So you're telling me the Islamic State still exists???

[liminal_luke]

28 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

 Why should we continue to let people downplay a front for terrorism, which permits them to continue operating in our countries?

 

I know your intentions are good, Aetherous, but I think sometimes the good fight can change us in ways we don`t expect and wouldn`t of wanted. Part of the beauty of America is that everybody is allowed to be an idiot -- even me.  I hope that never changes.

[Aetherous]

5 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I know your intentions are good, Aetherous, but I think sometimes the good fight can change us in ways we don`t expect and wouldn`t of wanted. Part of the beauty of America is that everybody is allowed to be an idiot -- even me.  I hope that never changes.

2

 

Nietzsche's quote is a good one...but no, we are not free to be idiots in the United States. There are consequences to be paid for some idiotic things, legal or otherwise.

One non-legal consequence to being an idiot in regard to the discussion at hand is that innocents are slaughtered. Like I said in the opening post, that blood is partially on the hands of everyone who continues to downplay the problem.

Downplaying is why the perpetrator was allowed back into the country from Libya/Syria (I think that's where he went), without surveillance...it's why his father was permitted to enter the country as a refugee, despite being a member of a terrorist organization. Downplaying is why no one reported the perpetrator flying the Islamic State flag from his window days before the attack.

Downplaying is enabling these events to occur.

We are currently free to do it in the US, because we have the First Amendment. So, the consequences aren't legal...but they are still there. Civilized society still pays for this negligence...with lives.

Free to be idiots.

[Marblehead]

There are now nine people detained by the police in this investigation.  This was an open attempt to destroy the government of the UK.  Yes, the government that has been closing its eyes to the dangers of their pathetic policies.

 

[Apech]

30 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

There are now nine people detained by the police in this investigation.  This was an open attempt to destroy the government of the UK.  Yes, the government that has been closing its eyes to the dangers of their pathetic policies.

 

 

It's eight - they released one person.  The Uk Gov. is Conservative anti-immigration and pro-Brexit - which policies are pathetic?  Why would bombing a pop concert bring down a government?  

 

The bombing was more of an attack on our culture and values than on the government.  In fact it is more likely to strengthen support for the Conservatives in the forthcoming general election.

[Marblehead]

And be aware Americans, there are many in our government who want the same thing happening here in the USA.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

It's eight - they released one person.  The Uk Gov. is Conservative anti-immigration and pro-Brexit - which policies are pathetic?  Why would bombing a pop concert bring down a government?  

 

The bombing was more of an attack on our culture and values than on the government.  In fact it is more likely to strengthen support for the Conservatives in the forthcoming general election.

The pathetic policy of allowing people from areas known for growing terrorists without any background investigation.  Yes, the tide is turning now but much damage has already been done.  Who knows how many sleeper terrorists are even today planning more attacks?

 

The release of the one hadn't made the US news yet this morning when I looked.

 

But I suggest that the French are ever worse than the UK in regard to the terrorists because they have knowledge such that it never should have become a policy of allowing terrorists into their country.

 

Destroy the culture and you destroy the government.  Then religion can take control.

 

[Brian]

Two things happening in parallel, I think -- one is destruction of culture and the other is destruction of order.  Not all involved recognize what is happening (in fact, I would say only a tiny minority are conscious of either effort) but it isn't accidental and the efforts reinforce each other.  The objective is to replace one structure with another via chaos and suffering (although I suspect most of that tiny minority mistakenly believe the developing humanitarian crisis is merely a side-effect...)

[Marblehead]

10 minutes ago, Brian said:

Two things happening in parallel, I think ...

Yes, we could go through the history books and see the same thing over and over again as various empire fell.

 

But thankfully there will always be resistance.  Resistance doesn't always win but it slows the process toward chaos.  It gives those who care a chance to take action to prevent the chaos.  But for most the cost is too great so they do nothing.

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

The pathetic policy of allowing people from areas known for growing terrorists without any background investigation.  Yes, the tide is turning now but much damage has already been done.  Who knows how many sleeper terrorists are even today planning more attacks?

 

The release of the one hadn't made the US news yet this morning when I looked.

 

But I suggest that the French are ever worse than the UK in regard to the terrorists because they have knowledge such that it never should have become a policy of allowing terrorists into their country.

