patrick.net

zzyzzx says

Crazy Liberal.

Meanwhile, in Hungary....

Strategist says

We are at war against Islam

Actually Islam is at war against us.

P N Dr Lo R says

Strategist says

We are at war against Islam

Actually Islam is at war against us.

And we "have not yet begun to fight," though we have enabled the jihadis by toppling some governments that had previously kept them mostly under control (e.g. Iraq and Tunisia).

P N Dr Lo R says

Strategist says

We are at war against Islam

Actually Islam is at war against us.

They were always at war with non Muslims. They seldom lost.

curious2 says

And we "have not yet begun to fight," though we have enabled the jihadis by toppling some governments that had previously kept them mostly under control (e.g. Iraq and Tunisia).

Iran too. The one nation we should have supported. Most Iranians in the US are atheists or secular Muslims.

Strategist says

Most Iranians in the US are atheists or secular Muslims.

That's why they are in the US instead of Iran. Supporting the theocratic regime in Iran would not be a good idea. Ironically though, they are the principal beneficiaries of our misguided misadventures in Iraq.

When the terrorists took hostages in Tehran, they gave America a cassus belli to go there and take the oil. Alas, America was too exhausted by the misguided misadventure in Viet Nam, and had elected a President who was too decent and kind to seize the opportunity. I love President Carter, but Iran became his undoing.

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

It's time we rethink this strategy.

Maybe, but some of the basic factors in the calculation have not changed, including Islam.

Of course Islam is bad and the world would be safer if all religions were abandoned. However, the strategy of using military force, essentially murder and death threats, to gain access to other nation's resources is based on the faulty assumption that less technologically advanced nation-states are not a threat to our national security and can never be. The past half century of terrorism has unequivocally demonstrated that this assumption is wrong.

Even ignoring the immorality of such policies, asymmetric warfare makes such policies stupid and jeopardizes the lives of Americans. So even if we value non-American lives at zero, such policies are still foolish and all the cost-benefit analysis favoring them are wrong.

We will never defeat Islam by living up to the moniker of the great Satan. Alternative strategies must be implemented.

curious2 says

I believe the evidence shows religion can become more powerful in a person's mind than anything else, even the instinct to survive.

Yep, and that kind of irrational force is dangerous precisely for that reason. One cannot erect deterrents to irrational behavior. A deterrent inherently assumes a rational mind to deter.

Dan8267 says

One cannot erect deterrents to irrational behavior.

Most people are predictably irrational. The question is, how to get them to what you want and stop doing what you don't want. Offering everyone a free one-way ticket to Mecca, on condition that they never return, is a carrot that could get believers in Islam to do what you want (go away and not come back). As for the stick to deter them from joining ISIL/Daesh, I refer you to my prior comment. Don't give up on people simply for being irrational; irrationality complicates only slightly your task of programming, like Hewlett Packard's Reverse Polish notation.

This is an interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/opinion/the-islamic-states-european-front.html

Of note: one reason that the US is successful in stopping plots is that the US Muslim population often reports the plots to police. In Europe, there is less trust between the Muslim population and police, and there is more of an us against them feeling, so plots are not getting reported.

It seems to me that it is a little early to be sure of such things, but it's a theory that makes sense to me. We are not trying to convince ISIS fighters that we are OK. We are trying to convince moderates that they are better off turning in terrorists and fitting into society than turning inward and fighting the West. It's about cutting off the pipeline and claiming the hearts and minds (and sympathy) of more people.

Also from the article: ISIS is losing in the middle east, and they are likely to try to stage attacks in Europe to get some 'wins' to help with recruiting. I guess they are ripe for a Trump type candidate to come in and say, "We don't win anymore. People love me. I'm going to win, and then we are going to win, and win, and win." Such a character could surely rise to the top of the ISIS promotion ladder.

anonymous says

These events should be downplayed and coverage of their losses and setbacks expanded. Then again broadcasting what our strategies, plans etc. are to combat these groups is giving them a heads up and a chance to prepare.

When I saw the headline that they captured the guy from the Paris attack, and that he was planning another attack, I immediately thought - crap, now they are going to 'go now' to carry it out before they get caught. Why on earth anyone leaked that information to the press is beyond me. ISIS should be mocked in the global news, not given prominence. I agree that they should report ISIS setbacks, but just the obvious ones like the number that have been killed in Iraq/Syria, and the cities they are losing control of.

Strategist says

You really think major terrorist attacks like 911 should be treated by the local police? This is war. We are at war against Islam, just like the rest of the world.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia! We have always been at war with Eurasia...

Strategist says

Crazy Liberal.

If you were a liberal like you often claim, you would not make such an blatantly false accusation.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Crazy Liberal.

If you were a liberal like you often claim, you would not make such an blatantly false accusation.

