Serious Thread Topic: Can Terrorism Really Be Stopped?

[flacaltenn]

From what I was hearing this a.m., the whole family may have been in on it. Could be a bunch of gossip.

What have you learned about the father?

I'm only asking because you think it could be gossip.

He moved back to Libya with the wife. The kids were still in England but were back and forth. So Fox was spinning it that the whole family was talking terrorism over breakfast everyday. CNN was saying Dad was suspicious the bomber son had bad ideas and wouldn't give him back his passport. So the bomber son said he was going to Mecca. Dad gave him the passport back and the kid returned to England and blew up children and parents. I don't know which, if either, is true. Now that England is not sharing info, who knows how we'll find out. Anyone up for a trip to Libya and Manchester?

Did you read anything about the father once being a member of a terrorist organization?

I gave you the statement that Libyans BELIEVE the father was associated with an Al Queda friendly Libyan fighting group opposing Quadafy. Which is the reason they probably had to flee when they did . But I've NOTHING about the timing of all that.

Uhhh... Ok. I guess I missed that.
Did I quote a post of yours by mistake?

I'm going to look for another coyote post I can agree with. Wish me luck.

It's all good.

Travel ban from Libya and better background vetting in the long term WOULD have identified problems with the suicide bomber in Manchester. Clearly a day after, his Dad in Libya helped his radicalization and is now in custody by the Libyan. Most likely at the time this dirtbag entered the UK --- there was no serious way to VALIDATE his background and citizen records from Libya. THAT's the point. The "ban" is a temporary measure to figure out how to vet these folks.

MOST of whom don't want to be British or American or French -- they just want to stay alive or in the very rare cases like this one -- take advantage of chaos and wreek havoc and death....

It's a long thread, you probably didn't read this so I'll post it again:
I am patiently waiting for the Trump administration to start looking into this better background vetting. His ban was stopped. No one would stop him writing an EO (if he even needed one) tasking the intelligence services with better ways to vet our refugees. Since second generation ones seem to be fairly common, it could be someone from Belgium or France or Germany, not just the M.E. or North Africa.
He wrote that EO initially in January. It is now the end of May. If it had gone into effect, the ban would now be over. Where is the important part of this, the "what the hell is going on" part? There was no reason to wait and if that were his intent, Trump would have moved forward with it. If safety and better vetting were his actual goal.

There is nothing the "intel agencies" could provide in a war-torn govt with no access to records or local law enforcement. Or even a TRUSTED govt or local law enforcement. The stream of refugees includes many without ANY travel documents. And as you know from seeing the numerous spammers that hit USMB daily with "Cheap Fake Documents and Passports" --- even HAVING a travel document is not enough. In addition, ISIS and the 43 other combatant groups in the war zones now have ACCESS to issue genuine Iraqi, Yemen, or Syria documents.

What I see Trump doing -- that SHOULD have happened 4 or 6 ago -- is to put an emphasis on creating "Safe Areas" in the war zones. The entire world failed to do that and stem the largest humanitarian crisis of our lifetime. NATO, the UN, the Arab League and the G8 are complicit in IGNORING the priority of providing safe harbor and travel to non-coms in these areas. It's disgusting..

Like I said, the majority of that refugee flow dont WANT to be Americans, Brits or Belgiums. They want to LIVE. And the world should have acted to not create refugee camps. But to secure and FUND the building of PERMANENT infrastructure in those zones. So that millions don't have to live day to day in camp squalor.

But instead, here we are -- watching the Manchester bombing and the issues all over Europe and arguing over whether we should do the same thing. Don't think so. There is a class of refugee that it KNOWN to us as high priority rescue material. And those are the Afghanis, Iraqis, Somalians, Libyans, etc that HELPED US in our efforts when we were in their countries. THOSE people probably INTEND to be Americans if they ask to come. But it's NOT a solution to allow large numbers of people who have no intention of living an American style life relocate here without INTENSE scrutiny.

So a permanent ban on Muslims then? Just get it over with and give them safe zones?

Did I say that? Probably the time for "safe zones" has passed. Makes me angry. But NOW instead of just a place to go -- it requires clean rebuilding of cities in area PROTECTED from the 43 warring factions in the region.

To answer the question of can we stop terrorism in THIS country. The partial answer is -- It's easier if you don't attempt to absorb refugees with NO INTENTION of becoming Americans. So at the least -- maybe "asking them" WHY they want to come here might be allowed? Ya think ???

