Fatalities & many injured after two explosions in Manchester Arena at the end of Ariana Grande show

[Il Duce]

It's sad a global liberal,left wing, pc, whatever you want to call it, ideology assists or allows pure evil to continue to take innocent lives. My deepest condolences to those impacted. My deepest disappointment in those that aid or allow these types of events to continue to happen by way of politics.

So, liberals and 'pc culture' is what allows terrorism to thrive? I get that plays well at a Trump rally but that's total bullshit. Take a look at conservative, repressive regimes the world over - zero terrorism you say, not by a long shot.

I'll be interested to see now that conservatives have their way and leaders shout 'Islamic Terrorism' and 'we're at war with you - you Muslims suck' if terrorism will dry up. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict nope.

 

[Topkick]

So, liberals and 'pc culture' is what allows terrorism to thrive?

Exclusive: 'Dozens' of Terrorists May Be in US as Refugees

And its not from FOX news!

 

[Ooh-Rah]

And its not from FOX news!

But it is from November 2013.

I only checked the dateline because after the past few years, that particular headline did not exactly surprise me.

 

[Topkick]

But it is from November 2013.

That's the point, in 2013 we had a liberal, PC administration allowing these people into the country. I'll go out on a limb here and say some are still in the country and considering future acts.

 

[Grunt]

I blame it on blanket "tolerance" more than on any one group of so-called liberals or PC lovers. Tolerance has become the all-encompassing "let everyone do what they want because I don't want to hurt their feelings" mantra.

No...not everyone gets to do what they want! People need to get that!

 

[Il Duce]

Exclusive: 'Dozens' of Terrorists May Be in US as Refugees

And its not from FOX news!

So, four years ago 'terrorists' may have slipped through our immigration vetting system. No attacks from them so far - though plenty of terrorist attacks in the US since then - but, apparently liberalism and 'PC culture' is what allows people to immigrate to the US, or maybe just forces investigators to do their jobs poorly? Certainly conservatives rail against immigration constantly but I'm not aware immigration has stopped under the Trump administration - or that investigations are somehow magically more effective? Let's say the Muslim ban had actually been constitutional and made it through the courts - or does so in the future - does that eliminate the danger of terrorists slipping through, non-terrorists shifting their views to become terrorists, or citizens becoming home-grown terrorists?

People will disagree on policy. Maybe the conservative position on a host of issues - immigration, religious tolerance, military intervention, diplomacy, policing, etc. - is the better policy for fighting terrorism or a variety of other things. But, the idea those that don't agree with a specific set of policy prescriptions or worldview somehow love terrorists and abet their operations needs a shit-ton more proof in my book - and that goes across the spectrum.

 

[TLDR20]

Man fuck these pieces of shit.

Attacking people trying to enjoy their lives in the freedom they have in their own goddamn country. Fucking savages.

I'm going to go to a show tomorrow night and enjoy the fuck out of it just to spite these lunatics.

Attacks like these remind how great it is to live in a free society. That these attacks bring us together, and bring out the best in us is a reminder of how great civilized nations and people are.

Kudos to the first responders.

RIP to the fallen.

 

[Topkick]

But, the idea those that don't agree with a specific set of policy prescriptions or worldview somehow love terrorists

I didn't accuse anyone of that!

 

[ThunderHorse]

So, four years ago 'terrorists' may have slipped through our immigration vetting system. No attacks from them so far - though plenty of terrorist attacks in the US since then - but, apparently liberalism and 'PC culture' is what allows people to immigrate to the US, or maybe just forces investigators to do their jobs poorly? Certainly conservatives rail against immigration constantly but I'm not aware immigration has stopped under the Trump administration - or that investigations are somehow magically more effective? Let's say the Muslim ban had actually been constitutional and made it through the courts - or does so in the future - does that eliminate the danger of terrorists slipping through, non-terrorists shifting their views to become terrorists, or citizens becoming home-grown terrorists?

Uh...San Bernardino.

 

[DocIllinois]

More greatest hits from religion, in this case the Religion of Peace.

Such a shame, RIP.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

That's the point, in 2013 we had a liberal, PC administration allowing these people into the country. I'll go out on a limb here and say some are still in the country and considering future acts.

Got it. With just the link and no context I was under the impression you thought that was a recent story.

That said, I am not prepared to blame the Obama administration for potential terrorists coming into the country. If we did that, then wouldn't we have to extend that thinking out to the Bush administration and blame him for 9/11 happening on his watch?

Other than 9/11, both the Bush and Obama administration have done a damn good job of preventing terror on our shores. The fact that I can sit at an outdoor Starbucks all day, and generally not worry that someone is going to come in and drop a bomb on top of me is a comforting feeling. Not many places throughout the world still have that luxury.

I cannot be convinced that if "they" were here, we would have significantly more acts of terror within the US than we have now.

 

[Topkick]

That said, I am not prepared to blame the Obama administration for potential terrorists coming into the country. If we did that, then wouldn't we have to extend that thinking out to the Bush administration and blame him for 9/11 happening on his watch?

I am not sure that's completely relative. Prior to 9/11, most were probably not as rigid in our beliefs in regards to immigration. We didn't expect 9/11, so it was not as big an issue before then. However, under Obama, we were well aware of the consequences of not properly vetting people.

 

[TLDR20]

I am not sure that's completely relative. Prior to 9/11, most were probably not as rigid in our beliefs in regards to immigration. We didn't expect 9/11, so it was not as big an issue before then. However, under Obama, we were well aware of the consequences of not properly vetting people.

People are afraid of the last thing. Before 9/11 it was white supremacist bombings(from OKC), and the original WTC. Terrorism was mostly relegated to our interests overseas.

