(There is nothing special about the words "radical Islam"!!! It is just "Islam.")
Posted on 07/04/2016 11:38:27 AM PDT by Hojczyk
We know what the recent terrorist attack in Orlando was not.
Forty-nine people were killed and fifty-three wounded not due to the violent outburst of a right-wing zealot. The shooter, Omar Mateen, was a second-generation Afghan-American, a registered Democrat, and a fierce critic of American politics and culture.
Nor were the killings caused by easy access to “assault weapons.” The vast majority of American terrorist casualties have not involved firearms. Box-cutters and planes, not rifles, led to the 9/11 attacks and some 3,000
deaths. The two Tsarnaev brothers used explosives to kill and maim during the Boston Marathon, a tactic that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab also tried in his attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight. The Oklahoma beheader and the UC Merced attacker Faisal Mohammad preferred knives to guns, as did the recent Paris terrorist who knifed to death a French law enforcement couple.
What then were the highways that led to Orlando?
The killer was a self-declared radical Islamist. Terrorists who are not directly dispatched from the Middle East (as were the 9/11 killers) are “lone wolves” who emerge from the shadows, channel Islamist extremism, and are almost impossible to preempt. But that is only a half truth.
In the twenty-first century, radical Islamists like Mateen can turn to technology to come into contact with fellow adherents, like members of ISIS, who can advise them on how to conduct killing sprees almost as easily as if they were trained in the Middle East. A more accurate term might be “dispersed wolves,” given that the Hasans, Tsarnaevs, Farooks, and Mateens of the world are hardly alone, but often are in daily contact with radical Islamic affiliates. Their extremism is by design shielded by the constitutional protections of American and European residence and citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at hoover.org ...
More
The United States, they have come to believe, has a soft spot for revolutionary societies over stable and traditional allies. And the other message they have gotten is that America does not really belong in the Middle East, where, prior to Obama, it supposedly played a neo-imperialist and counter-productive role. No administration official seems to grasp that destroying ISIS in the Middle East tarnishes the romantic appeal of radical Islam to Western wannabe Islamic terrorists.
There will be more ISIS-inspired attacks. The terrorists will likely conclude that the last six months of the Obama administration offer them opportunities not seen in the past and perhaps not likely to reoccur in either a Clinton or Trump administration. More disturbing, radical Islamists have studied the reactions of Westerners to particular strains of their terror. Targeting sports events, rock concerts or gay nightclubs, especially with firearms, might ensure that Western internecine blame-gaming, rather than a unified and unequivocal outrage against Islamic radicalism, is the most likely reaction. Meanwhile, conservative opponents of Obama’s efforts to radically restrict the use of firearms or to airbrush away Islamism as the chief terrorist catalyst inspire more presidential furor than do the ISIS perpetrators—a fault line known to our enemies and likely to encourage further radical Islamic aggression.
We are seeing the second wind, not the decline, of ISIS terror.
Omar Mateen purchased his weapons legally—although one gun shop owner refused to sell him firearms and body armor, and contacted authorities afterward, but they did not follow up.The highlighted sections above are contradictory, if Dr. Hanson will excuse me for saying so.Terrorists who are not directly dispatched from the Middle East (as were the 9/11 killers) are “lone wolves” who emerge from the shadows, channel Islamist extremism, and are almost impossible to preempt. But that is only a half truth.
And the reason they are contradictory in this case is simple: it is not in the interest of the elites who run our nation for firearms-murderers to be preempted. Let anyone think I am exaggerating, I need only remind that person of the details of Operation Fast and Furious, in which very dangerous military-grade weapons were allowed to be exported to Mexico by members of the Obola administration, in - I am certain - a direct attempt to further the wishes and desires of President Obola himself.
My thesis is not only not far-fetched, it is completely obvious, and has been admitted to - implicitly, anyway - by the disgusting Obola administration itself.
And nothing has been done about this.
Obola took an oath to "preserve and protect" the our Constitution, which oath he has demonstrated over and over again might have well been made of used toilet paper.
Which is literally true, since it was made with one hand on the Koran, if the rumors be true.
Orlando reinforced the uncomfortable fact that “fighting them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here” is just another neocon fallacy.
“Orlando reinforced the uncomfortable fact that “fighting them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here” is just another neocon fallacy.”
Are you claiming “we are fighting them over there” under Obama?
(There is nothing special about the words "radical Islam"!!! It is just "Islam.")
In defense of the FBI, the gun shop owner who notified them said he had almost no solid evidence to hand over.
“Abell says the young man left empty-handed and that the shop alerted the FBI, but since no sale was made, the shop did not check the man’s ID and had no name to give authorities.”
“...and the only surveillance footage they had was grainy.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-turned-gun-store-suspicious/story?id=39901107
Bump for later
No. I’m saying that fighting them over there accomplished nothing positive.
Read this book:
Apparently this logic is lost on so many "lawmakers," including traitors like Paul Ryan. Oh wait! That's his job apparently.
The “radical” term is a diversion. All muslims are “triumphalist” or “supremacist”, and that universal attitude is what fuels the so-called radicals.
Nailed it! An important read for everyone!!!
I agree, and it bothers me to see writers not facing up to the fact these Muslims who want us killed are following the basics of Islam as Muhammad's examples show.
Our problem is fundamental Islamists, and not "radicals" or "extremists", and using those words just diverts the problem from Islam itself. -Tom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.