The atrocities committed by Osama Bin Laden’s followers on September 11, 2001 should have been enough to convince Americans that they face a serious, ongoing threat from death-dealing “Islamic extremists.” The kind of threat that requires a radical increase in the number of armed Americans to defend against terrorism. And a large, aggressive military presence in the region where the Islamic terrorists live, to deter and/or punish plots against America. The President and his supporters don’t see it that way. Obama’s love of civilian disarmament – while arming entirely unreliable Middle Eastern actors – is well-known. His decision to withdraw our troops from Iraq – enabling the rise of the ISIS caliphate – is the logical flip side of this disarmament delusion. Like an airplane accident, it’s only a matter of time before these two mistakes combine with some other failure to allow another horrific attack . . .

I reckon the next terrorist attack won’t be as spectacular as an airplane coming out of the sky or as insidious as a weaponized Ebola victim. It’s likely to be something up close and personal, like the first Ft. Hood shooting or the beheading in Oklahoma City. Only bigger and more coordinated; a number of terrorists working in concert to bring glory to the ISIS caliphate. Think Kenya’s Westgate shopping mall massacre. A massacre that plays out over a number of days, for maximum media exposure. Think Beslan, with beheadings.

If so, it will be the kind of attack where an armed civilian or, more likely, a large number of armed civilians, could have mounted some kind of defense. If so, a whole lot of people who’ve never considered keeping or carrying a gun will suddenly want a firearm to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities from jihadis. Millions of Americans will discover just how hard it is to buy a firearm in states where making it hard to buy a firearm is a long-standing tradition. Gun control will be revealed as the statist plot that it is. Support will crumble.

Or not.

For one thing, IEDs are the terrorists’ normal modus operandi, not a squad of gunmen willing to die at the hands of infidel SWAT teams. If the attack on American soil takes the form of a bombing or a series of bombings, the insult to innocent life won’t move the needle on gun control. History is our guide. What, exactly, does “Boston strong” mean? We sheltered in place and didn’t freak out! Strength through passivity! We went back to work! There’s your post-terrorist bombing template in gun control America.

For another, even if it is an armed attack suggesting personal defense, the mainstream media is on the side of the statists. It’s far more comfortable platforming government spokespeople and chronicling law enforcement response than it is revealing the profound, inherent weaknesses of gun control regimes. In other words, the “official response” to the terrorist attack (the government’s failure to detect the plot and the police response to it) will get all the attention. The “unofficial response” (personal protection) will fly under-the-radar.

Aside from a Supreme Court ruling sweeping away state infringements on Americans’ gun rights, there’s only one thing that would change the gun control calculus in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, downstate New York, Hawaii, California, etc.: a number of terrorist armed attacks. I hate to say it, but if there’d been a couple of Newtown massacres in a short time frame launched by Muslim terrorists, there wouldn’t be any question about . . . armed guards in schools. Just like the NRA suggested.

Yes there is that.

Instead of calling for the end of Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zone Act to counter the threat of school spree killers, the NRA’s post-Newtown press conference recommended armed government intervention. Proving that the old adage that people pull together in a crisis doesn’t tell the whole story. People pull together and submit to authority in a crisis. Hence the Obama administration’s slavish adherence to the Alinsky-esque saying “never to let a crisis go to waste.” More than that, when the going gets rough, like-minded people pull together. After Newtown, gun control states introduced even more draconian gun laws. States with firearms freedom loosened the chains.

In that sense, the forthcoming terrorist attack on American soil will not unite us in a determination to defend our freedoms. It will simply exacerbate the divisions between those of us who see government as the problem and those of us who see government as the solution. The former lost significant ground after 9/11, not the least in the form of the Patriot Act and the dramatic expansion of federal law enforcement. The question is: have we learned from the past or are we condemned to repeat it?

129 Responses to Random Thoughts About Terrorists and Gun Rights

    • The jihadists always over play their hand. They will set off a dirty bomb somewhere and the citizens of that country will demand of their politicians to glassify a significant portion of the Middle East. So be it.

  1. “And a large, aggressive military presence in the region where the Islamic terrorists live, to deter and/or punish plots against America.”

    Yeah, because that’s working wonderfully.

    • If we had simply not gone into Iraq in the first place, which we shouldn’t have and had no right nor reason to from the start, ISIS would not even exist today to threaten it… and everyone around them.

      • Hate to burst your bubble but Iraq had committed multiple acts of war directly against the US before GWB sent forces in.

        • Hate to burst your bubble, but not only did Iraq not commit any acts of direct or even indirect aggression against the United States at all, and it didn’t, but Dubya sent in the troops under a demonstrably false pretext for which there was (and still is to this very day) absolutely zero empirical evidence.