We're playing with fire. Because ISIS may look impotent as the "junior varsity team". But they've stolen and acquired enough vicious technology and materials in Iraq and Syria. And it's a matter of time until they figure out how to use them and bring them here. And it won't be driving trucks into people and suicide belts and backpacks.

My original question stands: Why has this looking into vetting been delayed? Nothing has stopped Trump from doing so. If making us safer were his intention, it would be well underway If there are ways to make us safer, as you suggest, I'm all for it. I'm sure these people are asked why they want to come here and a few billion other questions. They are gone over with a fine tooth comb. But only the very best agents can sometimes see into a person's soul. Do we interview them? We should if we don't (and I don't mean just at customs when they fly in). I'm all for careful. I'd be all for safe zones. These are all solutions we've discussed before. But the ban is stupid.
signing out for the night.

Ever been to Israel? They have a GENUINE security threat. DAILY. And I've had very interesting trips there on business where SEVERAL security interviewers "got into my soul" in 5 minutes or less. It can be done..

Most of the Fed govt is slow as Molasses. Trump didn't appreciate "how hard" all this stuff was. State Dept renewed Mohammed Attahs VISA AFTER he flew a plane into the WTC. You don't expect MIRACLES --- do you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

My advice to liberal's. Stop worrying about hurting someones feelings...when they are trying to kill you.

No liberal is worried about hurting terrorists feelings. Your right wing talking point is retarded (as usual.)

Bush92 has conveniently forgotten that President Obama killed more terrorists than any one on the planet.

Including bin Laden.

And their cash stores.

And their gasoline.

While Bush92 's hero Pooting was bombing fruit stands and killing children.

How many Muslims died on Bush watch? That's the number of terrorist he killed.

Yep, You're right.

W didn't do squat.

He even said he didn't want to bother going after bin Laden.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

I don't think it can ever fully be stopped. There have ALWAYS been nutjobs out there congregating or acting alone. Our problem today is that there's an environment for terrorism to thrive, waaayy more than it should. Many Americans have lived along side muslims who are nothing but great neighbors. We're not discussing them, who were discussing is people that believe it's ok to kill innocents for having different beliefs. Of which there around 325,000 muslims in Europe alone who are prone to extremism, meaning they may not carry out extremism, but also have no problem with it, or at the very least never come out against it. So until enough of the Muslim world takes issue with with extremism, we will continue to see this problem. No apologetics or ideology or force from the US will stop this growing trend the west has seen since 9/11.

The real question is, should we trade liberty for security?

We're already doing that.

And we're committing hate crimes for no reason.

 

[tycho1572]

What have you learned about the father?

I'm only asking because you think it could be gossip.

He moved back to Libya with the wife. The kids were still in England but were back and forth. So Fox was spinning it that the whole family was talking terrorism over breakfast everyday. CNN was saying Dad was suspicious the bomber son had bad ideas and wouldn't give him back his passport. So the bomber son said he was going to Mecca. Dad gave him the passport back and the kid returned to England and blew up children and parents. I don't know which, if either, is true. Now that England is not sharing info, who knows how we'll find out. Anyone up for a trip to Libya and Manchester?

Did you read anything about the father once being a member of a terrorist organization?

I gave you the statement that Libyans BELIEVE the father was associated with an Al Queda friendly Libyan fighting group opposing Quadafy. Which is the reason they probably had to flee when they did . But I've NOTHING about the timing of all that.

Uhhh... Ok. I guess I missed that.
Did I quote a post of yours by mistake?

I'm going to look for another coyote post I can agree with. Wish me luck.

It's all good.
[

What have you learned about the father?

I'm only asking because you think it could be gossip.

He moved back to Libya with the wife. The kids were still in England but were back and forth. So Fox was spinning it that the whole family was talking terrorism over breakfast everyday. CNN was saying Dad was suspicious the bomber son had bad ideas and wouldn't give him back his passport. So the bomber son said he was going to Mecca. Dad gave him the passport back and the kid returned to England and blew up children and parents. I don't know which, if either, is true. Now that England is not sharing info, who knows how we'll find out. Anyone up for a trip to Libya and Manchester?

Did you read anything about the father once being a member of a terrorist organization?

I gave you the statement that Libyans BELIEVE the father was associated with an Al Queda friendly Libyan fighting group opposing Quadafy. Which is the reason they probably had to flee when they did . But I've NOTHING about the timing of all that.

Uhhh... Ok. I guess I missed that.
Did I quote a post of yours by mistake?

I'm going to look for another coyote post I can agree with. Wish me luck.

It's all good.