Liberals, like conservatives are not perfect. Self criticism is what leads to solutions.

NuttBoxer says

Strategist says

You really think major terrorist attacks like 911 should be treated by the local police? This is war. We are at war against Islam, just like the rest of the world.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia! We have always been at war with Eurasia...

All based on religion.

Dan8267 says

We will never defeat Islam by living up to the moniker of the great Satan. Alternative strategies must be implemented.

There will be a majority of Muslim in Brussels within 15-20yrs.
Not having kids has consequences.

YesYNot says

Of note: one reason that the US is successful in stopping plots is that the US Muslim population often reports the plots to police. In Europe, there is less trust between the Muslim population and police, and there is more of an us against them feeling, so plots are not getting reported.

The narrative that these are a few terrorists and "plots" is just wrong.
This is not a fight against a few terrorists sent by ISIS.

You have 25% Muslim population in Brussels TODAY, will be a majority in less than 20yrs.

Some Muslim elected officials are already calling for Belgium to become an Islamic state.

The problem is not with the US. The problem is with Europe, that has already a large Muslim population growing fast. And willfully adding more by the millions.

Ask yourself what will the US do when their European allies (Belgium, France, UK etc...) turn to Islamic states, Sharia law, etc....
You think it can't happen? We are on track right for that.

Strategist says

Liberals, like conservatives are not perfect. Self criticism is what leads to solutions.

You are not criticizing. You are mislabeling and bashing. Criticism addresses specific complaints and calls for specific changes.

And liberals like me do not whitewash Islam. Leftists do. Liberals find the entire Middle East culture to be highly repugnant.

YesYNot says

ISIS is losing in the middle east, and they are likely to try to stage attacks in Europe to get some 'wins' to help with recruiting.

ISIS is just the emerging part of these ideas in the middle-east.
Saudi Arabia has the same. The Shiites are not better.
This is not a group of people we are talking about. This is about ideas.
The first step is to look at these ideas and denounce them as evil wherever they appear.

People also need to pay attention to the non-terror, crime side: Muslims are 45% of the Belgian prison population. In France, 2/3 of all prisoners are Muslim.

They live on welfare while engaging in smuggling, underground enterprises, drug dealing, protection rackets, etc.

thunderlips11 says

They live on welfare while engaging in smuggling, underground enterprises, drug dealing, protection rackets, etc.

And electing politicians who demand respect for Islam and try to impose Sharia.

anonymous says

Going along with that thought while watching the news as it unfolded, there was a comment on how ISIS is "controlling" the news.

In NATO countries, the military industrial complex controls the news. They seek to monetize the problem of Islam, hence invade&invite and the endless blather about "radicalized" vs "moderate" Muslims (i.e. people who actually believe and follow Islam vs people who claim to hold Islam sacred but have not yet acted on it). A "moderate" Muslim is, for example, a prominent Saudi royal who authorizes USD $50bn in procurement from NATO arms manufacturers and associated dealers, while also donating to various "charities" that fund Wahhabi madrassahs (including in Belgium) and militias in Syria; such a "moderate" doesn't personally murder anyone, but pays others to do that.

The other differences between Europe and the US come down mainly to numbers. Europe has imported an order of magnitude more Muslims than America has, and so those considering acting on the "sacred" beliefs of Islam find "safety in numbers." It's like when a crowd starts rioting, looting, etc. Belgian police estimate it takes 20 law enforcement to monitor one terror suspect; with an 8% Muslim population, they have so many suspects that effective monitoring becomes impossible, and the crowd knows that.

thunderlips11 says

People also need to pay attention to the non-terror, crime side: Muslims are 45% of the Belgian prison population. In France, 2/3 of all prisoners are Muslim.

They live on welfare while engaging in smuggling, underground enterprises, drug dealing, protection rackets, etc

They should be placed in "protective custody"...

curious2 says

The other differences between Europe and the US come down mainly to numbers. Europe has imported an order of magnitude more Muslims than America has, and so those considering acting on the "sacred" beliefs of Islam find "safety in numbers." It's like when a crowd starts rioting, looting, etc. Belgian police estimate it takes 20 law enforcement to monitor one terror suspect; with an 8% Muslim population, they have so many suspects that effective monitoring becomes impossible, and the crowd knows that.

Fortunately, they are only 1% here and we cannot allow these numbers to increase if we want to prevent problems from manifesting themselves further down the line. Thankfully, in U.S. we have Latinos who can help keep this ratio in check, while Europe lacks this variable.

Strategist says

All based on religion.

Religion is the facade. If you get rid of the constant bombings, dronings, don't have US government training Al Quaeda, Isis, then this stuff would never leave the Middle East.

Hitler owes his rise to power totally to the sanctions after WWII, and the Weimer financial collapse. People don't tend to support fanatics when they get their three squares, make a decent living, and can take care of their families. Root cause. Everything else is just fumes...

