Paris terrorist attack.

[tonio]

hitler wasn't a christian, seriously... if he was or had any understanding of god's word, he would never of had the ideas he had and did the things he ordered people to do. he was sick. it goes completely against everything in god's word.

Excerpt from Hitler's Mein Kampf:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Denying Hitler as Christian is no different than Muslims denying ISIL, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban as Muslims. So to answer your question, Christians have done just as much if not worse than what we are seeing Muslims do. Just being honest.

When you look at the growing threat due to social media and the ease of radicalization, paired with the reduced government budget and hiring freezes, you would be hard pressed to say an attack inside the U.S. isn't likely. I hope it doesn't happen but it takes a whole lot of people and things to go right in order to stop a terrorist attack. One missed indicator can leave people dead.

I think there is a bit of a misnomer with reduction in forces. I think our defenses are smaller, but I wouldn't say weaker. I'd venture to say we are more advanced as technology goes, but that is more my opinion than it is experience. The example I give to my son is causing my phone to do something without touching it.. because it is always listening to me. I just dont believe for a second that the ability isn't being harnessed to identify threats. Like I said though, just my opinion.

How do eliminate the threats of extremists?

Two ways.

Do something so horrific that it makes them think twice. (Think WWII against Japan)

Or wipe them out entirely.

This is something that my son and I discuss a lot. (Strange for a 14 year old to be so interested) I talk about what it takes to kill an idea, and I cannot come up with one from our past that would be acceptable in the public's eye. War is ugly, and solutions aren't always humane.

I came up with two examples of killing an idea/ideology, the first is what you mentioned.. the use of atomic bombs, that certainly ended an entire initiative.

The other I mention is slavery. You had slaves that far outnumbered their master by 10 to 1, they were stronger and overall physically superior. The very nature of slavery killed the weakest, but never did an idea of uprising resonate. That idea was eliminated through lynchings and brutal beatings. It's a dark part of our past, but it is an example of suppressing an ideology.

I'd like for the discussion to stay on track so I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole on these examples.. all they are, are examples for this discussion.

Sponsored

 

[04SloSnake]

I think there is a bit of a misnomer with reduction in forces. I think our defenses are smaller, but I wouldn't say weaker. I'd venture to say we are more advanced as technology goes, but that is more my opinion than it is experience. The example I give to my son is causing my phone to do something without touching it.. because it is always listening to me. I just dont believe for a second that the ability isn't being harnessed to identify threats. Like I said though, just my opinion.

I can say for a fact the budgets are smaller and most federal organizations are on hiring freezes due to required personnel in place or sequestration. I did not say our defenses were weaker. The threat is definitely growing but we have not added additional personnel to combat it because, well its expensive. All the information in the world is pointless unless there are people to connect the dots and analyze the information. That is what a lot of civilians do not realize (not directed at you). Everybody wants to believe the government is watching everything they do, but there are not enough people to be able to do this. Good intelligence requires good people, and a lot of them.

 

[tonio]

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. People say the terrorists are misinterpreting the Koran. Having read the section saying

I disagree, especially here in the U.S. Lets call a spade a spade, Muslims aren't going into U.S schools and killing innocent victims for personal reasons, but a lot that are claim to be Christian.

Terrorism is global and ISIL doesn't own terrorism. In the U.S alone from 1980 - 2005 94% of attacks on U.S soil were committed by non muslims, according to the FBI.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

Europe.. mainly separatists according to Europol

https://www.europol.europa.eu/conte...ion-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

The idea that most muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim is a Fox news speaking point. Fox news has an agenda. Data can be mined to make figures go in a certain direction including the sources I cite, so I try to stay away from partisan organizations.

I can say for a fact the budgets are smaller and most federal organizations are on hiring freezes due to required personnel in place or sequestration. I did not say our defenses were weaker. The threat is definitely growing but we have not added additional personnel to combat it because, well its expensive. All the information in the world is pointless unless there are people to connect the dots and analyze the information. That is what a lot of civilians do not realize (not directed at you). Everybody wants to believe the government is watching everything they do, but there are not enough people to be able to do this. Good intelligence requires good people, and a lot of them.

Sequestration cut us deep for sure. I just became an analyst about two years prior and we certainly have to do more with less, but I know on our side the mission still gets done. The tag line right now is doing more with less, are we doing it? Yes. But not doing it as well as we could with more.

