremism, I have done a fair amount of armchair research into the subject, and the idea of global asymetric warfare--i.e., terrorism--was more or less dreamed up by a German guy named Max Von Oppenheimer back in WWI as a strategy to get various sects of the Muslim world--Muslim Brotherhood, mainly--to fight the Brit and French allies in their Mideast colonies. Well, Hitler continued the trend in WWII when he recruited the Muslim Brotherhood(founded in Egypt), forming the Islamic SS, adding Eastern Europe/Caucuses/Balkan States into the theater of conflict for the additional purpose of fighting the Commies(USSR). The USA National Security State(CIA, Dpt of Defense, etc) piggy backed off of what the Germans had going, back in the 80s, in Afghanistan mainly, funding Bin Laden and his crew(Al Qaeda), also to fight the Commies. And then the Saudis have since gotten into the action of funding Al Qauda/ISIS to do their various proxy dirty work in the region. ISIS, apparently, has it's epicenter coming out of disgruntled former members of Sadam's Bathist party and Republican Guard...etc. Today, it's a combo of all of the above, with clandestine high finance networks as complex as a switchboard, and it's not always easy to discern whether or not the terror groups are working for their masters or have gone rogue(i.e., blowback) at any one time, as the situation is always fluid. So, in short, the creation and funding of Al Qaeda/ISIS have always come from the most elite factions of the various countries mentioned above, and the leadership of these groups also tend to come from members of elite, very wealthy and highly educated/doctrinal, Muslim Brotherhood/Wahabi/Sunni families, with the rank and file warriors, as is always the case, drawn from the poorer, disaffected portion of the society. As usual, poor folk fight rich men's wars. Jihadism is the warrior version of Islam that is used as propaganda to give the rank and file a reason to fight and I think and the Muslim Brotherhood has always had the idea of establishing a Caliphate as central to their purpose. Basically, they've wanted the Infidels, the colonialists, out of their lives for a very long time, and who can blame them, considering the long term genocidal track record of Western intervention into the region. Oh yeah, and then there's the Israeli/Palestinian issue, how could I forget. The Israeli occupation has been pissing them off since they showed up in the neighborhood back in '48 and slaughtered 3/4 mil Palestinians right off the bat. Not a good way to endear yourselves to the region. I dunno, the subject makes your head spin, but suffice it to sat, ISIS seems clearly to have a vendetta against the West at this point and guess what, this is not going away anytime soon--not this century anyway, so get used to it, I'm sorry to say. Not exactly sure who Al Qaeda's fighting for these days, but the US really pissed Bin Laden as the crew when they established military bases in Saudi Arabia--their holiest of Holy Lands--back in the 90s. Some say that's what flipped him. Asymetric warfare, I wouldn't say you can't defeat it, it's just nearly impossible to defeat. No doubt, it will continue as long as the West--and Russia--keeps conducting imperialistic wars(oil wars) in the region. The more you bomb them, the more they recruit. Cutting off their funding is probably the best approach, but good luck with that, as most of their arms are coming from US manufacturers who basically don't give a flying F who's utilizing their products, as long as they're making a profit. War, it's an industry. I'm interested in a link that points to this. Ok, well, we all know that ISIS has been scavanging US made military equipment from Iraq and what not. Here's an example: According to Reuters, the U.S.-made weaponry that fell into enemy hands including 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles, at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems, plus small arms and ammunition.... They've gotten some Blackhawk helicopters, too: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10/al-qaeda-militants-capture-us-blackhawk-helicopters-iraq So, if the US made military equipment is being left in Iraq and ISIS is getting it, then ISIS if being supplied--indirectly--by US arms manufacturers. But let me clarify another supposition. It has been strongly alleged that ISIS has been receiving $ support from private Saudis and Qatar: Today, Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria. Arab Gulf donors as a whole -- of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable -- have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups. There is support for ISIS in Saudi Arabia, and the group directly targets Saudis with fundraising campaigns, : https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis Well, the Saudis buy a good deal of their arms from the US. Is it possible that along with helping finance ISIS, the private Saudi groups could also being supplying them with said arms? Just a hypothesis, I have no proof. ISIS has also been selling the oil they've gotten hold of, so is it possible they are buying US made with with that $, either directly or indirectly? I think it's very possible. The point is, US or any arms manufacturers don't care who's using their products, as long as it increases their bottom line. Nothing you said proves the bolded part of your post. I suspect my hunch will be proven in time..... Link to comment