It's a long thread, you probably didn't read this so I'll post it again:
I am patiently waiting for the Trump administration to start looking into this better background vetting. His ban was stopped. No one would stop him writing an EO (if he even needed one) tasking the intelligence services with better ways to vet our refugees. Since second generation ones seem to be fairly common, it could be someone from Belgium or France or Germany, not just the M.E. or North Africa.
He wrote that EO initially in January. It is now the end of May. If it had gone into effect, the ban would now be over. Where is the important part of this, the "what the hell is going on" part? There was no reason to wait and if that were his intent, Trump would have moved forward with it. If safety and better vetting were his actual goal.

There is nothing the "intel agencies" could provide in a war-torn govt with no access to records or local law enforcement. Or even a TRUSTED govt or local law enforcement. The stream of refugees includes many without ANY travel documents. And as you know from seeing the numerous spammers that hit USMB daily with "Cheap Fake Documents and Passports" --- even HAVING a travel document is not enough. In addition, ISIS and the 43 other combatant groups in the war zones now have ACCESS to issue genuine Iraqi, Yemen, or Syria documents.

What I see Trump doing -- that SHOULD have happened 4 or 6 ago -- is to put an emphasis on creating "Safe Areas" in the war zones. The entire world failed to do that and stem the largest humanitarian crisis of our lifetime. NATO, the UN, the Arab League and the G8 are complicit in IGNORING the priority of providing safe harbor and travel to non-coms in these areas. It's disgusting..

Like I said, the majority of that refugee flow dont WANT to be Americans, Brits or Belgiums. They want to LIVE. And the world should have acted to not create refugee camps. But to secure and FUND the building of PERMANENT infrastructure in those zones. So that millions don't have to live day to day in camp squalor.

But instead, here we are -- watching the Manchester bombing and the issues all over Europe and arguing over whether we should do the same thing. Don't think so. There is a class of refugee that it KNOWN to us as high priority rescue material. And those are the Afghanis, Iraqis, Somalians, Libyans, etc that HELPED US in our efforts when we were in their countries. THOSE people probably INTEND to be Americans if they ask to come. But it's NOT a solution to allow large numbers of people who have no intention of living an American style life relocate here without INTENSE scrutiny.

So a permanent ban on Muslims then? Just get it over with and give them safe zones?

Did I say that? Probably the time for "safe zones" has passed. Makes me angry. But NOW instead of just a place to go -- it requires clean rebuilding of cities in area PROTECTED from the 43 warring factions in the region.

To answer the question of can we stop terrorism in THIS country. The partial answer is -- It's easier if you don't attempt to absorb refugees with NO INTENTION of becoming Americans. So at the least -- maybe "asking them" WHY they want to come here might be allowed? Ya think ???

We're playing with fire. Because ISIS may look impotent as the "junior varsity team". But they've stolen and acquired enough vicious technology and materials in Iraq and Syria. And it's a matter of time until they figure out how to use them and bring them here. And it won't be driving trucks into people and suicide belts and backpacks.

My original question stands: Why has this looking into vetting been delayed? Nothing has stopped Trump from doing so. If making us safer were his intention, it would be well underway If there are ways to make us safer, as you suggest, I'm all for it. I'm sure these people are asked why they want to come here and a few billion other questions. They are gone over with a fine tooth comb. But only the very best agents can sometimes see into a person's soul. Do we interview them? We should if we don't (and I don't mean just at customs when they fly in). I'm all for careful. I'd be all for safe zones. These are all solutions we've discussed before. But the ban is stupid.
signing out for the night.

Ever been to Israel? They have a GENUINE security threat. DAILY. And I've had very interesting trips there on business where SEVERAL security interviewers "got into my soul" in 5 minutes or less. It can be done..

Most of the Fed govt is slow as Molasses. Trump didn't appreciate "how hard" all this stuff was. State Dept renewed Mohammed Attahs VISA AFTER he flew a plane into the WTC. You don't expect MIRACLES --- do you?

Like I didn't already know that. lol

 

[sakinago]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

I don't think it can ever fully be stopped. There have ALWAYS been nutjobs out there congregating or acting alone. Our problem today is that there's an environment for terrorism to thrive, waaayy more than it should. Many Americans have lived along side muslims who are nothing but great neighbors. We're not discussing them, who were discussing is people that believe it's ok to kill innocents for having different beliefs. Of which there around 325,000 muslims in Europe alone who are prone to extremism, meaning they may not carry out extremism, but also have no problem with it, or at the very least never come out against it. So until enough of the Muslim world takes issue with with extremism, we will continue to see this problem. No apologetics or ideology or force from the US will stop this growing trend the west has seen since 9/11.

