First, a few thoughts about the nature of villains. Some say ISIS is unlike any enemy we've faced or seen, but that's not the case. Yes, their methods of death and destruction might seem to be 'worse' than enemies in the past, but that's mostly because we live in a world in which we're technologically connected like never before. Social media gives this enemy a platform for communicating directly to all who have Internet access. They use it to recruit. They use it to network and coordinate attacks. They use it to terrorize the world. They are masters of manipulation and horrific theater. They goad us. They let us see inside their twisted minds and methods. They strive to make us live in fear that we could be the next to die. Effective. Yes, ISIS is a villain.
The accounts of civilians -- children, women, aid workers, journalists -- beheaded or killed in other shocking, almost unimaginable ways, elevates this enemy to a level which is new to most of us, except for those who have seen combat or for anyone who pays attention to history. The number of those killed by ISIS fighters is hard to calculate, but most estimates place the count in the tens of thousands rather than the tens of millions murdered by Stalin, Mao or various factions and despots in Africa (just in the past century) or the millions killed by Hitler, Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge, the Kims of Korea and others. Not to diminish in any way any pain or suffering, but ISIS is a relatively small-time villain by comparison.
Does ISIS target civilians more than past large-scale murderous regimes? No. Civilians are always the target of cowards and lunatics. (It's estimated of the approximate 250,000 deaths in the nearly five years since Syria's civil war began, ISIS is responsible for less than 5 percent. A ruthless dictator in Syria has been responsible for far more deaths than ISIS.) Are their methods more brutal? No, not really. I don't suggest anyone investigate the means of death inflicted by past or present criminal regimes, but beheading is humane in comparison to many ways people are murdered by madmen.
And something which seems to matter most to many in the US: Are they killing Christians on a mass scale? No, not in relative terms. And furthermore, Muslims of other sects have been the biggest target for ISIS. It is to their 'marketing advantage' (and they are masters at marketing) to publicize the killing of non-Muslims and de-emphasize the murder of other Muslims. Yes, the Islamic State is motivated by religious (and political) beliefs, based on their interpretation of the Quran. But all of us who follow religious teachings, approach our respective beliefs with our own interpretations of sacred texts. Apparently ISIS would like to 'rule the world,' (although there is simply no way that is close to happening), but even more important to those who are part of it, is their desire to bring about the End Times. Seeing the world come to an end is more important to them than running it. Oddly enough, they believe they are ushering in the return of Jesus who will defeat the armies of Rome. (ISIS publishes a slick magazine, "Dabiq," which outlines their way of thinking.)
North Korea continues to top the list of countries -- as it has for many years -- where Christianity is persecuted the most and China is no winner in that category, either. (Note: This persecution has nothing to do with Islam.) It is acceptable for us to label North Korea's Kim Jong-un as a villain because he apparently has nothing the US needs or wants. And because North Korea has nothing we want, we also generally ignore them because they aren't killing Westerners. China persecutes and imprisons Christians on a regular basis, enforces state-sponsored abortions (360 to 400 million in the past three decades) and yet we would never dare name that country a villain because, among other reasons, we love buying their cheap crap, especially during the Christmas season. So, we also ignore their atrocities, but for different reasons.
THE NEED FOR VILLAINS
Think of the need for villains. I hadn't considered this until several years ago -- because it's one more thing kids aren't taught in history classes -- when I realized my dad's grandparents were 100 percent American citizens, with 100 percent German ancestry and my father mentioned that they spoke German. Yet he knew not a single word of it and retained no German traditions. Why? I finally figured it out. My dad was born in 1918 as WWI was winding down, but anti-German hysteria in the US -- the flames of which had been vigorously fanned by President Woodrow Wilson -- was still in full swing. (Wilson gets my vote for Worst President Ever, by the way, for a variety of reasons.)