Lost Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Is it ok to use the term xenophobic? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin Here is a report from June of 2014 that says that since 9/11, there were 19 deadly attacks by non-Muslim extremist compared to 9 by Islamic militants. The death toll was 48-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html The updated figures will show the trend continuing. Link to comment
Lost Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Interesting, lengthy reading. I learned a lot: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Selected passage, but all of it is compelling and worthy. The Islamic States ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Lifes hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else. This goes against what the left is saying. Statements like "these people are not true Muslims" serve no purpose. They say they are Muslim so why do we feel the need to challenge what they believe? The first thing an organization will do when there is any affiliation with something negative is issue a statement and distance themselves. Obviously, a religion that has a Billion vs a clown not serving a cop at Arby's are vastly different in scope. Given the severity of issues associated with Muslims, is it really that out of line for a large scale denouncement with some action? Interesting, lengthy reading. I learned a lot: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Selected passage, but all of it is compelling and worthy. The Islamic States ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Lifes hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else. This goes against what the left is saying. Statements like "these people are not true Muslims" serve no purpose. They say they are Muslim so why do we feel the need to challenge what they believe? The first thing an organization will do when there is any affiliation with something negative is issue a statement and distance themselves. Obviously, a religion that has a Billion vs a clown not serving a cop at Arby's are vastly different in scope. Given the severity of issues associated with Muslims, is it really that out of line for a large scale denouncement with some action? "They said they are Christians so why do we feel the need to challenge what they believe"? Does that door swing both ways? Which is a greater threat to the safety of Americans, Muslim immigrants or people here on a work visa? Be careful how you answer. We have 20+ years of data. Link to comment
84HuskerLaw Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Is it ok to use the term xenophobic? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin Here is a report from June of 2014 that says that since 9/11, there were 19 deadly attacks by non-Muslim extremist compared to 9 by Islamic militants. The death toll was 48-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html The updated figures will show the trend continuing. So in 14 years, there have been 27 attacks and 9 were done by radical Muslims and you don't see a problem with that? 1/3 of all attacks carreid out by members of a group which at most represents about 1% of the popution. Of course you are not counting all the foiled attacks. Obviously the latest Muslim radical attack in California just yesterday where 27 more people shot. FBI and Cops find bombs, remote control mobil explosive devices, attack weaponry and ammo and gear, vests, etc. Recent travels to the middle east, etc, etc. etc. FBI has already arrested 71 of the known terrorists of at least 200 inside the USA right now. Thousands more trying to come in with the radicals of Syria (known as refugee-hadists). We have had 11 of these guys arrested up here in the twin cities in just the past 12 months. We know many more attacks would have occured if not prevented by the good detective work. A population of 350 million will produce a small number of nut cases anyway. But doubling and tripling the historical numbers of radicals who profess to belief in terror, murder and etc as part of their religion. You see no problem with this? Link to comment
commando Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Is it ok to use the term xenophobic? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin Here is a report from June of 2014 that says that since 9/11, there were 19 deadly attacks by non-Muslim extremist compared to 9 by Islamic militants. The death toll was 48-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html The updated figures will show the trend continuing. yeah...why would we count 9-11? Link to comment
Lost Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Is it ok to use the term xenophobic? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin Here is a report from June of 2014 that says that since 9/11, there were 19 deadly attacks by non-Muslim extremist compared to 9 by Islamic militants. The death toll was 48-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html The updated figures will show the trend continuing. So in 14 years, there have been 27 attacks and 9 were done by radical Muslims and you don't see a problem with that? 1/3 of all attacks carreid out by members of a group which at most represents about 1% of the popution. Of course you are not counting all the foiled attacks. Obviously the latest Muslim radical attack in California just yesterday where 27 more people shot. FBI and Cops find bombs, remote control mobil explosive devices, attack weaponry and ammo and gear, vests, etc. Recent travels to the middle east, etc, etc. etc. FBI has already arrested 71 of the known terrorists of at least 200 inside the USA right now. Thousands more trying to come in with the radicals of Syria (known as refugee-hadists). We have had 11 of these guys arrested up here in the twin cities in just the past 12 months. We know many more attacks would have occured if not prevented by the good detective work. A population of 350 million will produce a small number of nut cases anyway. But doubling and tripling the historical numbers of radicals who profess to belief in terror, murder and etc as part of their religion. You see no problem with this? Yes. I have a problem all 26 of the attacks: 7 of which were done by Muslim while most the others are done by supremacist/anti government fanatics. 