 

[Glenn G]

I think there is a bit of a misnomer with reduction in forces. I think our defenses are smaller, but I wouldn't say weaker. I'd venture to say we are more advanced as technology goes, but that is more my opinion than it is experience. The example I give to my son is causing my phone to do something without touching it.. because it is always listening to me. I just dont believe for a second that the ability isn't being harnessed to identify threats. Like I said though, just my opinion.

We are without a doubt much weaker, I work for the DoD here. I am not kidding about the Army issuing soldiers M-16's older than they are.
Visiting bases here in Germany makes me sad when I go by the motor pools and see how many of the vehicles are deadlined. I was in Armor and know the little things that show a tank is in a state of disrepair the average person wouldn't notice, And oh yeah the budgets are shrinking big time.

 

[tonio]

We are without a doubt much weaker, I work for the DoD here. I am not kidding about the Army issuing soldiers M-16's older than they are.
Visiting bases here in Germany makes me sad when I go by the motor pools and see how many of the vehicles are deadlined. I was in Armor and know the little things that show a tank is in a state of disrepair the average person wouldn't notice, And oh yeah the budgets are shrinking big time.

Meanwhile the F-35 is just now going operational, some $200 billion over budget.

 

[Glenn G]

Meanwhile the F-35 is just now going operational, some $200 billion over budget.

And a piece of crap from most reports
http://www.businessinsider.com/here...at-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3

 

[Dat37tho]

I would like to bring it up again to everyone who says we need to bomb ISIS. How exactly is that going to work without reliable boots on the ground to tell them where to bomb? Best case scenario we hit all of our targets without collateral damage, but we won't be very effective. Worst case scenario we hit something accidentally and kill a large number of civilians. We become the enemy of the world and lose any chance we have of gaining international support. What is the best plan?

The "best" plan could seem like it is already in motion. As it seems, were not the first to attack ISIS strongholds in Syria. Russia and France have gladly taken the most recent punches and going in with the bombing runs. They have boots on the ground? Probably intel ones only as far as we know. But if they hit a civie center, would the rest of the world get mad, even after what happened in Paris and the Russian flight attack?

Based on what I've read, and this is also just my opinion so please differ if I seem wrong or out there, but we offer support to Russia and France with what we can. We do need to be involved but not take over this entire fight on our shoulders. Yes, were targeted and threatened but so is every other country that disagrees with the heads-full-of-sand assholes. Our budgets are shrinking? Then once again, lets not go it alone. 3 mega-powers at least would be on this. And if ISIS is wanting to stick to their plan and bomb other countries, then their just adding to the list of powers to come forward with the bombs on them. Or their own boots on the ground. We offer our assistance while defending the homeland and while were at it, clean it up because like others said, Miss America needs her backbone back. That starts at home. Because as far as the media is concerned, our political legislation and civil handling is a bad joke. And everyone knows it.
And as for the Syrian refugees, bringing them over here would not be a good idea at all, for many reasons but thats a whole other discussion

 

[ohmy350]

I disagree, especially here in the U.S. Lets call a spade a spade, Muslims aren't going into U.S schools and killing innocent victims for personal reasons, but a lot that are claim to be Christian.

Terrorism is global and ISIL doesn't own terrorism. In the U.S alone from 1980 - 2005 94% of attacks on U.S soil were committed by non muslims, according to the FBI.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

Europe.. mainly separatists according to Europol

https://www.europol.europa.eu/conte...ion-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

The idea that most muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim is a Fox news speaking point. Fox news has an agenda. Data can be mined to make figures go in a certain direction including the sources I cite, so I try to stay away from partisan organizations.



Sequestration cut us deep for sure. I just became an analyst about two years prior and we certainly have to do more with less, but I know on our side the mission still gets done. The tag line right now is doing more with less, are we doing it? Yes. But not doing it as well as we could with more.

I think the difference here is that the terrorism we speak of, terror in the name of an ideology, religion, or both, is what we fear most- especially when it's backed up by many more people with like-minded beliefs. People (young people-even kids sometimes) in the United States are terrorist when they go into public places and kill people but they are generally not doing it in the name of God, or any God for that matter. They almost always are acting alone. I do not fear them even remotely as closely as I do ISIS. I absolutely do not diminish the pain and suffering the families of the atrocities that have happened on our soil have felt. I'm sure they see murder as terrorism, and terrorism as evil no matter how it's defined.