In the 19th century, millions of Germans immigrated to the US, and they were welcome additions to the melting pot. In the years leading up to the turn of the century and WWI, that all changed and Germans in America were targeted with hate as the country was enticed to panic, especially by Wilson's administration. It was a horrible time to be of German ancestry in the US. 'Patriotic societies' could call loyalty into question for any (or no) reason. Germans were persecuted, physically harmed and run out of business. In West Plains, Missouri, my hometown, a German family was allegedly "burned out of town" during WWI when their business caught on fire and there was no attempt by the town's fire department to put out the flames until it was too late to save the business. Not our finest hour.
After war was declared, Wilson proclaimed all German-American citizens to be "alien enemies." They couldn't live near airports or military facilities and they were also banned from port towns and the nation's capital. In 1918, Germans had to fill out registration papers and be fingerprinted. Those who failed to comply or who were considered dangerous were detained in internment camps for the duration of the war. Wilson needed to keep the country focused on an enemy, a villain, so that support for the war didn't lag. The villains of WWII of course were Americans who were Japanese. They were forced from their homes and into concentration camps. Germans and Italians in the US also had a taste of hate during that time, too, although oddly, Germans were lesser villains in WWII.
Then that war ended and there was another shift in who the villains were when communism was perceived to be a dark force which would envelope the world and bring us down. Communism had a long run as the Worst Possible Villain (from 1947 until the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991). The Cold War, The Korean War and The Vietnam War were (at face value) because of our fear of the villainous communists. At more complicated levels, those wars were especially good for the business of war as the military-industrial (-congressional) complex really began to hit its stride just as President Eisenhower warned (or predicted?) it would. Once the major players got a taste of the profits to be made by continually making war and meddling in the business of other sovereign nations, it's been non-stop.
Of course, the Germans and the Japanese are our friends now, so they can no longer be the villains. Even the communists have cleaned up their acts enough that we tolerate them. (Some are still repressive regimes who rule with an iron fist, but so what, right? They're our trading partners, so we'll give them a pass.) Let's see, who could be a good enemy? Let's make terrorism the villain, and since people might start figuring out that terrorism in one form or another has always been the enemy, let's evolve it into a holy war, and give it a face because a War on Terrorism stretches the limits of irony just a little too far. Radical Muslims have been labeled and identified as the enemy, a villain which can take up our resources for several decades.
This is of course an over-simplified assessment, but it's how we've come to be in a permanent state of war in the Persian Gulf region: military operations there in the 90s, Afghanistan, Iraq, The Islamic State. One has run into another with no end in sight. We haven't solved anything. We've created a quagmire that none other than Dick Cheney predicted in 1994 would happen if we invaded Iraq. Ah, the irony just keeps going.
PRESENT DAY
The accounts of civilians -- children, women, aid workers, journalists -- beheaded or killed in other shocking, almost unimaginable ways, elevates this enemy to a level which is new to most of us, except for those who have seen combat or for anyone who pays attention to history. The number of those killed by ISIS fighters is hard to calculate, but most estimates place the count in the tens of thousands rather than the tens of millions murdered by Stalin, Mao or various factions and despots in Africa (just in the past century) or the millions killed by Hitler, Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge, the Kims of Korea and others. Not to diminish in any way any pain or suffering, but ISIS is a relatively small-time villain by comparison.
Does ISIS target civilians more than past large-scale murderous regimes? No. Civilians are always the target of cowards and lunatics. (It's estimated of the approximate 250,000 deaths in the nearly five years since Syria's civil war began, ISIS is responsible for less than 5 percent. A ruthless dictator in Syria has been responsible for far more deaths than ISIS.) Are their methods more brutal? No, not really. I don't suggest anyone investigate the means of death inflicted by past or present criminal regimes, but beheading is humane in comparison to many ways people are murdered by madmen.