Heraclitusstudent says

The narrative that these are a few terrorists and "plots" is just wrong.

This is not a fight against a few terrorists sent by ISIS.

In terms of the number of plots carried out to date, yes, it is the correct narrative.

Heraclitusstudent says

Ask yourself what will the US do when their European allies (Belgium, France, UK etc...) turn to Islamic states, Sharia law, etc....

That was one of the points of the article I linked. Also, one other point that I've been trying to make is that we need to make the argument between us and the violent fuckers (still in small numbers) in Belgium and other Western nations. If we make it between us and the whole Muslim population, we are fucked already. There are lots of voices starting with Trump, who want to make it between the West and all Muslims.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is not a group of people we are talking about. This is about ideas.

In terms of the larger war on terrorism, that's exactly my point. We can't beat the idea with bombs. In terms of ISIS leadership, we can hurt their recruits and finances for some time by beating them with bombs. That is what's going on now, and one reason for the increased attacks.

YesYNot says

If we make it between us and the whole Muslim population, we are fucked already.

I agree.
However when Muslims become a majority, it's not the most moderates that are going to take power. Just look at what happened at a local level already in Belgium.
http://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_le-parti-islam-espere-que-la-belgique-devienne-un-jour-un-etat-islamique?id=7865358
This is in French but google translate: ""Il faut d’abord sensibiliser les gens en douceur et leur faire comprendre l’avantage d’avoir des dirigeants et des lois islamiques, pour aboutir pourquoi pas, tout naturellement à un état islamique en Belgique". "

This is why we absolutely need to draw a clear line in the sand and say "these beliefs are not moderate and not acceptable". Name the beliefs.
This would create a clear separation between moderates from non moderates.
It would also force leftists to stop defending the whole of Islam as if it contained nothing evil. You can't defend that killing apostates and polytheists as non-evil.
It would generate the appropriate debate on the morality of these beliefs.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is why we absolutely need to draw a clear line in the sand and say "these beliefs are not moderate and not acceptable". Name the beliefs.

This would create a clear separation between moderates from non moderates.

It would also force leftists to stop defending the whole of Islam as if it contained nothing evil. You can't defend that killing apostates and polytheists as non-evil.

That's pretty crazy that two of those guys got elected. It wasn't clear from google translate what the got elected for, but I'm guessing representing some heavily Muslim district. I argue against policies like Trump suggests, but would not defend all parts of Islam. Then again, I wouldn't defend all parts of Christianity or Judaism. I don't know how you can micromanage peoples thoughts, but some of the renouncing that you are talking about is covered by the oath of citizenship: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

That looks to cover states instead of religions. Maybe it needs an update to explicitly cover religious groups who hold views in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the US.

Anyway, I've been reading a CIA strategy for terrorism from 2003: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdf. One part I agree with is this:

The Structure of Terror
Despite their diversity in motive, sophistication,
and strength, terrorist organizations
share a basic structure as depicted in figure 1.
At the base, underlying conditions such as
poverty, corruption, religious conflict and
ethnic strife create opportunities for terrorists
to exploit. Some of these conditions are
real and some manufactured. Terrorists use
these conditions to justify their actions
and expand their support. The belief that
terror is a legitimate means to address such
conditions and effect political change is a
fundamental problem enabling terrorism to
develop and grow.

YesYNot says

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Wow, well I see part of the problem right there. We should really edit that ASAP:

"I hereby declare, on oath on penalty of perjury and forfeiture of citizenship, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

As far as Daesh/ISIL are concerned, their snackbar is better than our snackbar, so taqiyya and dawa allow lying on oath to us in service to Islam. Also, the linked page says there are ways to waive parts of the oath; for example, many people can legally gain dual citizenship. Also, there are other ways of gaining entry without citizenship. Under invade&invite, refugees are allowed into NATO countries because NATO bombed and invaded their country and the military industrial complex wants them to come in and take revenge and justify surveillance. In the US, the federal government does not track refugees; thus enabling the needles to hide better in the haystack.

YesYNot says

Maybe it needs an update to explicitly cover religious groups who hold views in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the US.

ISIL/Daesh claim to be a sovereignty, so they would be covered, but anyone claiming to believe in Islam is implicitly holding views in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the US.

YesYNot says

I don't know how you can micromanage peoples thoughts, but some of the renouncing that you are talking about is covered by the oath of citizenship: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

I don't want to micro manage thoughts.
I want Muslims to make a declaration publicly and in written form that they renounce explicitly listed articles of faith.
And make this declaration repetitively, as a precondition to practicing their faith in the US.

Indeed this would resemble the oath of citizenship but apply to citizen as well and pertain specifically to Islam.
If some publicly disagree, they will be asked to explain why, and why they believe killing other people is ok.

