re: Acts of terrorism are becoming more brazen and more widespread.
I thought you were around in the late 70's early 80's? When there were bombs going off every couple of days in Paris cafes and the London underground. Somehow, the Europeans didn't panic. They didn't attack Iraq. They beefed up their defenses, did some solid police work, and the problem subsided.
re: Al Qaeda has spread there tentacles across the globe and is commited to bringing back the Islamic Caliphate, primarily through acts of terrorism.
How many total al Qaeda do you think there are in the world? Then, as a percentage of the total population?
If they are so pervasive, how come there have only been two terrorists attacks ever in the US, both by the same guy (who I pointed out earlier is still at large, thanks to Bush)? How come they haven't hit England, our partner in Iraq?
Sure, there are going to be terror attacks. Frankly I'm surprised there haven't been in this country since 9/11. But when you are terrorized, as you are, you are playing right into their hands. It's terror 101, perform an outrageous event and have all your enemies project it to their own lives. Why do you think they had the cameras rolling when they chopped off the heads in Iraq?
re: On the contrary, though, many of us have already grasped that we are already engaged in a very large and very long war against us. We have already grasped that the Muslim Jihadi movement is NOT fringe. It is mainstream and growing. Therefore, our reactions may seem overdone to you, but to those of us who grasp the scope of the threat, they seem not enough.
It is not mainstream, but it is growing in response to our insane Iraq policy. We invaded them, not the other way around.
If you didn't have this "threat", you would invent a new one. Human nature, at least some humans.
John |
