Jump to content
natininja

Terrorism / Mass Shootings

Recommended Posts

#FBI director says several #ISIS -inspired July 4 attacks were foiled | NBC http://t.co/TFwhQzuUwg http://t.co/Igj5JnbbF3


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How, in our lifetimes, Islamophobia has killed far more Europeans than radical Islam has http://t.co/1ZQQR99nna #Srebrenica


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chattanooga shooting: Gunman who killed 4 US marines in twin attacks on military facilities identified http://t.co/ZRS88qy4GX #EMM


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If true, this is crazy....

 

Islamic State appears to have replaced 15,000 militants killed in airstrikes over the last year - http://t.co/OvR0q1H02a


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally!  Some good news for this thread!  A terrorist with an AK-47 on a passenger train travelling from Belgium to France was stopped by its passengers - including three Americans on vacation (two of them U.S. servicemen):

 

Three Americans, other passengers tackle French train gunman

 

(CNN) - He would rather die trying to tackle a terrorist than stay in his seat and be shot.  That's what a British passenger aboard a high-speed train to Paris said he was thinking when he jumped up to help subdue a heavily armed gunman who ran through his train car.  But he said all credit should go to the three American passengers who were the first to take down the suspect, punching him until he was unconscious and then restraining him.

 

President Barack Obama called the three Americans heroes and spoke to each of them by phone Saturday, commending and congratulating them for their courage and quick action, his spokesman said.  French President Francois Hollande saluted the Americans' bravery and planned to host a meeting with them Monday.

 

The suspect was identified as a Moroccan national whose DNA was already on file with Spanish authorities, French media reported, citing French official sources.  A senior European counterterrorism official told CNN the suspect was linked to investigations into radical Islamist networks.

 

Four people were hurt in the melee -- including one of the Americans, who was cut by the attacker.  A passenger in his seat suffered a gunshot wound, another suffered cuts to his neck, and a fourth badly hurt his hand while breaking the glass to pull the emergency brake.

 

MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/europe/france-train-shooting-americans-overpower/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2006 embassy cable says US should gin up sectarian anger in Syria. WHAT COULD EVER GO WRONG? https://t.co/oYwDAKoigw http://t.co/pH6O5uKr97


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLACKED OUT PAGES: U.S. GOVERNMENT SNUBS ACLU OVER TARGETED KILLING FOIA

02 OCT 2015

Kevin Gosztola

 

The United States government gave the American Civil Liberties Union the equivalent of the middle finger in response to a request for records on the “targeted killing program.”

 

An eight-page letter from Director for National Intelligence James Clapper to the chairs of the Senate intelligence committee, Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, was disclosed. The senators were chairs during 2013 and 2014.

 

However, all eight pages were completely blacked out. That is, except for one full sentence, which makes the response even more offensive:

 

“We hope this information has been helpful and look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on this bill.”

 

MORE:

http://shadowproof.com/2015/10/02/blacked-out-pages-u-s-government-snubs-aclu-over-targeted-killing-foia/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally!  Some good news for this thread!  A terrorist with an AK-47 on a passenger train travelling from Belgium to France was stopped by its passengers - including three Americans on vacation (two of them U.S. servicemen):

 

Three Americans, other passengers tackle French train gunman

 

(CNN) - He would rather die trying to tackle a terrorist than stay in his seat and be shot.  That's what a British passenger aboard a high-speed train to Paris said he was thinking when he jumped up to help subdue a heavily armed gunman who ran through his train car.  But he said all credit should go to the three American passengers who were the first to take down the suspect, punching him until he was unconscious and then restraining him.

 

President Barack Obama called the three Americans heroes and spoke to each of them by phone Saturday, commending and congratulating them for their courage and quick action, his spokesman said.  French President Francois Hollande saluted the Americans' bravery and planned to host a meeting with them Monday.

 

The suspect was identified as a Moroccan national whose DNA was already on file with Spanish authorities, French media reported, citing French official sources.  A senior European counterterrorism official told CNN the suspect was linked to investigations into radical Islamist networks.

 

Four people were hurt in the melee -- including one of the Americans, who was cut by the attacker.  A passenger in his seat suffered a gunshot wound, another suffered cuts to his neck, and a fourth badly hurt his hand while breaking the glass to pull the emergency brake.

 

MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/europe/france-train-shooting-americans-overpower/index.html

 

http://www.today.com/news/paris-train-attack-hero-alex-skarlatos-reveals-he-was-enrolled-t48056

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't disagree that white supremacists are a serious threat, but the study they use to support the conclusion that white supremacists are a bigger threat than jihadists conveniently begins on 9/12/01. How can anyone consider that valid reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't disagree that white supremacists are a serious threat, but the study they use to support the conclusion that white supremacists are a bigger threat than jihadists conveniently begins on 9/12/01. How can anyone consider that valid reasoning?

