Ten oz

I referenced mass shootings in general (even got a bit of a warning from a moderator not to turn the debate into a gun control debate) along with narco terrorism and other various types of terror not associated with Islam. I do not see an obvious connections between what I have posted and the KKK, Tea Party, Republicans, and etc. You are doing something of a bait and switch. I have yet to see you respond directly to much of what I have posted. Rather you are conflating multiple conversations you are having with multiple posters and using various unrelated ideas to string together a singular partisan narrative. It is not fair of you to twist things up to the point we are now having to debate what has already been posted and can be easily reviewed.

What is this? Allow me to summarize our conversation for you: I referenced massed shootings, planned parenthood attacks, Oklahoma city bombing and etc and asked why Islamic terror demanded such a greater response than other types of terror. Your answer was to create a dichotomy between internal and external threats. I then challanged that by pointing out the terror attacks like Tsarnaev brothers, hasan nidal, and etc were internal Islamic terrorists and also compared your dichotomy against the way we handle the war on drugs. Nothing about Republicans vs democrats in any of my posts.

What are you and Tar carrying on about? Please provide a the post were I made this about Democrats and Republicans. Both of you are aragruing against points of view I do not hold and at no point in this thread have expressed.

That is sort of my point; none of it worked. The war on drugs accomplished little and today we take more of a domestic enforcement approach. Drugs may be external but we are realizing over time it is better dealt with internally. Which is an example of why your dichotomy isn't accurate. ISIL is part of the War on Terror we leaped into post 9/11 and not some new affirmation of evil in the world. We did not conquer Al Quada, then conquer Saddam, and now must conquer ISIL. This is part of the same battle and thus far there doesn't to have been any victories. Reflecting upon Iraq in the same terms as we reflect on WW2 is nonsensical. WW2 is concluded while nothing we've engaged in post 9/11 is yet. Afghanastan, Iraq, and Syria are all still day to day.Should we have let The Soviet Union have Afghanastan? That question assumes only two possible outcomes existed: what we did or the Soviet Union controlling Afghanastan. Many other possibilities existed. Creating one vs the other, this vs that, good vs evil, us vs them, option restricted choices is generally how propaganda works.

This is about Paris and how we all should respond; ironically the French were against the U.S. led invasion of Iraq which played a role in destabilizing the region which is partly responsible for ISIL. Look at the average age of an ISIL member/supporter. Many were merely young boys when 9/11 happened. We went hard at Al Quada and the Taliban and accomplished little. A whole generation raised during our prosecution of the war on terror grew up and became ISIL. Obviously something something we are doing doesn't work. As for not causing war with Russia....isn't that part of the foundation for all this as well? The U.S. giving the Taliban and Al Quada money, weapons, and training over our concerns about the Soviet Union. One reaction to perceived threat creating endless negative outcomes that perpetuate more threats. Do you believe this finishes in Syria? That ISIL is the last head of the Hydra? Well, we have many more countries to invade than Syria to rid the world of masaginistic violence and abuse against women. You ignored the challange to you rather black and white external vs internal responses to threats. Replace Islamic terror with Drugs. Many organizations external to the United States are directly responsible for the flow of drugs and associated violence in the United States. Far more U.S. citizens die as a result of drug related crime than Islamic Terror. Yet we do not invade countries in an attempt to destory these external organizations. We primarily prosecute the war on drugs with domestic law enforcement assets and even with that a healthy percentage of the country feels we go too far.

The distinction between internal and external is seldom clear as you are describing it. Which category do terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers, Nidal Hassan, and Mohammed Abdulezeez fall in? Our own law enforcement is the front line vs all terrorism regardless or what label you give it. TSA are our airports, Coast Guard in our Harbors, Local PD in our neighborhoods, and etc. The preverbial "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" often fails on two fronts: who "them" are is tends to be poorly defined and prejudical actions often create sympathizers. Why the KKK and republicans? How about narco-terrorism vs Islamic terrorism? Lost of people killed on the streets of the U.S. as part of larger drug cartel battles. Whom shall we invade to deal with the violence?

