I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we, the liberal West, will always be a target of radical Islam. No matter what we do....we will have that threat, I am certain, for a very long time. So here's the deal now.....
American airstrikes in Syria overnight halted the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S. homeland from organized groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, but raised the specter of angry lone-wolf sympathizers carrying out an attack on their own, federal authorities said today.
The American airborne offensive could potentially embolden self-radicalized terrorists to strike inside the homeland, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI say in a joint bulletin issued to local, state and federal law enforcement late today.
That is from ABCNews.
Damn it. Just when you thought that removing the cancer of those terrorist, we now have to worry about these guys. So, did we do the right thing? Piss off lone wolves? I think we did. There is probably a saying somewhere that says something about losing a few to save thousands?
There is nothing new about the United States being a target for terrorists. We have always been a target, and no matter what position we take (unless we begin to practice radical islamic practices) we always will be a target. Air strikes against ISIS were absolutely necessary to halt the ongoing murdering of innocent people. Yes, this does make us vulnerable to an attack, but does it make us any more vulnerable than pre- air strikes? The answer is absolutely not. ISIS undoubtedly were already planning an attack against the United States. We have just made them speed up the process. When you work quickly, you tend to make more mistakes; and if ISIS makes more mistakes planning an attack, we are more likely to catch them BEFORE they are successful. If we had of allowed ISIS to flourish and become more organized and financially well-off, we would be looking at an attack that was much more planned out, more deadly, and altogether a replay of the events of 11 September. We have interrupted their organization, caused them to move into a panic mode, which is good for us. We want them to panic, we want them to make critical mistakes. We have pissed off radical Islamist followers many times over; this is not the first time, nor the last. Post-9/11 intelligence is incredibly more sophisticated in terms of locating a threat, and acting prior to an attack. We are better prepared than we were before 9/11. It seems many people have already forgotten about the Libyan campaign of 2011 when the US and allies bombed the Gaddafi regime. These airstrikes received significantly less media coverage, though equally as important. Hence, the media has entirely overreacted and placed seeds of fear into American's heads. No one was overly worried in 2011, so why is everyone now so worried about Syrian air strikes? The media has managed to scare the entire public into the belief that we could be facing another terrorist attack on American soil; which is always possible, but not to the magnitude in which it is reported. We will always face terrorist threats, regardless of our response. As of now, my only focus is to stop the murdering of innocent people, stop ISIS from expanding, and to maintain fear of the United States from terrorist organizations. If we had done nothing, we would have faced consequences entirely worse than the consequences we face now.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. This was simply an argument to say something has been able to move the approval rating for the president. I did say that we did the right thing in my ending. To be honest, we should nuke them...as I mentioned to somebody else its just sand over there.
DeleteI think that wether the United States had decided to go ahead with air strikes in Syria or not, there still would have been consequences. If we had chosen not to the extremists would have been able to look at that as a sign of weakness. By going ahead with the air strikes, yes, "lone wolf" sympathizers do become a larger risk but they are no larger of a risk as they were before the air strikes.
ReplyDeleteYour final comment is "There is probably a saying somewhere that says something about losing a few to save thousands?" When it comes to these extremists, it doesn't matter. These "people" do not care about the lives of women and children. They are willing to use whatever and whoever that they need to. The only way to defeat a "cancer" like this is through brute military force.
Matt, you are correct about brute military force. I also said that I believed we have done the right thing. The comment of losing some to save thousands was directed to Americans. I hate to see American life lost but if these lone wolves did attack us...then we would lose the few as the world attacks ISIS and they will lose thousands. I say nuke to mofo's its just sand over there anyways
DeleteJason, you make some interesting points in regards to the president's approval rating and how the U.S. handles terrorism. Thinking about it, people generally feel more protecting from the government in times of war than any other time, so it seems, and this is why I think that the President's approval rating tends to rise rather than fall. No matter what the U.S. does I think that they will always be a threat to terrorism and basically it is due to differences in cultural values. In one of my classes we talked about how western globalization is one of the causes for societies disliking the U.S. because it seems like the U.S. is trying to force their culture on everyone else. This seems only like part of the problem though. What do you think? Why do you think that the U.S. is a threat to terrorism?
ReplyDelete