To be honest I don't have any fear of a terrorist attack. I worry much more on the daily that one of my nephews will be shot at his school by some bullied nerd, or I will be shot in the hospital I work in by some disgruntled family member or former employee. Statistically that is still a small chance but a much more likely one.

 

[Topkick]

To be honest I don't have any fear of a terrorist attack

At this point, the chance of you or I experiencing a terrorist attack on US soil is probably very slim. However, its the growing ideology and the immigration combined that concerns me.

 

[Il Duce]

I didn't accuse anyone of that!

If you think immigration and a philosophy of tolerance contribute to terrorism ok, I don't think that by and large (I think immigration is significantly more complicated in it's relationship to terror than just liberal/conservative policies). I take issue with the blanket idea liberals or 'PC culture' bears responsibility - I think that's a fucked up thing to put on people. I think the same thing in saying someone who believes in pro-2nd amendment causes is responsible for school shootings or 'blue lives matter' folks are responsible for minority children murdered/wrongfully shot by law enforcement.

Policy disagreements are very easy to bleed over into condemnations of individual or collective values - and I think that's wrong and dangerous. @Agoge clarified his statement, and though I don't agree with the view, I accept it's a valid opinion.

 

[Topkick]

If you think immigration and a philosophy of tolerance contribute to terrorism ok, I don't think that by and large (I think immigration is significantly more complicated in it's relationship to terror than just liberal/conservative policies). I take issue with the blanket idea liberals or 'PC culture' bears responsibility - I think that's a fucked up thing to put on people. I think the same thing in saying someone who believes in pro-2nd amendment causes is responsible for school shootings or 'blue lives matter' folks are responsible for minority children murdered/wrongfully shot by law enforcement.

Policy disagreements are very easy to bleed over into condemnations of individual or collective values - and I think that's wrong and dangerous. @Agoge clarified his statement, and though I don't agree with the view, I accept it's a valid opinion.

Agreed. But when a President is hampered in his efforts to conduct better vetting and the extraction of illegal immigrants by liberal, PC policy in regards to immigration, then is it not contributing to the problem? This IS a policy disagreement. If one didn't feel that this is part of the problem, wed having nothing to discuss here. This IS NOT calling anyone a Terrorist lover.

 

[Il Duce]

Agreed. But when a President is hampered in his efforts to conduct better vetting and the extraction of illegal immigrants by liberal, PC policy in regards to immigration, then is it not contributing to the problem? This IS a policy disagreement. If one didn't feel that this is part of the problem, wed having nothing to discuss here. This IS NOT calling anyone a Terrorist lover.

Fair enough. Although, I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of all the opposition to the President's immigration policies. The courts are ruling on constitutional questions regarding the policies/executive orders - and so far have found them deficient. Also, I think 'liberal' is a decent description of group(s) of views - I'm not sure 'PC culture' meets a defined enough definition to be a useful descriptor. It seems to me a lot like who a 'snowflake' is that can't take criticism and wants ideas pre-vetted for them - your definition of who fits the criteria depends an awful lot on where you're standing.

 

[Gunz]

Terrorism isn't anybody's fault but the terrorists. There's nobody to blame but them and their fucking twisted interpretation of their religion. That's it. And they're going to strike no matter what party is in power.

You can tweak immigration laws, you can pass a few acts that restrict some personal freedoms, but there's a limit to what you can do in a constitutional republic. Regardless, they're going to find a way to hit you. That's what they do. Tactical innovation. You come up with an idea to stop them and they come up with an idea to counter it.

 

[Topkick]

Agree that terrorists are 100 % to blame and they will find a way. But that doesn't mean we open the borders and let them in without making the effort to minimize the damage. This is where the policy disagreement lies.

 

[Il Duce]

Terrorism isn't anybody's fault but the terrorists. There's nobody to blame but them and their fucking twisted interpretation of their religion. That's it. And they're going to strike no matter what party is in power.

You can tweak immigration laws, you can pass a few acts that restrict some personal freedoms, but there's a limit to what you can do in a constitutional republic. Regardless, they're going to find a way to hit you. That's what they do. Tactical innovation. You come up with an idea to stop them and they come up with an idea to counter it.

I think that also gets at part of the tactical disagreement - even beyond policy prescriptions. Whenever you harden facilities or take defensive action you're pushing a determined enemy towards softer targets - not making them pack up and go home. It was something we've experienced in both wars. A lot of times our increased posture and defensive skills pushed the enemy to new tactics or softer targets (like HN forces). It doesn't mean don't harden targets and take defensive action - it just means you'll always be ceding the initiative to the enemy in those circumstances.

It's mirrored in my own experience in the intelligence enterprise. I've often thought it's a better tactic on the intelligence side to collect on and map a target network in greater detail - so when you strike you can do so to cripple it for a longer time, or decrease capability permanently. But, that means taking the risk of allowing the network or target to operate for some time before you're ready to strike - which can mean casualties that could have been prevented. My experience has been commanders will not take that risk by and large - and I see where they're coming from.

When I was in the intelligence basic course in 2000 one of the instructors was a British Army MAJ who had been a SGM in intelligence before commissioning. He spent the majority of his career running HUMINT and what we would call CI sources in Northern Ireland. Amazing stories from that guy but one of the things he did say was the Army policy then was they would not allow one Soldier to die if they could prevent it. He had much of the IRA penetrated in his sector but they could never get after the top targets because they had to burn sources (pull them out) for every planned attack on a British outpost. But, in fairness, he did say the civilian intelligence agencies didn't necessarily have the same ROE.