And something which seems to matter most to many in the US: Are they killing Christians on a mass scale? No, not in relative terms. And furthermore, Muslims of other sects have been the biggest target for ISIS. It is to their 'marketing advantage' (and they are masters at marketing) to publicize the killing of non-Muslims and de-emphasize the murder of other Muslims. Yes, the Islamic State is motivated by religious (and political) beliefs, based on their interpretation of the Quran. But all of us who follow religious teachings, approach our respective beliefs with our own interpretations of sacred texts. Apparently ISIS would like to 'rule the world,' (although there is simply no way that is close to happening), but even more important to those who are part of it, is their desire to bring about the End Times. Seeing the world come to an end is more important to them than running it. Oddly enough, they believe they are ushering in the return of Jesus who will defeat the armies of Rome. (ISIS publishes a slick magazine, "Dabiq," which outlines their way of thinking.)
North Korea continues to top the list of countries -- as it has for many years -- where Christianity is persecuted the most and China is no winner in that category, either. (Note: This persecution has nothing to do with Islam.) It is acceptable for us to label North Korea's Kim Jong-un as a villain because he apparently has nothing the US needs or wants. And because North Korea has nothing we want, we also generally ignore them because they aren't killing Westerners. China persecutes and imprisons Christians on a regular basis, enforces state-sponsored abortions (360 to 400 million in the past three decades) and yet we would never dare name that country a villain because, among other reasons, we love buying their cheap crap, especially during the Christmas season. So, we also ignore their atrocities, but for different reasons.
THE NEED FOR VILLAINS
Think of the need for villains. I hadn't considered this until several years ago -- because it's one more thing kids aren't taught in history classes -- when I realized my dad's grandparents were 100 percent American citizens, with 100 percent German ancestry and my father mentioned that they spoke German. Yet he knew not a single word of it and retained no German traditions. Why? I finally figured it out. My dad was born in 1918 as WWI was winding down, but anti-German hysteria in the US -- the flames of which had been vigorously fanned by President Woodrow Wilson -- was still in full swing. (Wilson gets my vote for Worst President Ever, by the way, for a variety of reasons.)
In the 19th century, millions of Germans immigrated to the US, and they were welcome additions to the melting pot. In the years leading up to the turn of the century and WWI, that all changed and Germans in America were targeted with hate as the country was enticed to panic, especially by Wilson's administration. It was a horrible time to be of German ancestry in the US. 'Patriotic societies' could call loyalty into question for any (or no) reason. Germans were persecuted, physically harmed and run out of business. In West Plains, Missouri, my hometown, a German family was allegedly "burned out of town" during WWI when their business caught on fire and there was no attempt by the town's fire department to put out the flames until it was too late to save the business. Not our finest hour.
After war was declared, Wilson proclaimed all German-American citizens to be "alien enemies." They couldn't live near airports or military facilities and they were also banned from port towns and the nation's capital. In 1918, Germans had to fill out registration papers and be fingerprinted. Those who failed to comply or who were considered dangerous were detained in internment camps for the duration of the war. Wilson needed to keep the country focused on an enemy, a villain, so that support for the war didn't lag. The villains of WWII of course were Americans who were Japanese. They were forced from their homes and into concentration camps. Germans and Italians in the US also had a taste of hate during that time, too, although oddly, Germans were lesser villains in WWII.
Then that war ended and there was another shift in who the villains were when communism was perceived to be a dark force which would envelope the world and bring us down. Communism had a long run as the Worst Possible Villain (from 1947 until the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991). The Cold War, The Korean War and The Vietnam War were (at face value) because of our fear of the villainous communists. At more complicated levels, those wars were especially good for the business of war as the military-industrial (-congressional) complex really began to hit its stride just as President Eisenhower warned (or predicted?) it would. Once the major players got a taste of the profits to be made by continually making war and meddling in the business of other sovereign nations, it's been non-stop.
