• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

London attack

I'd like to hear someone articulate what should be done now policy-wise and what you believe should have been done from 2008-2016 that was not done.

Teach the poncy europeans a thing or two about Smith and Wesson

You don't hear about terrorist attacks in Texas or Alabama.
 
Not that I'm aware of, and Chamberlain also did not facilitate and encourage Nazis to come and settle in England.

sailor is too far gone at this point. He must want a full on holy war against Islam.
 


Stabbing unarmed women in the name of Allah. SMH.
 
so is the right wing nut jobs at a consensus that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorists in the making!?! Dylan Roof and the psycho in Portland are exceptions right?!
 
The right wings continue circling back to the "Islam is the problem" argument because they have absolutely no clue what to do about Islam besides bitch. Somehow "closed borders" isn't much of a solution for nations with millions of Muslim citizens.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
I think we can conclude sailor is a appeasing cuckservative who wouldn't bomb anybody.
 
Bombing Syria and Yemen isn't solving the problem (making it worse), invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't solve the problem (made it worse). I guess now the only option left is to anger and disenfranchise the western Muslim population by infringing upon their religious freedom and segregate them. That should surely prevent future terrorism.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
I'd like to hear someone articulate what should be done now policy-wise and what you believe should have been done from 2008-2016 that was not done.

I don't know what to do. As ConnorE noted, this is incredibly complicated. The root of all of this is garbage socioeconomic conditions in the Middle East and Africa for all but the richest people. The people are angry and are given the freedom, spiritually, to justify violence through an incidious variant of Islam. So ultimately addressing the socioeconomic conditions should, in theory, take away the anger. That is a decades long endeavor though and in the mean time the terrorism persists.
 
Bombing Syria and Yemen isn't solving the problem (making it worse), invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't solve the problem (made it worse). I guess now the only option left is to anger and disenfranchise the western Muslim population by infringing upon their religious freedom and segregate them. That should surely prevent future terrorism.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

It depends on your definition of the word "work". If you consider that terror attacks against US interests were escalating in the time up to 9/11 (having been largely ignored in the 1990's), and we've had nothing close to the scale of 9/11 in our homeland since, I'd say it has "worked" as effectively as can be reasonably be expected; it certainly worked more than ignoring the issue in the 1990's. There is no question that Al-Q's power has been thoroughly attrited.

We are not going to be able to bomb this population into the Enlightenment age. They are going to continue to trail the developed world by about one thousand years. We can manage the problem by attempting to isolate them, interdict their powers to strike us and economically punish their enablers, but what is wrong with the Islamic world is not within our power to solve. We can isolate it, manage it and when necessary, obliterate it.
 
The root of all of this is garbage socioeconomic conditions in the Middle East and Africa for all but the richest people.

I dont think this is true, based on much of the research that I've read about it. Many, if not most of the "terror cells" of western Europe are ignorant, self radicalized small groups of relatively young wealthy men. Their reasoning is usually a shallow combination of cheap religious conviction and political outrage over anti-Islamic foreign policy.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
It depends on your definition of the word "work". If you consider that terror attacks against US interests were escalating in the time up to 9/11 (having been largely ignored in the 1990's), and we've had nothing close to the scale of 9/11 in our homeland since, I'd say it has "worked" as effectively as can be reasonably be expected; it certainly worked more than ignoring the issue in the 1990's. There is no question that Al-Q's power has been thoroughly attrited.

We are not going to be able to bomb this population into the Enlightenment age. They are going to continue to trail the developed world by about one thousand years. We can manage the problem by attempting to isolate them, interdict their powers to strike us and economically punish their enablers, but what is wrong with the Islamic world is not within our power to solve. We can isolate it, manage it and when necessary, obliterate it.
You believe that our bombs and drones have prevented more 9/11 style attacks, which only required a few men with some flight school lessons and a box cutter?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
You believe that our bombs and drones have prevented more 9/11 style attacks, which only required a few men with some flight school lessons and a box cutter?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Our efforts to degrade the organization's leadership structure, resources and operational infrastructure have severely eroded their ability to bring the fight to our homeland. The fact that the mastermind of that attack sits in a jail cell in Cuba is far more effective at preventing attacks than pretending he wasn't a problem in Pakistan.
 
I dont think this is true, based on much of the research that I've read about it. Many, if not most of the "terror cells" of western Europe are ignorant, self radicalized small groups of relatively young wealthy men. Their reasoning is usually a shallow combination of cheap religious conviction and political outrage over anti-Islamic foreign policy.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

From the top opinion piece on the ultra liberal Guardian today https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/04/theresa-may-extremism-radicalisation

Furthermore, the Labour leader’s linkage of western foreign policy to terrorist acts is psychologically convenient but unsupported by the stated priorities of the jihadis themselves. In July 2016 Islamic State was unequivocal: “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”
 
Of course thats what the Islamic State says, what do you expect them to say? The official policy of ISIS has very little connection to the motivations of self rasicalized nutjobs, usually raised in secular society, who live 1000 miles from the nearest training facility.
 
Last edited:
I dont think this is true, based on much of the research that I've read about it. Many, if not most of the "terror cells" of western Europe are ignorant, self radicalized small groups of relatively young wealthy men. Their reasoning is usually a shallow combination of cheap religious conviction and political outrage over anti-Islamic foreign policy.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Ok, point conceded, most of my reading is from post 9/11 Thomas Friedman. He presented and defended the thesis that guys like Bin Laden attracted followers from economically marginalized walks of life. Having said that, your assertion places even more blame on Islam.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top