Where did I say we should do nothing or excuse terrorism? When Timothy Mcveigh dropped a building killing hundreds simply arresting all those directly involved was a reasonable response. Yet when Islamic terrorists are involved merely catching those responsible is treated as akin to doing nothing. The United States and Europe are majority White Christian. We all understand White Christian culture, its attitudes, and beliefs. When White Christians do terrible things we intrinsically know that all White Christians aren't bad, that all are not a threat. Our familiarity with it provides comfort. Same is not true for Arab Muslims. We do not understand the culture, attitudes, and beliefs. So when Arab Muslims do terrible things we error on the side that all may be a threat. We do not trust ourselves to tell the good from the bad. As a result we respond far more heavy handed. As I asked before; can you name something we (USA) have done in response to Islamic terror that has been beneficial? We have created the Department of Homeland security, passed the patriot act, Tortured, invaded two countries, armed rebels in Syria, and etc, etc, etc. What can you point to and say "that has work, that needed to be done"? You can't provide such an example yet argue that action is needed. What action? Which country can we bomb or leader can we dispose that will guarantee no more Islamic terror? If we turn all the refugees away and put boots on the ground in Syria will that do the trick; will terrorism be defeated?

Yes, he was a crazy man however aren't all terrorists by general societal standards? Many clinics dealing with women's reproductive rights have been attacked. For decades now doctors have been killed and facilities bombed. We responded to these acts of terror as simple legal matters. No change in the status quo. Despite the constancy and commonality of the attacks simply catching those responsible is generally considered enough. Meanwhile such any approach toward Islamic terror is viewed as doing nothing, why? Doesn't all that apply to all terrorist? Can you provide some explains of where rhetoric like "kill the bastards that break it in heinous ways" have led to successful policy? We have spent trillions and killed hundreds of thousands if not millions fighting Islamic terror. Surely you can definatively point to one indisputably useful or neccessary result of all that effort?

Press releases from political group; as if this is something other than a political debate?we have political groups lining up across parts of Europe and the United States calling for refugees to be turned away and major military operations in Syria. How we defeat ISIS, whether Assad stays or goes, what to do with refugees, surveillance of mosques, and etc are purely all political discussions. You were dismissive of the protest shooting story. Well here we are days later and a Planned Parenthood was attacked. Was that an act of terror motivatived by radical ideology? Muslims weren't involved so the national Terror threat won't go up, the Govenor's around the country aren't going to post national guard troop at Planned Parenthood offices, the story will pass in days. The radical ideology responsible for the attacks yesterday would love for this to be national news, love for it to start a national debate that led to the closure of Planned Parenthood. No different than ISIS seeks attention with their attacks and would love for Europe and the United States to send back all the refugees. So back to my question: why does Islam terror always earn an immediate response while other acts of terror are dismissed as being part of some other (non-critical) political discussion? Perhaps you don't know but wouldn't at least agree that there is a difference? The hyperbole and rhetoric in response to Islam is different? Our willingness to pass immediate legislation, use military force, openly debate the nature of an entire group of group is different? The overreactive responses and often divisive nature of the political ton only feeds groups like ISIS. It makes them the most relevant thing in the world.

@ Tar: http://nypost.com/2015/11/24/white-supremacists-shoot-black-lives-matter-protesters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/24/five-people-shot-near-minneapolis-protest-cops-searching-for-3-white-male-suspects/ @ Tar, I am not bringing gun control into the discussion. I also did not call for cops to be hurt or put into a database.You are ignoring the question raised by my post. Why is it Terrorism and demanding of a massive nation wide response when radical islamist assailants are involved but when they are not the violence is merely passed along to other debates like gun control? The threat to life is no more statistically significant, the body count amongst U.S. citizens is no higher, and a radical ideology is equally as involved.

