RE: Trump's ban on Muslims
February 2, 2017 at 10:35 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2017 at 10:39 am by henryp.)
(February 2, 2017 at 9:30 am)abaris Wrote:(February 2, 2017 at 6:02 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: I think ISIS should be more fearful of us than we should be of them.
Here's the thing though. Destroying what they call their state doesn't make them any less dangerous. It doesn't take a state to launch a terrorist attack.
I can't believe people still think in military terms when it comes to terror. A conventional army ain't worth shit when it comes to terror. And by the way, if they really want to smuggle someone into the states, they won't do it on passports or visas from any of the incriminated states.
I think 17 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from the good friend Saudi Arabia. A country that's still totally exempt, but the cradle of the violent interpretation of Islam ISIL adhers to. Speaking of the most dangerous countries. Iran on the other hand is Shia. There hasn't been a single shiite attack on the West. On the contrary, they're fighting ISIL.
There's often a lot of planning that goes into some of the major attacks. Planning, money, documentation, networking, etc... Al Qaeda was just like any business organization, where some guy gets the idea. He talks to middle management, who brings it to upper management. Then they get together in the conference cave at headquarters in Afghanistan, etc...
There will always be the risk of some dope with a gun. But that's not the real threat, I don't think . The real threat is a large scale attack that kills thousands or millions. And constantly attacking their 'state' is a good way to try and keep them from getting organized enough to plan something like that.
(February 2, 2017 at 10:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's stochastic. We don't know (yet) who will be radicalized by a particular event. We can only reasonably conclude that some people on the margin of being radicalized will be tipped over the edge. Like economics, all the action is on the margin: our actions most affect those already primed for radicalization, whether to tip them over to radicalizing or to bring them back from the brink.
If the margin is that thin, barring people from that region probably isn't that awful an idea.
It isn't about 'US is good' to 'US is bad.' It's 'US is bad' to 'We should catch some journalists and saw their heads off on the internet.'
Maybe I just have more faith in the general muslim than I should.