        • In fact, George Bush I decided NOT to go into Iraq specifically because he foresaw–as did his defense adviser Dick Cheney–what would happen, which is exactly what DID happen. But after Bush I termed out, Paul Wolfowitz, who wrote the position paper and had been promoted up the ranks, advised Bush II to go in and get rid of Saddam.

        • @Excedrine

          What do you call an attempted assassination of a US president and violation of the no-fly-zone terms of agreement after GW1? Both of those are clear and direct acts of war.

          Just two more things your Leftist professors purposely neglected to tell you in school.

        • or bubba gump, whichever troll name you prefer to use, your trolling is over the top. Are you getting paid for this? If so, let me know, I could use some extra $$ too.

      • I agree with the headache medicine.

        We do not belong in Iraq. Don’t know why we went there in the first place – don’t know why we are still there. I do have a hunch though… I think it has to do with the oil:

        http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

        And more specifically – the “Bush” oil company:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy

        It looks like the whole thing was a personal matter between bush and assets in Iraq. Funny how Bush Senior invades Iraq, we move on, and when bush Jr get in… time to go back to Iraq.

    • Yep. Can we stop pretending like we’re helping things over there yet? Can’t we figure out something better to do with those trillions of dollars other than bombing people? Last time I checked those hijackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia (where we have the biggest military footprint in the region) and our airstrikes didn’t stop them.

      Oh but then your nation’s machismo would be in doubt.

        • Last time I checked we weren’t firing chemotherapy rockets that make everyone all better. Instead every time we go to ‘fix’ something everyone over there resents us more because, spoiler alert, we tend to somehow make things even worse.

        • Like cancer, evil loves to grow in dark far-away places and be left alone.

          Not like the US gov and their completely transparent agencies.

    • As long as we have a powerful Left in this country that makes sure that we lose every war we start (unless it’s against a right-wing foe like in WWI or WWII), then it will continue to work exactly the way the Left wants it to: with shame and ignominy on America and her armed forces and an abject failure to introduce order to a chaotic situation.

      In retrospect, it was foolish of me to believe that Iraq could be ruled democratically. We should have just found a more compliant strongman and been done with it.

      There is a 0% chance that we as a country will learn this lesson anytime soon.

    • Yeah, we really should have gone with the “glazed sand” approach. Take the example of Ghengis Khan’s solution for peace in the Mideast: “He made a desert and called it peace.”

  2. If the President truly desires a reduction in our nuclear weapons arsenal, then perhaps we can decrease the number of deployed warheads through expenditure on these clowns.

    • Your such a fool if you believe Obama was forced to withdraw. Even a committed Leftists reading only the NYTimes can read articles in that rag that it was Obama’s call. When does the loser in a war determine when the victor leaves? Ask Korea, Japan, and Germany.

    • True, but even Obama’s own generals and appointees have said that Obama could have negotiated a new SOFA if he’d really wanted to. He had no desire to, since he wanted ALL of our forces, even contractors, out of there, contrary to the recommendations of all of his staff and the military. It was in decent shape when they bailed out–now it’s a horrific mess.

      • And how long were they going to stay there then? It’s amazing how many people here don’t recognize how economically wasteful the war economy is on top of the fact that these people don’t want us there.

        • BINGO. But they’re too busy blaming poor people for our financial problems that they’ll never see this.

        • Are you cognizant of the fact that we still have soldiers and bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea?

          Wherever there is conflict and America exits, evil prevails.

          That statement above will get you an F on your sociology paper from your Leftist university and professor.

      • ALL of the SOFA agreements we have negotiated around the world included a clause granting immunity of US soldiers to local criminal laws (to be handled instead by the MCJ). Al Maliki refused, and without that guarantee, soldiers would have been subject to the Iraq criminal justice system, as well as exposed to incarceration in their prisons. Such was an intolerable condition. And I think that Maliki wanted it that way; he had his own political aspirations that would have been impeded by the presence of US troops.

        • How about if they told Maliki to kiss our azz and we’re staying as long for as long we want and with the number we want. How about that idea?

        • NO The Iraqis agreed to the terms LONG ago but Obuma and his chimps would not sign. BECAUSE that was their surrender narrative.

    • And they did that under Bush, then both Bush and Obama tried to get out of it, but for some reason they were tired of us shooting up their country.

  3. After watching 2 minutes of the first video, I gave up trying to see through the other language imposed over the top of the English sub-titles

  4. Pulling out of Iraq isn’t the root cause for ISIS developing. Taking out Saddam and disturbing the balance of power along with a further imbalance from the multiple civil wars/revolutions are what opened the door to ISIS.

    I’m all for armed defense, but terrorism is not the most likely stimulus for it in the US.