 

48 people, versus 26.  That's a bad weekend in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I agree that we should take a lot the money we are spending against the jihadist threat and invest it in fighting crime in the inner cities, such as Chicago.

 

I certainly don't disagree that white supremacists are a serious threat, but the study they use to support the conclusion that white supremacists are a bigger threat than jihadists conveniently begins on 9/12/01. How can anyone consider that valid reasoning?

 

I assume the purpose is to show disparity in threat since we started using all of resources to stop jihadists.  Of course, that ignores countless jihadist threats which have been thwarted due to the expenditure of those resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the purpose is political- to try to divert attention to where they want it (right wing white supremacists), and away from where they don't (jihadists, and by extension other Muslims).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Well, it is a "African American" website.  Yeah, I think it is safe to say that they would like to draw more attention to white supremacist violence.  Not so sure they want to divert it away from jihadists and other Muslims and nor am I sure why they would be politically motivated to do so.  It appears the supportive data was taken from a NYT piece, which was published in the wake of the Charleston shooting.  Seems like as good a time as any to conduct such an analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the 26 number doesn't include soldiers or others overseas, and as has been stated elsewhere, who knows what that number would have been had the US not invested in fighting against it; there could have been similar attacks to 9/11/2001, or even worse confrontations in the middle east.  Also, the NY Times piece has some semblance of balance, whereas the linked source is flat out wrong, as not all of the 48 deaths were "white supremacists" but all "other non-Muslim extremists."

 

Also, 48 deaths in 14 years is a small number. In fact, I'd call it insignificant and over-hyped, not unlike shark attacks. If we want to direct resources more carefully, it should be directed toward gang and drug violence, not toward Muslim extremists (who don't threaten the US homeland much) and right-wing extremists (who are rare enough to not warrant additional special attention aside from what is currently given).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't disagree that white supremacists are a serious threat, but the study they use to support the conclusion that white supremacists are a bigger threat than jihadists conveniently begins on 9/12/01. How can anyone consider that valid reasoning?

 

48 people, versus 26.  That's a bad weekend in Chicago.

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Well, it is a "African American" website.  Yeah, I think it is safe to say that they would like to draw more attention to white supremacist violence.  Not so sure they want to divert it away from jihadists and other Muslims and nor am I sure why they would be politically motivated to do so.  It appears the supportive data was taken from a NYT piece, which was published in the wake of the Charleston shooting.  Seems like as good a time as any to conduct such an analysis.

 

I was referencing the original NYT source material.  And I'm not saying it isn't worth doing the analysis, but that the analysis they did has no credibility when they intentionally throw out a very important data point like 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it means the analysis has no credibility. If they would've done an analysis of the past three decades and left out that data point, you'd be right.  But it is clear to me at least that the analysis was very deliberately of post 9/11 deaths. They also left out any and all murders of blacks for racial reasons from the first 2/3 of the 20th century, and the countless deaths from slavery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't disagree that white supremacists are a serious threat, but the study they use to support the conclusion that white supremacists are a bigger threat than jihadists conveniently begins on 9/12/01. How can anyone consider that valid reasoning?

 

48 people, versus 26.  That's a bad weekend in Chicago.

 

lol

 

That was supposed to be hyperbole, then this....

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-for-second-straight-weekend-more-than-50-shot-in-chicago-20150928-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UMN student govt: 9/11 remembrance would violate our safe space

 

On Tuesday, November 10, the Minnesota Student Association (MSA)–the undergraduate student government at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (UMN)– rejected a resolution for a moment of recognition on future anniversaries of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

 

“The passing of this resolution might make a space that is unsafe for students on campus even more unsafe,” said David Algadi...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder what happens next. This attack "feels" different, even as someone living one pond away. I'm generally against American intervention overseas, but I almost don't see how we cannot respond to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should definitely follow France's lead on this.  Their soil, their prerogative to decide the means and level of retaliation.  We should be there to lend whatever support they need, though.  The rest of Europe should be paying attention, too.  This could have been Berlin, Copenhagen or London just as easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrifyingly, fundamentalist Christians in the West also want an Apocalyptic war with the East to bring the Second Coming...

 

The Islamic States trap for #Europe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hating-muslim-refugees-is-exactly-what-the-islamic-state-wants-europe-to-do/2015/11/15/dfe0ca84-87d1-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a well financed terrorist come to Europe as a refugee? To increase hatred against refugees of course. And the racist West is falling for it...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/paris-attacks-stade-de-france-bomber-arrived-migrant-boat-n464021?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=02075af8e61574fa62ae243a5bc11909


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the terrorists keep on winning...