@ Tar, how should a society evaluate threats? Last night (23 nov 15) five protestors were shot in Minneapolis. No Muslims were involved, just white supremists, so it isn't being classified as terrorism. The threat alert across the nation won't go up, the candidates for president probably will not have anything to say about it, and so on. Aren't white supremists a radical group driven by a divisive ideology? This past summer we saw 9 innocent people killed in church by a white supremist sympathizer. The second worst terrorist attack in the history of the United State, Oklahoma city bombings, was performed by a white supremist sympathizer. Despite the radical nature of white supremacy and the history of attacks no Presidential candidates with call for a data base for all whites, for evangelicals churches to be monitored, no nation wide heightening of threat levels, and etc. Why is doing nothing in response to one type of radicalism that kills Americans okay but it is not an okay response for another? The object of terrorism is to terrorize, to create fear and hysteria. Body for body Islamic Terrorists over the past decade have killed no more Americans than have white supremacists, mass college shooters, or Police have killed unarmed citizens. What Islamic Terrorist have done is won a response. Between war, arming foriegn rebels, militarizing our police departments, and etc Islamic Terrorists have gotten us to spend trillions. Islamic terrorists have gotten us to place them before all others. Yet statistically the we are all more likely to die from the flu, cancer, heart disease, car accident, or etc. it guess there is something more thrilling about fighting terror then protecting yourself by eating less red meat?

To that point what determines a crime most often has to do with the presceptive of whose in control. It was a crime per German law during WW2 to habour Jewish people. During this same time period it was a crime for a black person living in the south to use certian toilets. Where all whites living in the south charge with a crime once segregation ended, of course not.

[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq If you believe that Saddam killed more people than have died since he was removed than please provide a citiation. Because while some estimates for deaths under Saddam's 23yr rule are closer to a million so too are some estimates for the Iraq war. Your claim that Saddam killed more people than "the U.S. or her allies ever did" is not accurate. The U.S. led invasion destablized the whole region and resulted in just as many casualties as Saddam's rule in a third the amount of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War You preference your remarks by reminding us of Saddam's methods but then are dismissive about what enabled those methods. Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 and we (U.S.) almost immediately began helping him: [T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war Saddam used chemical weapons that the United States provided and what was the response? The first Iraq war didn't come for several years after Saddam's U.S. provided chemical weapon attack and that war was only meant to push Saddam out of Kuwait. He was left in power. In my opinion it is false moral outrage to provide someone the means to kill, do nothing as they kill, and then over a decade later when it is convenient to do so start wagging the finger. The United States was complicit to the horrors of the Saddam. It had nothing to do with religion being more important than peace. Saddam was supported because of Oil profits and gamesmanship during the Cold War. We (United States) armed the Taliban in Afghanistan for similar reasons. Heck, we even sent the Taliban Rambo! No ones hands are clean here. It is a false narrative to paint them all as a giant religious cult while suggesting our own actions are just the result of hard political choices. It feeds into us vs them which is part of the mentality that fuels all this killing from both sides. There is no harm is admitting to a mistake. I am not suggesting that the western world allow ourselves to be murdered as penance. Nor am I saying it is all our fault. I am merely pointing out that we have made mistakes and should be learning from them. We can't solve this by treating it as a black and white good vs evil dispute. Wrapping ourselves up in the our national flags and labeling others as the problem will not resolve anything. We must account for our own behavior while holding other accountable for theirs.

Where died Hussein get those chemical weapons. Also he had done that before the first Iraq war and we still left him in power.

@ Tar, are we safer than we were prior 9/11? That is your response to my question regarding the value of two wars, trillions spent, hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced? Prior to 9/11 no buildings in New York were brought down and since 9/11 no buildings have been brought down. If current conditions (patriot act, DHS, Iraq war, etc) were in place on 9/11 would the terrorist have be prevented? I don't think a single person on this earth can answer that question with any reasonable level of certainty which makes using the question as a justification for what has happen in the years since 9/11 weak.

For terrorist groups like ISIL I think a Hydra would be the better anology. And now place in my post did I suggest smiling or doing nothing. However I have heard all this rhetoric before. Post 9/11 I was told by my president to imagine a mushroom cloud over New York city. Two countries were invaded on the premise of cutting off the head of the snake. Trillions were spent and hundred of thousands were killed and tens of millions displace. Is that snake dead? Are we more safe? Isn't the definition of insanity to do the same thing the same way but expect a different result? If you were a refugee who truly was looking to escape and abhorred ISIL but had several cousins and others family members in ISIL what would you tell authorities when attempting to enter a western country? Such a refugee could be a valuable resource and yet I think many are made to feel afriad. What if the price of honestyis that they and their children are turned around and sent to an uncertian fate. That is a win for a group like ISIL.