If/When terrorism happens on US soil, and President Obama is not in office, ISIS will see a backlash they do not know can exist.

I ask this question: Do our enemies in the Middle East want to kill us because we are over there or are we over there because they want to kill us? I find the answer to this question to be simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tonio]

I think the difference here is that the terrorism we speak of, terror in the name of an ideology, religion, or both, is what we fear most- especially when it's backed up by many more people with like-minded beliefs. People (young people-even kids sometimes) in the United States are terrorist when they go into public places and kill people but they are generally not doing it in the name of God, or any God for that matter. They almost always are acting alone. I do not fear them even remotely as closely as I do ISIS. I absolutely do not diminish the pain and suffering the families of the atrocities that have happened on our soil have felt. I'm sure they see murder as terrorism, and terrorism as evil no matter how it's defined.

If/When terrorism happens on US soil, and President Obama is not in office, ISIS will see a backlash they do not know can exist.

I ask this question: Do our enemies in the Middle East want to kill us because we are over there or are we over there because they want to kill us? I find the answer to this question to be simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Even if Hillary takes office? Because I'll be honest I think she will. Again you guys act like the current administration is not aggressive, and in my experience the last 6 years has been a bad time to be a terrorist.

Our pursuit is more precise rather than utilizing a large contingency. I mean we sit here and talk about budget cuts, but a major reason for that is the drain that OIF and OEF had on our budget. Yet people want to rush into Syria without a plan.

 

[ohmy350]

I also think that Muslims in general HAVE to be the people that champion the destruction of ISIS more than any other. Christians were brutal during the crusades, and Christians now don't relate to those barbarians any more than most Muslims do ISIS, Al Qaeda et al. I hear people of the Muslim faith on the radio or see some of them on TV interviews and all the ones I hear and see vehemently voice their opposition against said groups. Terrorist groups, above all, need to see the opposition from Muslims the most. This does not need to be a war fought between Christians and Muslims. (Again)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MagneticA]

I ask this question: Do our enemies in the Middle East want to kill us because we are over there or are we over there because they want to kill us? I find the answer to this question to be simple.

This is the chicken/egg question right here.

 

[tonio]

ladies (if any) gents, I've enjoyed the conversation.. very enlightening. I enjoy hearing other POVs

 

[Khyber]

Even if Hillary takes office? Because I'll be honest I think she will.

nope she won't.

#makeamericagreatagain

 

[04SloSnake]

The "best" plan could seem like it is already in motion. As it seems, were not the first to attack ISIS strongholds in Syria. Russia and France have gladly taken the most recent punches and going in with the bombing runs. They have boots on the ground? Probably intel ones only as far as we know. But if they hit a civie center, would the rest of the world get mad, even after what happened in Paris and the Russian flight attack?

Based on what I've read, and this is also just my opinion so please differ if I seem wrong or out there, but we offer support to Russia and France with what we can. We do need to be involved but not take over this entire fight on our shoulders. Yes, were targeted and threatened but so is every other country that disagrees with the heads-full-of-sand assholes. Our budgets are shrinking? Then once again, lets not go it alone. 3 mega-powers at least would be on this. And if ISIS is wanting to stick to their plan and bomb other countries, then their just adding to the list of powers to come forward with the bombs on them. Or their own boots on the ground. We offer our assistance while defending the homeland and while were at it, clean it up because like others said, Miss America needs her backbone back. That starts at home. Because as far as the media is concerned, our political legislation and civil handling is a bad joke. And everyone knows it.
And as for the Syrian refugees, bringing them over here would not be a good idea at all, for many reasons but thats a whole other discussion

It is a plan, but is it the best plan? It very well might be. The problem with planning for other people to do the job is hoping and assuming they do it to your satisfaction. Sometimes the saying is true, if you want something done right sometimes you have to do it yourself. With other countries taking the responsibility they will put their needs over ours, which is fair. We still get left with the residual threat and hoping our interests are secured. This is probably the most complex foreign policy challenge in decades.

 

[tonio]

Talk about this being complex in Syria, this was one of my worst fears with this situation being volatile.

https://news.vice.com/article/a-russian-fighter-jet-has-been-downed-over-syria

Sponsored