Of course, the Germans and the Japanese are our friends now, so they can no longer be the villains. Even the communists have cleaned up their acts enough that we tolerate them. (Some are still repressive regimes who rule with an iron fist, but so what, right? They're our trading partners, so we'll give them a pass.) Let's see, who could be a good enemy? Let's make terrorism the villain, and since people might start figuring out that terrorism in one form or another has always been the enemy, let's evolve it into a holy war, and give it a face because a War on Terrorism stretches the limits of irony just a little too far. Radical Muslims have been labeled and identified as the enemy, a villain which can take up our resources for several decades.
This is of course an over-simplified assessment, but it's how we've come to be in a permanent state of war in the Persian Gulf region: military operations there in the 90s, Afghanistan, Iraq, The Islamic State. One has run into another with no end in sight. We haven't solved anything. We've created a quagmire that none other than Dick Cheney predicted in 1994 would happen if we invaded Iraq. Ah, the irony just keeps going.
PRESENT DAY
And now we have the alleged threat of Syrian refugees and every adherent of Islam right here in our country to focus our attention on because, just like in times past, there are many powerful men who need a country filled with so-called patriotic Americans lining up to hate whatever villain, whatever enemy, we're told to hate. But hate is not patriotism and what we're contemplating by getting on board with the likes of Donald Trump is shameful, disgusting behavior such as Americans have displayed in times past and which we have come to regret with the passage of time.
I don't believe a majority of Americans want to be seen by the rest of the world as hate-filled and xenophobic. Let's stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by fear and start asking ourselves questions such as: Why exactly do we need an enemy? Is it to fuel someone else's greed? To fire up political bases in an election year? To distract us from the real issues at hand?
ISIS needs an enemy because they want war. If our goal is to make peace why are we trying to make villains of an entire religion right here in our own country? The reasons we have villains are more and more convoluted all of the time. We're being more and more easily led down a path of hate every day and it is sucking the life out of us, literally. We are distracted from innovation and compassion and if anything is likely to lead to the end of civilization as we know it, that's it.
Consider this:
- Worldwide, 8 million people die from cancer each year.
- Half of the world's hospital beds are filled with people suffering from water-related diseases and 1.6 million die from those diseases, 90 percent of the deaths are children under the age of 5.
- At least 1.5 million people die from tuberculosis each year.
- In 2014, 1.2 million people died from AIDS.
The list goes on. How about we focus on solving these issues as a means of achieving peace?
Call me naive. That's fine. But I challenge anyone to show me hard evidence of how bombing an enemy like ISIS into oblivion is even possible. It's like stomping around in a room full of roaches, killing a few and sending the others scurrying to hide in the walls. Even if it is possible to miraculously wipe out ISIS (let's be realistic, we're heading down the road of US ground troops in that attempted scenario), then how can that effectively solve the long-term problem of the repressive Syrian government versus rebels? And how does it work especially without a full-scale plan to rebuild the infrastructure which will be destroyed, leaving Syrians without a place to live and work? And where will we get the resources to do all of that? Merely throw another trillion dollars on the debt load? Great plan.
We're all being played for fools by politicians and our own government, and for those who think hating Muslims and trying to ban people from the US based on religion is the magic answer to dealing with an enemy who has mastered social media and recruits across borders without the need to even enter a country, then naive and misguided is the kindest description I have for that way of thinking.
When we allow fear to motivate and drive policy, if we turn on each other and turn our back on the principles of a free society, that's how ISIS wins.
I don't believe a majority of Americans want to be seen by the rest of the world as hate-filled and xenophobic. Let's stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by fear and start asking ourselves questions such as: Why exactly do we need an enemy? Is it to fuel someone else's greed? To fire up political bases in an election year? To distract us from the real issues at hand?
ISIS needs an enemy because they want war. If our goal is to make peace why are we trying to make villains of an entire religion right here in our own country? The reasons we have villains are more and more convoluted all of the time. We're being more and more easily led down a path of hate every day and it is sucking the life out of us, literally. We are distracted from innovation and compassion and if anything is likely to lead to the end of civilization as we know it, that's it.
