Enjoy yourself, Winston.
It would take almost no planning and, due to the ridiculous lack of gun laws in the US, no difficulty for an Islamic terrorist to get an assault rifle and open fire in a crowded shopping mall. And then the next day, another terrorist doing the same thing in a McDonalds. And another the following day at a sporting event. And so on.
So the question is - if Islamic terrorism is such a threat to the US, in the 13 years since 9/11, how many times has this happened?
What worries me, and correct me if I’m wrong/watch too much TV news, is why there is a growing international base of lunatics going to lovely places like Syria, Palestine, Irak, etc. to fight for these extremist groups? Is it the Internet? I mean, they’ve even caught Chinese guys, and I do not mean Uighur, AFAIK. They presented a smorgasbord of nationalities -including the ISIS Instagram account, full with hello Kitty and kittens -seriously. Whisky Tango Hotel?!
This goes some way to explaining it.
washingtonpost.com/postevery … e-of-them/
As long as the world continues to glorify soldiers and war, there’ll be people running off to find a war to join.
[quote=“cfimages”]It would take almost no planning and, due to the ridiculous lack of gun laws in the US, no difficulty for an Islamic terrorist to get an assault rifle and open fire in a crowded shopping mall. And then the next day, another terrorist doing the same thing in a McDonalds. And another the following day at a sporting event. And so on.
So the question is - if Islamic terrorism is such a threat to the US, in the 13 years since 9/11, how many times has this happened?[/quote]
Hard to tell, because the reporting of such things is tainted by political correctness. This sort of thing tends to be described as “workplace violence” or some such. All sorts of bad things happen that get underreported because they don’t happen in middel class white high schools, or because they happen so often in those areas they’ve become dog-bites-man. You have to pay close attention to see the coverage. Forget the morons on the TV news and just spend some time with Google. Always skip the top ten search listings to get the real story.
As for the big showy Boston bombing type stuff, the hard part is getting away with it. Homicidal maniacs are more common than suicidal ones.
This is a big problem in other countries as well. There’s a big scandal in the UK now about white slavery perpetrated by Pakistanis. They got away with it for years because the authorities were afraid of being called racist. And the Algerian neighborhoods on the outskirts of Paris have been a war zone for some time now – but it’s not permitted to mention the ethnicity. I also encounter rumors of problems in Sweden described as “youth rioting.” You know things are bad when even the euphemisms are scary.
It’s worth noting that the most violent cities in the US are those with the most stringent gun control. I don’t know which causes which, but it’s obvious that gun control isn’t fixing anything.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“cfimages”]It would take almost no planning and, due to the ridiculous lack of gun laws in the US, no difficulty for an Islamic terrorist to get an assault rifle and open fire in a crowded shopping mall. And then the next day, another terrorist doing the same thing in a McDonalds. And another the following day at a sporting event. And so on.
So the question is - if Islamic terrorism is such a threat to the US, in the 13 years since 9/11, how many times has this happened?[/quote]
Hard to tell, because the reporting of such things is tainted by political correctness. This sort of thing tends to be described as “workplace violence” or some such. All sorts of bad things happen that get underreported because they don’t happen in middel class white high schools, or because they happen so often in those areas they’ve become dog-bites-man. You have to pay close attention to see the coverage. Forget the morons on the TV news and just spend some time with Google. Always skip the top ten search listings to get the real story.
[/quote]
Yes of course. Because a Muslim massacring a bunch of random folk in the US with a gun wouldn’t make the news at all. How silly of me. 
AQ guys don’t even believe in jogging, let alone running.
[quote=“rowland”]http://www.CNN.com/2014/09/08/politics/cnn-poll-isis/
[quote]
The threat of terrorism has grown exponentially in recent years, according to those being polled. In September 2010, only 3% of Americans named terrorism as the most important problem facing the country. It has now increased to 14% and ranks right behind the economy, 30%, as the most important problem facing the nation.
“Americans are significantly less reluctant to use military force than they were a year ago, and the number who say that terrorism is the country’s most important problem has quadrupled, making it second only to the economy on the list of top problems in the public’s mind,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.
[/quote][/quote]
Okay- agreed the public is often stupid. Two months ago they would have said “Ebola-infected Central American children swarming across the border.”
My guess is it’s going to take two or three more generations before Americans realize that I.R.A.Q. really is a quagmire they’ll never escape from.
Sadly, no world leader has the moxie to drain the swamp.
Teddy Roosevelt was one for draining swamps. We could use a man like him again.
What a former quagmire looks like:
Sadly, no world leader has the moxie to drain the swamp.[/quote]
By drain the swamp I presume you mean what Israel just did in Gaza. I’m pretty sure there are plenty of neocon politicians who would be willing to drop as many barrel bombs as it took to bring the entire Middle East to its knees. The problem is the American people. They seem to have lost their stomach for being neocon cannon fodder and watching their leaders spending all their time and the people’s money fixing the Middle East while the U.S. economy is barely functioning.
Well, let them stop voting for this guy then.
Bushama?
Well, let them stop voting for this guy then.
[/quote]
I don’t think the American people expected to get President George Bush III when they voted for Barack Obama. I know the Novel Peace Prize Committee didn’t. I think they expected to get someone more along the lines of President Martin Luther Gandhi. By the time Mighty Military Mitt came along I think it was a case of in for a pence, in for a pound.
Which makes it all the stranger that conservatives hate him. He’s basically been a conservative president, especially in the second term. They should love him.
Democrats have got the US into many wars.
Conservatives dislike 0bama because of his disdain for the Constitution and founding principles of the nation and love of and trust in Big Government.
0bama has not been a conservative POTUS.
George Bush wasn’t a conservative POTUS either.
Is that a point of debate? Did I assert that Bush was a conservative?
Or, are you just stating the obvious?