Groups like ISIS thrive in chaos just as Al Quada did before them. Al Quada war born from the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan fueled/funded by the U.S. to weaken the Soviet Union. ISIS was born out the U.S. dismantling of Iraq and fuel/funded by Western countries interested in weaken Assad. They pick a fight and the world responds by threating to fight them? To add insult to injury many people are now anti refugee. Those reugees are fleeing ISIS. The more the refugees are made to suffer the better it is for ISIS. If ISIS had the strength they would just kill them all at once. They don't have that type of military might so they do what they can to terrorize them. Hence, they are a terrorist roup. Terrorists are anarchists. Their goal is chaos and disorder. They kill for attention and to muddy up the waters so no one can see through it. Their goal is no more about achieving a political outcome than a rohypnol using rapist is looking to find a long term relationship. To that analogy the fear of military strike is as much a deterrent to them as law is to a that rapist. The FBI, Interpol, and other Law Enforcement agencies us phycologists to come up with strategies to both minimize and locate serial rapists and killers. They understand the merely increasing officers on the watch and upping the penalty under law is not sufficient. Like wise we need to take a more long term cerebal approach to terror that recognizes it causes, works to prevent it, and stops responding to it like a puppet on a string. Simplier still perhaps we should remind ourselfs that violence begets violence. War gave birth to ISIS. Why would we believe more war would snuff it out?

People do behave tribalistically however what defines a tribe appears to be on a moving scale. Today all of Europe appears to be a tribe but any review of the history of war between European nations would quickly reflect that such has not always been the case. Throughout history no group has fought more battles against Europeans and killed more Europeans that other Europeans. In context to the way the English treated African slaves I suppose Irish slaves had it pretty good but still obviously were not seen as the same tribe. As for European decline; when was it so much better? Poverty rates in India and China are still at crisis level. Africa, any time genocide or war grips part of the continent. Central and South America struggle with crime and economic instability. People are literally risking their lives and leaving behind family to escape the Middle East. Yet you are concerned about the "waning stage" of Europe? A stage where the average person has significantly more wealth, more education, more opportunity, and etc? I think if you were born in the late 1800's or early 1900's and were lucky enough to live through both world wars your overall feelings about Europe's present stay would be very different. There was still a wall seperating Germans 30yrs ago.

I have not read any posts that have implied the civilized world should do nothing. Nor does it appear that Government (at least ones in the Western world) are doing nothing. At this time the United States alone has boots on the ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Additionally U.S. has Drones in the air over Pakistan and Iran. Not a day goes by that I don't read an article stating that another quasi ISIS leader has been killed. Death for death the Western world seems to be responding to Islamic Terror several hundred to one. The response is a far cry from a pacifist one. As I type this world leaders are coming together to agree on a course of action in Syria. I have no doubt whatever action is agreed upon will result in the death of tens of thousands of would be ISIS members in Syria and the surrounding countries. How much tougher should we be in your opinion? I abhor what Islamic Terrorist did in Paris and are doing in Africa and the Middle East. It is not being ignored. That said here in the United States mass shootings at acts of terror that have killed more people in the past decade than Islamic Terror and the response by many is "stuff happens". Similarly police shoot and kill more citizens than Islamic Terror and again the response is partisan and dismissive. Twenty children were gunned down in Sandy Hook and the response was mournful but led to zero action.