    • Pulling out of Iraq isn’t the root cause for ISIS creation but the pullout is 100% responsible for the….

      …presence of ISIS in Iraq
      …the capture of 500M$ in hard currency by ISIS at Mosul banks to be used for attacks against the west
      …the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis by ISIS

      The blood of thousands of Iraqis and the future lives murdered by the 500M$ booty is on the hands of people who were calling for an Iraq pullout.

      • Right it has nothing to do with the fact that the US destabilized a region that was really only kept in check by saddam(as bad as he was, he wasn’t ISIS) who hated these radicals and killed them any time they got uppity. Maybe if the US hadn’t left this wouldn’t have happened, but we can’t police the whole world, and you refuse to look at the root cause.

        • Right, Evan. A classic case of the enemy you know being preferable to the one you don’t. Saddam was certainly nasty and brutish. He was not, however, sharing power with ANYONE in Iraq – terrorist groups or otherwise.

        • Excellent point. Pay attention, doesky. If YOU’RE not careful, you might learn something.

        • Yeah leave the Islamists alone, we’ll be safe that way.

          Tell that to the people jumping off the burning WTC.

        • And why did those (largely) Saudis decide to murder all those American civilians, doesky2? Maybe because they see us over in their country interfering with their culture.

          Or are you so proagandized that you actually believe they “hate us for our freedom?” I’m pretty sure if we had our freedom and left the middle east alone they’d go back to attacking their age-old enemy, themselves.

      • ISIS is an off-shoot of Al Queda in Iraq, a group that was most definitely present when US forces were there, and against whom we fought some of our biggest battles. Further, ISIS’ success was due on large measure to the poor political judgment of Al Maliki, a Shi’ia, whose actions disaffected the Sunni majority (and associated militias lead, often, by former senior military officers who had been canned by Maliki).

        • And if the US military was in Iraq that last sentence wouldn’t have occurred because we wouldn’t let Maliki make that mistake.

    • Yep, doomed.

      As the Islamist once said, “You have to be lucky every single time. We need to be lucky _once_”

      • It doesn’t even need to be large scale. If Islamic extremist groups wanted to terrify America, all it would take is a few small scale events in unsuspected places. Shoot up a high school football game in North Carolina, the next day have a few of your peons shoot up a shopping mall in New Jersey, the next day detonate a suicide bomber in the front office of an elementary school in South Dakota. If they successfully pulled off a few of these attacks a large percentage of the population would be too crippled by fear to leave their homes

  5. I’m sorry, but if you truely think that Binladen was actually the cause of 9/11 you need to look into the situation more deeply. There are so many flaws with the 9/11 terrorism plot that I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

    I’m not normally a big conspiracy theory person, I enjoy hearing them because why not and because they can be fun/interesting/whatever, but I normally don’t buy into them much.

    That said, 9/11 is damn near proven to have been our own government.

    I know that wasn’t the entire part of the post, and some of what you say has merit, but the opening was weak without any substance.

    Que “your a libertard against the US and an ISIS traitor” calls whenever you please… But once your finished, look into the facts of 9/11 and what can be proven, and you will start to see what I mean.

    • COMMENT EDITED – no flaming fellow commentators

      Every 911truther that I’ve ever met talk about spending days and weeks reading all kind of internet information proving that the US government was behind 911. However every single one of them has never read the very approachable and understandable book that debunks the conspiracy theories.

      The most telling point is that they refuse to read it when challenged because “the book is a cover-up!” even though they never read it.

      http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/1588165477/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1413324755&sr=8-8&keywords=911+truth

      • Your a clever one arent you? You do realize that you are on the internet and I cannot see your facial expressions or hear a tone of voice, correct?

        I also posted before you lazily edited your post, all I saw was a halfwitted insult.

        As far as the book goes, I will try to give it a read. But the chances of it making any more compelling an arguement than I have already read before is minimal. I have looked into the theory before, from both sides of the coin (truthfully and honestly) and I am not complelled by the “evil terrorists are the only bad people” argument to any substantial degree. Think what you want, and insult me some more if you wish; I will continue my distrust for our blatantly untrustworthy government, and you can go ahead and keep your opinions.

      • Good source, literally laugh out loud. Wouldn’t expect much more from a guy who uses CNN as irrefutable proof, when it serves his purpose anyway. The 1 star ratings outnumber all the ratings combined on your recommendation, looks like this book doesn’t fool too many, just the really gullible ones.

    • Yeah… there are way more holes in the conspiracy theories than there are in the evidence supported assessment made by many independent sources.

      If you want it to be a conspiracy (even secretly) and look for holes, you will find them. But if you take a look at all the facts and the science (like conclusive debunking of the ‘there had to be a bomb’ theory), you are left with the “official story” being far more likely and supported by the information.