Consider this:
- Worldwide, 8 million people die from cancer each year.
- Half of the world's hospital beds are filled with people suffering from water-related diseases and 1.6 million die from those diseases, 90 percent of the deaths are children under the age of 5.
- At least 1.5 million people die from tuberculosis each year.
- In 2014, 1.2 million people died from AIDS.
The list goes on. How about we focus on solving these issues as a means of achieving peace?
Call me naive. That's fine. But I challenge anyone to show me hard evidence of how bombing an enemy like ISIS into oblivion is even possible. It's like stomping around in a room full of roaches, killing a few and sending the others scurrying to hide in the walls. Even if it is possible to miraculously wipe out ISIS (let's be realistic, we're heading down the road of US ground troops in that attempted scenario), then how can that effectively solve the long-term problem of the repressive Syrian government versus rebels? And how does it work especially without a full-scale plan to rebuild the infrastructure which will be destroyed, leaving Syrians without a place to live and work? And where will we get the resources to do all of that? Merely throw another trillion dollars on the debt load? Great plan.
We're all being played for fools by politicians and our own government, and for those who think hating Muslims and trying to ban people from the US based on religion is the magic answer to dealing with an enemy who has mastered social media and recruits across borders without the need to even enter a country, then naive and misguided is the kindest description I have for that way of thinking.
When we allow fear to motivate and drive policy, if we turn on each other and turn our back on the principles of a free society, that's how ISIS wins.
Terry, You wrote a good post here. I have always liked you and been proud of your many accomplishments since I first met you when you were in high school here. I knew your Dad and Mom, and I know and like your husband and your daughter.
ReplyDeleteYour summary of our history since WWI and our need to identify the villains who are out to destroy us is perceptive and accurate. We don't have to agree about whether Woodrow Wilson was a better or worse President than Barack Obama or George W.
Bush. That's a matter of opinion and we could debate it for the rest of our lives.
Ours is a human condition that has existed for as long as humans have existed. We take sides. We ally ourselves with
politicians or leaders for many reasons.
Although I will admit that in recent weeks I have had some new doubts, I still support Donald Trump for our next President. What, I ask you, is the alternative? Is it Hillary Clinton? Is it Bernie Sanders?
I will be the first to say that Donald Trump is outspoken to the point that many cannot see his message because it is clothed in bombastic, brash statements that most of his supporters wish he hadn't said. Some people say, he is a jerk.
Maybe he is.
But I believe Donald Trump when he says that what he wants is to make America great again. The Republicans haven't done it, the Democrats haven't done it, and all three branches of our Republic, the President, the Congress, and the Courts, have failed us. The United States is not the world power it was at
the end of WWII. We are not as safe in our homes and places of work and worship. Every day we see proof of this as the news reports another mass shooting or another hate crime. Someone thinks the solution is to kill Christians. Others think it is
okay to burn a mosque. What would Jesus do now?
Jesus has told us what he will do. He will be with us in our struggle to understand and survive. He is always with us. We are his sheep and He is our Good Shepherd.
You ask me, "Why do you support a jerk?."
ReplyDeleteBecause I think he is RIGHT on the issues that we face now. I don't agree with ALL of his blustery statements, but I do agree with SOME of them. I listen to Hillary and Bernie and I hear the same old same old. Nothing new.
Why does Trump want to be our next President? He has all the earthly treasures that anyone could want. He has a beautiful family. His children are good people, sober and hard-working.
Trump does not smoke, drink, or do drugs. The cross he must bear is that so many people will dislike him because of the bluster and arrogance, these people will never hear his message because of his "New York" personality and braggadocio. The only reason I can see for Donald to want to be our President is that he is telling us the truth, what he wants to do is make America great again. And he is a Christian.
Yes, in spite of Isis, Syria, North Korea, China...and the list goes on...you must believe that there is a RIGHT WAY and a WRONG WAY to handle the problems we face now in a world of ever-increasing hostility.