 

Destroy the culture and you destroy the government.  Then religion can take control.

 

 

 

Yes, I think as I said before the major shock of this for many including me, is that a family to which we gave shelter could respond in this way.  It's a very, very harsh lesson.  I guess we should go back to the rule that asylum seekers go to the nearest safe haven - and stay there until its ok to return.  Kindness does not get repaid with kindness.

 

UK was never part of Shengen agreement so free travel without checks did not exist for the UK within Europe.  However there was no ability to refuse entry to someone who was a EU citizen.

[windwalker]

If one studies the historical context of this ideology it should be expected as to what is happening now.  Individuals may be good,  the ideology itself only allows for one outcome.

 

What should have happened was that safe spaces in the regions that the refugees come from should have been created.  The expectations that one can import Mass numbers of people from War torn areas still ongoing was very much mistaken.

 

Some of these countries the population density of the imported refugees has already reached a Tipping Point.  They have changed the foundations of their culture.  It's not being reported most of these countries will no longer continue as they have in the past.

Edited May 26, 2017 by windwalker

[Brian]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/26/egypt-gunmen-attack-coptic-christians/102183116

[Apech]

Just to reflect on some things I'm learning from the Manchester bombing.

 

The whole 'We love Manchester', #westandtogether, carry on as normal because they are attacking our way of life, we are not afraid and so on - is planned.  It comes directly from the emergency plan and is propaganda released on purpose to supply a narrative for people to hang on to in the face of a disaster like this.  I'm not saying this is wrong - but it is interesting how controlled everything is.  Obviously peoples grief is real - but the Govt. is consciously manipulating our responses for the purposes of avoiding emotion and fear ruling the day.  The downside is - well if they are going to blow up young children then maybe we should be afraid!  Its quite natural and sensible to have fear - in fact it is built in from evolution and part of survival.  There was an article in Guardian by a woman who writes these plans and is beginning to think they are a mistake.

 

The Labour party (Left wing) is saying the 'war on terror' has failed and that our approach to the Middle East is provoking terrorism rather than preventing it.  This is predictable from a lefty I guess - and may back fire - especially as most of our activity there is in response to barbaric acts either by dictators or the various Islamic Groups.  So the argument doesn't stand up except in the sense that it is true that whatever we have done so far hasn't worked - and there is now a strong argument for doing nothing except defend ourselves (which is the primary responsibility of our governments after all).

[cold]

I was a market "master" at a local farmers market when the twin towers were struck on 911. My father came to the farm as I was harvesting / preparing for market that day. He came to alert me of the tragedies. I decided to go to market as a protest to terrorism. Only two other farmers came to market on a normal day we would have eight farmers two bakers. One farmer from southern Maryland normally drove through Fort Meade, (home to NSA) with no issues. That day she was stopped and the entire contents of here van were unloaded and examined by bomb /drug sniffing dogs, after a three hour delay she joined me and another local farmer at the market.

 

There was more than a few tears shed and hugs exchanged between the farmers and their customers.

One of the farmers wanted my "permission" to leave the market early and return topo their family.

The fear that day was palpable.

"Do what you feel is best." was my reply to the request to leave early.

"Do what you feel is best" remains my policy ...

 

Shock, anger, fear, grief.

I felt / experienced them all that day.

And have in the days before and since to some degree...

 

"Love the only house big enough for all of the pain in the world..," is something that offers me some consolation in times like this.

 

[Brian]

Fear is both an appropriate and rational response to a horrific attack, and it is appropriate for it to morph into rational anger and caution. Studying history and the beliefs/mindset of the assailants, implementing reasonable preventative measures, educating the populace, developing a strategy to lessen the likelihood and/or severity of future attacks -- these are all rational responses, both at the individual and governmental levels.

 

Tolerance and forgiveness of those who seek to do harm is an option at the individual level but it is dereliction of duty for a guardian, regardless of whether that person is a parent or a politician.

 

 

[Aetherous]

Instead of calling it "fear" or "anger" I prefer to call it "responsibility"...and taking responsibility for protecting the lives of others is an act of love.

[Brian]

Just now, Aetherous said:

Instead of calling it "fear" or "anger" I prefer to call it "responsibility"...and taking responsibility for protecting the lives of others is an act of love.