YesYNot says

At the base, underlying conditions such as

poverty, corruption, religious conflict and

ethnic strife create opportunities for terrorists

to exploit.

This is non-sense and absolute crap. It seeks to rationalize terrorism as caused by poverty, and dismisses the power of cult over the mind as a self-sufficient motivation.
You would think Jim Jones would have established that poverty is in no way a necessary pre-condition.

curious2 says

so taqiyya and dawa allow lying on oath to us in service to Islam

Again you are missing the fact that the religion hold on someone's mind is based on certain biases of the human mind that are no different than those exploited by propaganda.
A religion is nothing but the joint use of several propaganda techniques coupled with some self-reproducing characteristics.
This is why you can't say taqiyya and dawa take precedence. They are just drowned into the propaganda background.

Public declarations work whether they are sincere or not. Which is why you sometime see people collecting signatures in favor of a cause. This is not to use the signatures to convince someone else. This is to influence the people who sign.

YesYNot says

At the base, underlying conditions such as

poverty, corruption, religious conflict and

ethnic strife create opportunities for terrorists

to exploit.

1. OBL was from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia, with a net worth of around $7 Billion Dollars.
1b. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi comes from a well-off family wealthy enough to allow him to be a lifetime religious scholar. His wife al-Dulami is from a family that counts multiple Emirs and Sheiks, obviously wealthy.
2. Corruption has been endemic in the middle east since the Bronze Age. Nothing new here.
3. Religious Conflict - yes, Sunni Supremacism.
4. Ethnic Strife in the Middle East is between Sunni Arabs and everyone else; but doesn't explain why those who voluntarily moved to Germany, France, etc. are starting to attack Europeans.

The Israelis know you have to deal with Arabs with strength, you have to beat them hard before you talk to them, because they only respect power. The European style of bending over for them only encourages them to become more forceful.

In the Arab World, the superior beats his inferior. Half the TV Shows in the MENA are about a "shamed" or "beaten" junior trying to take revenge on a "superior". The only difference between the action ones and the comedy ones is in the latter, the junior always fumbles at the end and gets even more humiliated.

The other terrorist attacks this month by Boko Haram and allegedly by Islamists in Turkey:
http://fusion.net/story/283391/why-is-the-american-media-mostly-ignoring-two-other-terror-attacks-that-happened-this-month/

I take the ones in Turkey with a big grain of salt, very possibly agent provocateur actions.

thunderlips11 says

The only difference between the action ones and the comedy ones is in the latter, the junior always fumbles at the end and gets even more humiliated.

Sounds like a biography of CIC.

bgamall4 says

File that under "B" for batshit.

Facts you won't read in mainstream media:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state
- Muslims will comprise the majority of the population of Brussels by 2030.
- The growth of the Muslim population has been accompanied by an increase in violent crime, which has made Brussels one of the most dangerous cities in Europe
- In Molenbeek, where an estimated 25% of the population is Muslim, the growing insecurity has forced multinational companies to leave the municipality.
- It reported an average of five new cases of rapes each week involving two or more offenders, in addition to an average of 57 rapes per week involving single violators.
- you can describe half of the Muslim students as anti-Semitic
- Since 2008, the most popular name in Brussels for baby boys has been Mohammed. It is also the most popular name for baby boys in Belgium's second-largest city, Antwerp, where an estimated 40% of elementary school children are Muslim.

Heraclitusstudent says

Facts you won't read in mainstream media:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state

Come on, now. That "gatestoneinsitute" is a dreadful propaganda outlet. If the truth is sufficient, propaganda should not be needed.

Dan8267 says

File that under...

it depends. For example, we fund our "allies" in Turkey, and they were reportedly buying a lot of oil from ISIL/Daesh. Our Saudi "allies" have also reportedly helped ISIL/Daesh. The photos of John McCain turned out to be fake, but W's Iraq invasion and NATO bombing Assad have also helped ISIL/Daesh tremendously. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see ISIL/Daesh using weapons captured from, or otherwise obtained with the help of, entities that we have supported.

Heraclitusstudent says

Public declarations work whether they are sincere or not.

They may have some effect, but beware of unintended consequences.

Consider the recent example where Muslim gunmen made people at a resort shout Aloha Snackbar, and killed anyone who refused. Suppose next they do that to you. Are you, based on one public "declaration", going to become a lifelong snackbar? Or, rather, are you going to hate them even more for threatening you and making you repeat their BS?

Now consider the context of NATO invade&invite. You've bombed their country, and financed ground militias to drive them out of their homes and into your country. After all that, when they have no place left to go, you demand they renounce their snackbar.

Will they sincerely renounce the snackbar, or will they say what you demand and then hate you even more for that? Some of each, I would guess, and maybe some crossover depending on what happens later in their lives.