I like Trump because he is a businessman who has proved that he can get things done. He can "get 'er done!"..and don't we agree that for the past couple of decades we have had a "do-nothing Congress" whose members are more interested in their longevity in office and satisfying the unions and banks. That's who butters their bread, these are the masters they serve.
Trump is insecure, down deep, and he doesn't show it. The worse thing he can do, in his book, is appear to be insecure or indecisive. So every statement he makes is forceful, and often over the top. He's making us think. I'm thinking, are you?
My dear friend from high school, Carol Moore McEnnis, is in your camp. And Dick Davidson. All good people, all wanting
only the best for our country and, therefore, our citizens.
I think you could all support Donald Trump if you would just regard him as an insecure adolescent who is trying his best to
appear strong and confident, regardless of where the chips may fall.
Some think Trump is a bully. He always gets his way, because he owns the farm. A bully gets his way by physically bullying a person to make that person afraid to disagree with him.
To me, there is a difference between a real bully and Donald Trump, who in his New York manner of speaking, is not really a bully but can be loud and obnoxious in his presentation.
Lay back a little, Donald! You have millions of people who WANT to vote for you, but you have alienated these people with your New York Tongue. People who have the New York Tongue see a
heated conversation which we would call an argument as a fencing match. You stick Donald Trump with your sword, and he will holler and try to stick you back. It's an automatic response. So when one of his buddies, like Ted Cruz, fires a shot at Trump, it is reflex action for Trump to fire back in the New York Tongue. If you watched the excellent series "The Sopranos", you know what the New York Tongue sounds like.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI want Donald in my corner when that meeting takes place. And you want Hillary Clinton? Come ON! Don't vote for the person, don't vote for the personality, but please vote on THE ISSUES.
ReplyDeleteWhat are THE ISSUES? They are{ being in a state of war with certain terrorists, making the State's laws more uniform, prison reform, immigration policies, income tax laws made simpler, support of Planned Parenthood and the Boy Scouts. All of these and more.
A few like Carol wondered how I could support Trump when otherwise I am a very intelligent person, and have not previously shown any signs of mental imbalance. I still do what I have done for the past half Century. I print collector's items. The books I sell to collectors of comic art. More than one hundred books. I buy and sell collectibles like artwork and vintage guitars and cars. I'm 78 years old, still walking and talking and able to express a comment. I also play the guitar and I sing. I love to sing and I sing every Sunday in church and will sing at almost any time when asked. I still have four good children and ten grandchildren who want to grow up in West Plains. It's a good place.
I want to keep it that way.
Interesting, Russ! You know I'll always love you no matter what, but I find it fascinating that you're pulling for Donald Trump. But of all the things we've talked about over the years, we've never really discussed politics, so I'd never really considered that you might be a Trump supporter.
DeleteI think my main problem with Trump is that I believe this is mostly a game -- not a joke, but a game -- to him, because everything is a game to him. After every (ever-increasingly) outrageous thing he says, I think he's sitting back laughing and saying, 'Man, I can't believe I got away with THAT.' I think I do view him as an insecure adolescent (and with a flair for the dramatic), and to me, that's not really great presidential material.
I don't know if I agree on him regarding what his policies might be because "I'm just going to do it" doesn't let me know HOW he plans to make America great again. But if banning Muslims from entering the country and surveilling mosques is his answer for making us safe, then I don't agree with that.
Are we really less safe in our homes and places of worship and work than we've ever been? Maybe, but as the world has gotten more technologically advanced and 'smaller' over the years, I believe we're less safe everywhere, all of the time. When cars got faster, we got less safe. When good, wholesome food went away in favor of convenience, we got less safe by being subjected to chemicals which make us sick and die. People travel the world with relative ease now and potentially bring back all kinds of diseases for which we have little defense, especially average Americans who can't afford health care. We're a lot more likely to die driving down the highway by someone crashing into us who is texting than we are to die via the hands of terrorists. The list goes on.