74% of sheriff and police departments nationwide say that one of the 3 the greatest extreme violence threat comes from 'anti government' wackos while only 39% say it's extreme Muslims. Who suggested the Syrian refugees would double or triple the number of radicals? More facts: Since 9/11, there have been 785,000 refugees admitted to the US. About .001% have been arrested or removed for terrorism concerns. None of them Syrian. The UN has referred 23,000 Syrian refugees to the US. Only 7000 got interviews outside the US. Only 2165 were allowed to come to the US. All 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came to the US via our visa wavier program. None of them where refugees. In fact, they only thing stopping all but 2 of the Paris terrorist from coming to the US was buying a plane ticket. If they had try to by a ticket, they would not have been flagged and would be in the US right now. Our visa wavier program poses a MUCH great risk but I don't hear any calls to halt that until a better screening tool can be found. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I wonder after the San Berandino attacks if this President still believes ISIS is a JV squad that is contained, and that Americans should feel safe at home. The only time he shows passion is when he can attack Republicans or the NRA, yet with the Paris attacks, he stated it was just a "setback," and with this attack, he's been extremely quiet. 1 Link to comment
cornographic Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 "Jeeez, Bob, or Mo, why ya got all those AR-15s and bags of pipes in your garage, and all them boxes of ammo in your basement? What's up with the camo gear and bullet proof vests? And I see you've added 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Jihadist Cookbook' to your reading list...." Yeah, that's what I don't get about all these various mass shooters: don't friends and/or family members notice when an arsenal is being built up right under their noses? Neighbors don't let neighbors become mass shooters, it's just unneighborly. Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 HuffPost: Dear Islamophobes, your racism is putting us all in danger If someone already in the United States goes through a personal evolution and decides to lash out violently, there is very little authorities can do to prevent it -- especially when Congress has shown no ability to control the flow of weapons of war within the United States. Instead of focusing on Syrian refugees literally fleeing from ISIS, the goal instead should be to stop people already here from joining them in spirit. In his address, Obama also argued that anti-Muslim bigotry plays right into the hands of ISIS. Great op ed. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 HuffPost: Dear Islamophobes, your racism is putting us all in danger If someone already in the United States goes through a personal evolution and decides to lash out violently, there is very little authorities can do to prevent it -- especially when Congress has shown no ability to control the flow of weapons of war within the United States. Instead of focusing on Syrian refugees literally fleeing from ISIS, the goal instead should be to stop people already here from joining them in spirit. In his address, Obama also argued that anti-Muslim bigotry plays right into the hands of ISIS. Great op ed. It's comical that you actually posted this op-ed, as I was in there (along with many others with common sense) discussing just how biased this article was. First off, Islam is not a race as the author seems to suggest. Secondly, this author followed Obama's pathetic press conference by focusing on treatment of Muslims rather than what he should have been focusing on...how he plans to actually defeat ISIS and radical Islam. Even CNN thought Obama's press conference and plan was pathetic, but it doesn't surprise me that some lefties on here feel good about what he's doing against terrorism. A high majority of Americans agree that Obama is not doing enough to fight terrorism, and it's really sad that he once again chooses to use a terrorist attack like this to play to his base which is focused on gun control and political correctness. For your own benefit, here are some alternative editorials/perspectives: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/06/obama-speech-terrorism-san-bernardino-islamic-state-column/76892372/ http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/san_bernardino_shooting_political_correctness_kills.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/08/stop_tying_terrorist_attacks_to_unrelated_issues_128959.html The last article is from a Progressive author (Froma Harrop) that agrees that the left is way too focused on gun control, especially with the SB terrorist attack. Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I didn't mean to touch the gun control nerve. I know that's going nowhere. Bigotry is awful, that's all I'm trying to say here... Link to comment
Recommended Posts