Fear and anger are feelings -- involuntary emotional responses to a stimulus.  Responsibility is an attitude and an action -- a voluntary behavioral choice.

 

I see a poisonous snake while I am walking in the deep woods with a friend.  I choose to step back and allow it to go on its way.

 

I see a poisonous snake in a playground filled with children.  I choose to shout "SNAKE!" in order to alert those around me and then I might choose to kill it or catch it or whatever secondary action seems appropriate.

 

My behavior should be largely disconnected from my emotional state (it isn't always, and I've noticed that for most people it rarely is).

 

Those operating from a political motivation seem inclined to take advantage of emotion -- as Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

[liminal_luke]

12 minutes ago, Brian said:

Fear and anger are feelings -- involuntary emotional responses to a stimulus.  Responsibility is an attitude and an action -- a voluntary behavioral choice.

 

 

 

My behavior should be largely disconnected from my emotional state (it isn't always, and I've noticed that for most people it rarely is).

 

 

Agreed.  And I`d add that it`s unacknowledged feeling that largely keeps people from being able to take rational action.  It`s crucial that we acknowledge and express our sadness, our grief, our rage.  Most of us will feel those things; it`s only human to do so.  But we don`t want to act out of a rageful trance.  If we give ourselves space to deal with whatever feelings come up, the emotional storm will pass, our tears will dry, and we`ll do the right thing -- whatever that may be.

Edited May 26, 2017 by liminal_luke

[cold]

One size doesn't fit all as Brian so fittingly points out above.

There are no easy answers either, wouldn't it be great if there were?

In my limited experience too often violence begets more violence.

 

I have often been told a snake is a farmers friend, yet I have not had an encounter with a snake, and I have had many, when my initial reaction wasn't visceral. It has taken takes great effort to not react with violence when I encounter a snake or snakes.

 

"Thought before action, whenever possible." 

Dick Francis Jockey and Author

[Aetherous]

19 minutes ago, Brian said:

Fear and anger are feelings -- involuntary emotional responses to a stimulus.  Responsibility is an attitude and an action -- a voluntary behavioral choice.

 

 

Yes...I think those who intentionally call it "fear" or "anger" are projecting. In reality, the people who see the problem of terrorism are not operating from unconscious and involuntary drives. They're operating consciously and voluntarily...out of responsibility.

[liminal_luke]

6 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Yes...I think those who intentionally call it "fear" or "anger" are projecting. In reality, the people who see the problem of terrorism are not operating from unconscious and involuntary drives. They're operating consciously and voluntarily...out of responsibility.

 

The people who call what fear and anger?

 

People respond in all sorts of ways to terrorist attacks.  Some respond in conscious ways and others respond in ways that are distorted by unacknowledged emotion.  Note that I`m not saying that people who "see the problem of terrorism" necessarily belong in the later camp.

[cold]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

 

Yes...I think those who intentionally call it "fear" or "anger" are projecting. In reality, the people who see the problem of terrorism are not operating from unconscious and involuntary drives. They're operating consciously and voluntarily...out of responsibility.

 

So there is something wrong being angry with or in fear of terrorism?

Who doesn't see terrorism as a problem?

 

Terror is where one finds it...

The babe in the woods has no experience or fear with / from the viper... and would probably operate consciously voluntarily out of ignorance.

 

And could suffer for their ignorance.

Instincts or "projections" serve man and beast alike.

As humans we have the responsibility to act consciously and voluntarily in the interest of the greater good.

 

Act like we see the big picture...

[Aetherous]

6 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

The people who call what fear and anger?

 

 

Responding to a terrorist attack with calls for increased security and counter-terrorism.

[Aetherous]

6 minutes ago, cold said:

So there is something wrong being angry with or in fear of terrorism?

 

 

Nope...there's something wrong with projecting those emotions onto the people who respond responsibly, in an attempt to make their position seem weak.

[Aetherous]

8 minutes ago, cold said:

Who doesn't see terrorism as a problem?

 

 

The left.

[cold]

Our solution to problems is influenced by our bias and world view.

Acknowledging our prejudice and opening our eyes and ears are the first step to a sustainable solution.

 

Counter terrorism with terrorism?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Continuing with the same behavior and expecting different results is insanity.