That doesn't mean I'm going to live in fear and that doesn't mean we should stop being the land of the free and the home of the brave with a vision that the American Dream is still possible. I want Donald Trump to say how he is going to encourage the American Dream. I want him to say he's going to unite us, because unity is what we need, and he's certainly not trying to promote that. Donald Trump is promoting Donald Trump because that's what he's super good at.
And as for telling the truth....well, he's already been caught in a lot 'untruths' and he is unrepentant. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Hillary Clinton is any better, worse in many ways because of her political connections, and I get the appeal of him being a straight shooter, but his bluster contains ideas and principles that just don't have a place in a free society.
And trying to make war against an enemy like ISIS will lead to the death of thousands of our military personnel and tens of thousands (at least) of civilians in other countries. When is the trade off worth it? And what point are we just making the situation worse? (I believe we're just about always making the situation worse in the Persian Gulf.)
Anyway, I'm not over joyed with any of the choices we have for the 2016 presidential race, but I will say at least Bernie Sanders is also not in anyone's pocket and I believe that he also wants to make America great again by restoring the American Dream. Is his approach any better than Trump's? Maybe.
One way or the other, whoever is our next president, it's up to all of us to stop allowing ourselves to be divided over politics. The exchanges I often see on Facebook among friends is not nearly as civil as this.
Excellent article, Terry! We need to unite - not divide. We need to stand up to our government and say enough is enough. We need to stop repeating mistakes of the past and evolve. We need a global united community with respect for human life. Another world IS possible if we start demanding it. Collectively united, we can do so much.
ReplyDeleteYes! (And thank you.)
DeleteInteresting discussion. While I've never been a committed Trump supporter, I have to defend his statement about banning Muslims. Here's why. First of all, he said "until we find out what the hell is going on." That's important. This is new territory for most Americans. We want to be inclusive. We want to be fair and egalitarian. But - we have an enemy. An enemy that is motivated, technologically advanced (enough)and funded, to bring about the collapse of the United States. Does everyone GET THAT? When someone says "I'm going to kill you", the prudent person will take that as a true statement. 911 was the probe, the experiment. The goal is far far more destructive than 911. And it's radical MUSLIM jihadists that are vying for the opportunity to bring America to its knees. Not all Muslims but....unfortunately....we can't tell them apart. Can we? Are YOU willing to risk your children, grandchildren....maybe future generations in order to maintain the appearance of inclusiveness and egalitarianism? I think it's been proven that the San Bernardino female slipped under the radar. The FBI has something like 900 open case files on homeland jihadists and Obama wants to admit thousands of refugees from the very vortex of anti-American sentiment, without verifiable background documents. Does 911 or Bataclan, Russian flight 9268 or Christian beheadings mean nothing? We. Are. At. WAR! The people waging this war are radical Muslim extremists from middle eastern countries. To put a stop to the influx of people from this region, of Muslim faith, UNTIL we can develop a better screening process, just seems like the smart thing to do. Maybe not the politically correct thing, but the smart, SURVIVALIST thing to do. Tell me where I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteWell, I won't tell you you're wrong, but I'm also not going to say I think you're right. Here's why. For one thing I believe you're talking about several different things here which can't all fit in a neat little box. Obviously if there are known jihadists and terrorists, we would be crazy to let them in the country....but then, no one is advocating we do that. You say we can't tell one Muslim from another, and that may be true, but then how can we tell if someone is a Muslim at all? Not all Muslims are of Middle Eastern descent, and not all 'look' a particular way. Many speak perfect English and many of those radicalized are from around the world, not just the Persian Gulf region. As motivated as they are, do you not think it's possible that they're faking passports, shaving their beards, and claiming to be Christians from....wherever, Australia, for example? So then what? Do we keep everyone out, not just the 'suspicious looking, dark-skinned ones?' Students, tourists, business travelers, etal, no one comes in because they might be lying to us? This is an enemy which can radicalize via social