The real question is, should we trade liberty for security?

We're already doing that.

And we're committing hate crimes for no reason.

Which hate crimes?

 

[WillowTree]

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a war nor can you end a tactic.

Nobody ever claims they are going to "end robbery". "Ending terrorism" is just as illogical.

Oh yes you can. The softer hearts don't like to hear that, but yes it is entirely possible.

How?

How would you have ended terrorist attacks like these:
DC Sniper Allen Muhammad
Richard Poplawski - who went on a rampage and shot 3 Pittsburgh police in 2009
Wade Michael Page - who attacked a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin in 2012.
Aaron Alexis - killed 12 people when he opened fire on the Washington Navy Yard in DC in 2013
Glenn Miller, Jr. - attacked a Jewish community center and retirement community in 2014
Jarad and Amanda Miller - went on a shooting rampage, killed two Las Vegas police officers, said to have held extreme anti-government views, 2014
Chris Harper-Mercer - went on a shooting spree at his college killing 10 people, had anti-religious and white supremacist views, 2014
Dylann Roof - went into a church and shot 9 people, wanting to start a race war, 2015

And that is just a handful of the terrorist attacks we've had in the last decade.

It's fucking amazing that you did not include 9-11. got ole Dylan Roof in there though.

I was talking about the last decade and even within that timeframe I specified a handful. When did 9/11 occur?

Now, can you answer the question?

I answered the question.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh yes you can. The softer hearts don't like to hear that, but yes it is entirely possible.

Of course it's not....

 

[Uncensored2008]

It depends on the definition of "terrorism."

Real terrorism such as that of the Muzzie Beasts can be minimized to the point that it is not a factor. The first step is stop importing terrorists. Stop coddling foreign who are waging war on this nation. Do Syrians have a "Constitutional Right" to come to the USA? Of course not, nor does any other foreign national, regardless of where they are from or what religion they practice.

We also need to grasp that there are those in the nation who don't want to stop terrorism. Clearly the 4th Circuit doesn't want to slow or stop terrorism, quite the opposite. Why? well because terrorism makes people afraid, and people who are afraid support "security measures" that trample rights. This works to the advantage of the left, which is working to establish an Authoritarian Police State.

 

[danielpalos]

Can terrorism be stopped? I think we'll soon learn the answer.

We just elected a president who is determined to do just that. A strong president who is working hard to bring world leaders together for a shared cause that benefits everyone.
A president who understands the importance of differing faiths, and is working on bringing those people together to focus on a common goal that benefits them.

A war on terror cannot be won by lowering taxes.

You're as dumb as jasonnfree.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Also appears that one of his brothers in England was aware of the plan.

From what I was hearing this a.m., the whole family may have been in on it. Could be a bunch of gossip.

What have you learned about the father?

I'm only asking because you think it could be gossip.

He moved back to Libya with the wife. The kids were still in England but were back and forth. So Fox was spinning it that the whole family was talking terrorism over breakfast everyday. CNN was saying Dad was suspicious the bomber son had bad ideas and wouldn't give him back his passport. So the bomber son said he was going to Mecca. Dad gave him the passport back and the kid returned to England and blew up children and parents. I don't know which, if either, is true. Now that England is not sharing info, who knows how we'll find out. Anyone up for a trip to Libya and Manchester?

Now see, if mecca <--little m, was nuked, the kid couldn't have said he was going there, problem averted!

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


We're already doing that.

And we're committing hate crimes for no reason.

Do you support laws against speaking negatively about Islam? Should those who insult the Prophet go to prison?

Question, just curious, what branch of Al Qaeda or ISIS is it that you belong to?

 

[Uncensored2008]

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?
]

Is that right, dope head?

 

[danielpalos]

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?
]

Is that right, dope head?

yup, dope-less, head.

 

[Bush92]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

My advice to liberal's. Stop worrying about hurting someones feelings...when they are trying to kill you.

No liberal is worried about hurting terrorists feelings. Your right wing talking point is retarded (as usual.)

Bush92 has conveniently forgotten that President Obama killed more terrorists than any one on the planet.

Including bin Laden.

And their cash stores.

And their gasoline.

While Bush92 's hero Pooting was bombing fruit stands and killing children.

How many Muslims died on Bush watch? That's the number of terrorist he killed.

Yep, You're right.

W didn't do squat.

He even said he didn't want to bother going after bin Laden.

He never said that and his vigorous pursuit led to Bin Ladens death.