 

JUST IN: Texas joins Alabama and Michigan in rejecting refugees

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/11/after-attacks-no-one-wants-to-help-the-refugees-3075222.html


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread is getting spammed....

 

Huh??

 

BTW....

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/

 

The "compassionate Christians" including Johnny Kasich are just pandering to the scary End-Timers.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A must read for all shades of the political spectrum....

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/15/paris-you-dont-want-read


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do terrorists want us to do? Do the opposite.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lay down and get kicked in the head again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.  Maybe one day ISIS will get tired and abandon the whole apocalyptic caliphate thingy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I consider a sage response to the Peter Van Buren point of view, which doesn't contain much substance at all.

----

"It is certainly true that one of the outfit’s central aims is to shock the West to such a remarkable degree that its people begin to generalize about Islam, and, thereby, to alienate and radicalize the moderate Muslims who live among them. It is true, too, that ISIS and its ilk hope to set up a broader fight with the world’s liberal democracies, and, ultimately, to parlay that fight into the establishment of an expansionary global caliphate. But for us to acknowledge these risks is not necessarily to place them above all else. For as long as men have fought one another, there have always been downsides to the use of both military and government force. As such, the question before us today is not “Are there any drawbacks?” but “How do those drawbacks stack up in context?

 

As is often the case with foreign affairs, I am not entirely sure what the best answer is here, and in consequence am happy to hear a wide range of opinions from those who know better. What I am not prepared to do, however, is to accept without challenge the suggestion that the nasty little buggers who just wiped out scores of free people should get to call the shots going forward. Upon closer investigation, it might well turn out that there are more efficient ways of eradicating ISIS than taking them on head-first. Likewise, we may discover that restricting the flow of refugees to the United States does little more than annoy the very people whom we need on our side. But for us to arrive at either of those conclusions, the arguments in their favor will have to be presented from the ground up. Merely asserting that a particular reaction is “what ISIS wants” will not cut it. Sometimes in life, we have to accept that a third party wants a fight and that there is no other choice but to give it to them — yes, even if that fight is likely to be messy and costly, and to have a series of potential downsides. Determining whether this is one of those times will take more than idle sloganeering."

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427168/isis-wants-war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it there is one real question. Boots on the ground, or not?

 

The president feels that it would be too costly, and have too much messy clean up work. He wants to avoid Iraq/Afghanistan part III and is therefore sticking to airstrikes and arming moderate groups. To me it seems to make sense, but I obviously am no military strategist. And the big problem post-Paris is that it doesn't satisfy the public appetite for vengeance.

 

There's a lot of criticism out there the past few days of President Obama's handling of isis, but it seems to be all soft criticism such as 'he won't lead' and 'he won't say radical islam.' It seems we are all falling into a debate of whether or not all Muslims are terrorists, rather than a debate on how to beat isis.

 

So I have a few simple questions that I for one would like a sober and nonpolitical analysis on: is the President's strategy the right thing to do? Should we stay the course? Is the current criticism legitimate or is it just election year politics to rally the GOP base? Would a Republican President actually be doing anything any different, other than using stronger rhetoric? Should we invade? Would a Republican President invade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do terrorists want us to do? Do the opposite.

 

What they want us to do is consider them representative of Islam.

 

They are trying to pick a fight between the Islamic and secular worlds.  That's why they hit places where the two come together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see the news this morning showing some ISIS dude saying "washington is next".  Why would they advertise their next move, giving us time to react and add protection to high value targets & increase surveillance? 

 

It does seem to be a trap we are falling into though - the more we bomb and wipe out their leaders & training, the more they use it for recruiting and solidarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The Middle East needs to fix this mess.  I'm not saying the US is innocent in the matter, far from it, but it does seem that using western military's primarily to fight ISIS is counterproductive.  There needs to be a coalition of majority Muslim countries fighting ISIS showing the rest of the Muslim world that this form of radical Islam is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.  And if Saudi Arabia refuses to join that coalition we need to say "see ya later."  Frankly, any reason to break that unholy union would be welcome.

 

At the end of the day this group of radicals is trying to carve a country out of Iraq and Syria and it appears they have aspirations to head south to Saudi Arabia at some point.  It's up to the countries in that region to prevent that from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see the news this morning showing some ISIS dude saying "washington is next".  Why would they advertise their next move, giving us time to react and add protection to high value targets & increase surveillance? 

 

To increase their prestige when they carry it out anyway.  They telegraph their attacks all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...