Jan. 5th 2015 "Christian militia in Central African Republic have carried out ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population during the country's ongoing civil war, but there is no proof there was genocidal intent, a United Nations commission of inquiry has determined. The final report of the inquiry, which was submitted to the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 19, said up to 6,000 people had been killed though it "considers that such estimates fail to capture the full magnitude of the killings that occurred." Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-centralafrica-inquiry-idUSKBN0KH2BM20150108#v2MIrf5gtoSU06wr.99 You say "most" of the terror in Africa but to a large extent isn't that more a matter of when one chooses to check the score? I generally do not like the saying "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" but it is good for at least pointing out the need for perspective. For example when the U.S. blows up a hospital and kills innocent people it is merely considered an accident. We don't consider the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians as a result of collateral damage in Iraq terrorism, genocide, or a war crime. Despite fraudulent evidence being the justification for the Iraq war in the first place. Some argue that it isn't so much thenumber dead as it is the manner in which they are killed. That the beheadings are particular brutal and spurred on by the Quran. Yet in Central and South America mass graves of decapitated bodies are dug as well. Narcoterrorism is a very real thing. Those murders are equally as brutal as ISIS but are not Islamic.

Of course much of it is metaphorical; the man was said to have returned from the dead. My question is whether are not the works written are about (exaggerated, idealized, or whatever) an actual individual who lived. Not a group of individuals metaphorically molded into a single character. Sort of like asking if there was ever a King Arthor of is his legend just a amalgamation of many kings. Or perhaps Arthor was pure fiction.

I do not think it is necessary to parse words about Islam and the Quarn. Religious extremism is a reaction/response to decades of getting the short end of the stick. I see a lot of politicians and pundits saying Muslim moderates need to stand against this that or the other then never elaborate on how they would manage to do so. They also fail to acknowledge how for an era the westernized world propped up and armed dictators in exchange for oil and strategic positioning against communism. For an decades we've said democracy is the goal for the middle east but only if that democracy supports a rather specific list of policies. Democracy that must vote a specific way is not much of democracy. Middle Eastern countries are not free to make alliances, sell goods, build technology, stand up strong militaries, or etc without copious amounts of pressure from the west. In that enviroment ethnocentrism, nationalism, and religious extremism thrives. And we see examples of all three in different parts of the middle east. Demanding that the powerless populations being lorded over by Kings and dictator or murdered by terrorist war lords grab pitch forks and stand against their oppressors is the equivalent of changing nothing and expecting a different result. Blaming religion is also a meaningless exercise as most religions in the world only become more conservative, dogmatic, and extreme when challanged.

Western countries have mostly taken half messured steps with regards to Syria because neither Assad or ISIS winning the Civil War are desirable outcomes. We fantasize about a third option, a moderate group large enough to take the helm and install democracy, but it is a pipe dream. At least in terms of being a plausible resolution to the current state of emergency in Syria. I hate to say it but I think it might be time to aid Assad. That at least could end the war and establish a modicum of stability in Syria. Yes Assad is bad but ISIS is worse and conditions in Syria are worse than prior to the push for regime change. Once Assad in back in power unconditional aid (food, water, medical supplies) should be poured into the country. Let families catch their breath, stop the bleeding. Perhaps under those conditions some percentage of the refugees may select to return. The world can figure out what to do about Assad later. Re-stabalizing the Syria should be the priority.

I didn't not dismiss there being many factors. I only said guns need to be part of the conversation and that many tried to prevent it from being. To that point you denied "that's not happening", challanged "so what if it were", and then provide alternitives point of discussion that are not guns "sexual frustration". This sort of response proves my point. Your post serves as a deflection that makes having a meaningful discussion more difficult.

I lived in the Bay Area when the building of UC Merced first began. Like so many I was interested in the real estate boom a UC would bring to the area. Between 03' - 04' I toured nurmerous homes and new housing developments in Merced but ultimately ended up leave the state and never purchased anything. I recall it being a very nice place. There absolutely needs to be a national discussion about this. Prescription drugs and video games come up a lot as do many other factors for why we are expiriencing a rise in such acts, particularly at schools. Unfortunately, from what I see, we only make half hearted attempts at meanigful national dialogue. Guns may not be the cause but they are more times than not the weapon of choice and the cause for the greatest numbers of fatalities. They belong in the discussion. Instead many insist guns come off the table as a prerequisite to participation in any discussion about the issue. Its a "look at every thing else first" mentality that does not lend itself well to problem solving. Perhaps guns are just a symptom and not the disease. Until the disease is identified and cured we still need to manage the symptoms.