 

[Bush92]

Can terrorism be stopped? I think we'll soon learn the answer.

We just elected a president who is determined to do just that. A strong president who is working hard to bring world leaders together for a shared cause that benefits everyone.
A president who understands the importance of differing faiths, and is working on bringing those people together to focus on a common goal that benefits them.

A war on terror cannot be won by lowering taxes.

You're as dumb as jasonnfree.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Nope. I know communism has been rejected. I know free market works best with less government.

 

[danielpalos]

Can terrorism be stopped? I think we'll soon learn the answer.

We just elected a president who is determined to do just that. A strong president who is working hard to bring world leaders together for a shared cause that benefits everyone.
A president who understands the importance of differing faiths, and is working on bringing those people together to focus on a common goal that benefits them.

A war on terror cannot be won by lowering taxes.

You're as dumb as jasonnfree.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Nope. I know communism has been rejected. I know free market works best with less government.

dear, Mogadishu failed as an An-Cap, after it failed as a State. It has Statism, now.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion.
Give us 500 years and get back to us.
I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.
There is a huge ballooning of young people in the M.E. and Northern Africa. Over half the population is under 35. Unemployment is 30% and no hope of getting better. The solutions I've heard proposed are the boring socio-economic ones of focusing on more opportunity for young people. It won't stop all recruitment, but it would probably cut down on the numbers a lot in a generation.
There is no quick fix. I agree with you that JUST bombing the shit out of them isn't the solution. It's part of the solution because they CANNOT control swaths of territory in order to make $ and go about their bloody business undisturbed. Of course, it is also completely against everyone's ideas of human rights to barge in to a city, kill all the resistance and take over, which is how they have taken Raqqa and Mosul and the rest.
So bombs there are in order, imo.
But to keep it from being a chronic 100 year problem? Focus on a better future. Maybe not our responsibility, but help the actual governments in M.E. and Northern Africa do that. An international effort. Bring them into the awesome global economy. Right now, even parts of Egypt are running on 8 or 9 hours of electricity a day. The infrastructure and their economies are gasping. Out of work and desperate young men aren't all that different anywhere. Look what they do in Chiraq.
So that's one lefty's ideas.

Ask yourself: Do the actual governments actually want our help? Solving electricity and infrastructure problems would require those leaders a sincere desire to want their people to have infrastructure and electricity. Stop fucking apologizing, the leaders of these countries chose this. You are placing blame on US when it is them who still permit slavery and egregious income inequality. What is your real motive? Help them or bash US?

 

[Coyote]

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

An anomaly that happened over 2 decades ago, not an example that home grown terrorists are just as bad as the Jihadists we are dealing with now

It's a running joke that when we are trying to discuss radical Islamic Jihadists, some fool liberal is gonna chime in with "but, but OKC..."

I'm being honest & not trying to be mean, but it really has turned into a bad joke

If you want to be part of the solution, harping on isolated incidents to draw moral equivalency isn't helping

The topic was about stopping terrorism. Not just Islamic terrorism.

In the US we've had more deaths as a result domestic terrorism then from Islamic since 9/11. 9/11 skews it all because it was the single worst act of terrorism ever in the US.

It's dangerous to focus solely on Islamic terrorism. Just saying.

 

[dcbl]

So what would you call the OKC attack if it wasn’t terrorism?

An anomaly that happened over 2 decades ago, not an example that home grown terrorists are just as bad as the Jihadists we are dealing with now

It's a running joke that when we are trying to discuss radical Islamic Jihadists, some fool liberal is gonna chime in with "but, but OKC..."

I'm being honest & not trying to be mean, but it really has turned into a bad joke

If you want to be part of the solution, harping on isolated incidents to draw moral equivalency isn't helping

The topic was about stopping terrorism. Not just Islamic terrorism.

In the US we've had more deaths as a result domestic terrorism then from Islamic since 9/11. 9/11 skews it all because it was the single worst act of terrorism ever in the US.

It's dangerous to focus solely on Islamic terrorism. Just saying.

That depends on what you define as "terrorism" - are you including the Orlando shooting in your numbers?

I'd like to see a link to back up your claim of more deaths from domestic terrorism

Plus, I addressed the topic from the OP

This response of mine was addressing why the OKC incident from over 2 decades ago =/= what we see from Islamic terrorism

Defining something done by a lone whacko as a terroristic act does not make it the same thing

 

[Marion Morrison]

OKC was a lashing out at the Federal government in response to Janet Reno ordering people needlessly burned to death.