media so they don't even have to physically come into this country to gain supporters of their cause. But if I was going to tell you I think you're wrong, this would be the reason why: When we start excluding Muslims and discriminating against them and yes, hating them, we play into the hands of ISIS. They want us to hate Muslims because they are smart enough to know that is the best recruiting tool they have. When we treat Muslims with contempt, we're proving the haters in their ranks to be right. Unless they are able to grow by exponential leaps and bounds there simply is no way ISIS is organized enough and powerful enough to come close to bringing about the collapse of the US. They have no Navy, no Air Force and an army which only has control of a small territory and few cities. America's inclusiveness and compassion have not been the things which have caused us harm over the years. My grandchildren's futures are not at risk because America is a land of equality and freedom, but I honestly think that fear could bring us down. A life lived in fear is a live half-lived. A good screening process is not a bad idea -- it's necessary, of course -- but we will never be able to stop those who are hellbent on hurting someone. Complete safety at every turn is not possible and trying to achieve it is not worth the downside of making us look like a country of jerks to the rest of the world.
DeleteWhats Yours, I agree. It was released that 2% of the refugees are radicalized. Lets put that into perspective out of 100 that's 2, out of 1000 that's 20. We have a large bag of 1000 M&M's 20 of them are poisonous. Will you reach into the bag and take a handful to eat?
ReplyDeleteI agree we want to do the right thing by letting in refugees, but we need to do the smart thing and check them out.
Terry, I disagree on your statement about this enemy not being different than any enemy before. ISIS is a terrorist group than is being driven by their religion. The wars you mention where nations against nations where battle lines where more clearly defined. War against terrorism will be fought anywhere at any time.
Anonymous, I should have been more specific with my comment about this enemy not be different than others. Yes, it is in some ways different....the first to make use of social media like it is and the battle lines are less clearly defined for sure. What I meant was in the context that we seem to be so much more frightened and shocked by its methods of death and destruction. Death at the hands of maniacs has always come in horrific ways. In that regard, they are no different than past villains. We just see it so much more readily and react with understandable disgust.
DeleteBut I'm not sure that the fact they are a terrorist group that is being driven by their religion sets them apart to any significant degree. Much of what has been happening in Africa over the past decades has been based on religion and Hitler's terror was against a particular religious group and his ideologies had roots in a sort of religion of his own invention.
And I have seen the 2 percent radicalized number before, but I believe it to be a number that has been misconstrued. According to Politifact, of the 1,800 Syrian refugees admitted to the US so far (since the Syrian conflict began in 2011) half are children. The group is about 50/50 men and women, and about 2 percent are single men of combat age. That's not the same as 2 percent radicalized. And it's been taking about two years for refugees to be vetted before being admitted to the US, through a very stringent process. (My opinion is that churches should be 'adopting' refugee families, taking them in and helping them acclimate to our country, using it as opportunity to really live out the love of Jesus, but that's another discussion.)
I've also seen the M&M analogy before. Impulsively eating a handful of candy really can't be compared to the process of getting to know a human being over a period of time.
The following article offers a really good analysis of the situation of letting refugees in. If you'd care to have a look it's a pretty good read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/can-terrorists-really-infiltrate-the-syrian-refugee-program/416475/
There's a very large discrepancy in the numbers of Syrians in this country. If the true number is not known, than how can we possibly know exactly who they are? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
DeleteWe can't. If someone with evil intent really wants to get into the U.S. they will. Furthermore, if someone wants to inspire terrorist acts, they never have to set foot here. They have the internet to aid them. People from all nationalties have been recruited by ISIS (online), so why single out Syrians as potential terrorists? If over 100,000 Syrians have come here in the past three years and only one has been involved in a terror attack, I think that's an indication that the immigration system is working quite well.
Delete