      I am not saying I don’t think some in the government aren’t capable for this type of thing, but that’s not evidence.

    • “That said, 9/11 is damn near proven to have been our own government. ”

      Cue the Twilight Zone music in 3,…2,…1…

      Whatever you’re smoking, Patrick – Can I have some from your bag?

      Cripes.

      • The problem with 9/11 truthers is that they reached their conclusion via paranoia and opinion first, then proceeded to try to find “evidence,” the majority of which has been debunked, to support their already reached conclusion.

        My favorite is “well did you know jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel!?” News flash, steel doesn’t need to melt to be structurally weakened enough to no longer be able to support the weight of a skyscraper…

        • You’re probably right, or maybe that the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 some 40 minutes before it collapsed didn’t sit well with anyone capable of critical thinking? Never mind that Bldg 7 was never hit by a plane, and being only the 3rd building ever to collapse into it’s own footprint allegedly from fire, with the 2 WTC’s being the first 2 to do so in history.

        • So we have two possibilities.

          1) The BBC, a large organization filled with reporters, had advance knowledge of events to the point of having a script as to how the biggest mass-murder of civilians in US history is going to go down. This script was provided by SOMEONE and would be the story of the century if released. The conspiracy would have had to involve not only countless government agents but quite a few reporters and\or support staff at the BBC, all of whom would have had to do their jobs with the utmost discretion and secrecy up until the point they accidentally read the dang thing over the air that hasn’t happened (yet).

          Or

          2) Someone screwed up at a news organization, jumped the gun and reported something they didn’t have the facts on.

          HMM I wonder which makes more sense.

        • Comon Hannibal!!! We all know the news never is wrong and they would never report anything that wasn’t thoroughly researched and verified by at least 2 independent sources! Being that on 9/11 the news reported explosions at FBI HQ, and Capitol Hill was bombed, and that a dozen other planes were hijacked, and that Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland… it is obviously all part of the misdirection by the thousands upon thousands of people that have kept their mouths shut as part of the vast conspiracy. Yet here I wait (again) for the twoofers to answer these questions: Who is behind this vast conspiracy? Is every reporting outlet that has conducted tests to disprove truther claims in on the conspiracy? Are the fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, and cousins that combed ground zero looking for the remains of their dead loved ones in on the conspiracy? How can the perpetrator(s) of this apparent “easy to see with the right facts” conspiracy remain hidden in the day in age of Wikileaks? How do truthers make extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence (while simultaneously discounting simple explanations to the aforementioned extraordinary claims)? Where are the planes that were hijacked and apparently not used? Where are the passengers? How do truthers prop up the erroneous BBC report and, at the same time, discount the erroneous reports from CNN and Fox that claimed (paraphrased) ‘WTC 7 either had collapsed or will collapse’ that was reported at the same time as the BBC? Of course the “answers” are always shill/deflection/straw man/etc.

        • @hannibal, really? Mistake reporting about a specific building collapse-which then actually does? Either you are a shill, or really naive, or both.

  6. the better question is where does Abudllah and his buddies try the jihad? Middle America where there will be armed resistance or on the coasts where liberals have traded their rights in for hope and change? Just saying. They say what happened in OK and it didn’t work in their favor. Why not try it in LA, SF, NY, Boston or somewhere similar?

    • The Jihad idiots have already hit New York City and Boston twelve years apart. I think that they would like to hit NYC and Boston again, but at the same time, for max impact and terror.

  7. “And a large, aggressive military presence in the region where the Islamic terrorists live, to deter and/or punish plots against America.”

    A large, aggressive military presence in the region is the reason that IS exists to begin with. We created the environment that allowed them to flourish.

    “His decision to withdraw our troops from Iraq”

    Nope. That was Bush. The withdrawal was agreed upon before Obama took office, even though Obama likes to take credit for it.

    • You have been reading too much of the MSM. Bush was negotiating a Status of Forces agreement right down to the end. The way of the middle east is that nothing gets done until the very end. The presence of US Forces was a check on the Shia. The Sunnis felt we abandoned them.

      • “The presence of US Forces was a check on the Shia.” EXACTLY! Which is why Al Maliki, a Shi’ia, refused to agree to the key terms that would have allowed our forces to stay. He had other ideas. Bad ones, but ones that depended upon the absence of US forces.

  8. Culturally savvy terrorists will use knives, swords and guns in the restrictive states. Why? because it’s much more personal and therefore more frightening than a bomb. They can bring that to your door. In the states where the Second amendment is honored it will bombs because there is too much chance that they will pick on the wrong person. Terrorists by their mission and nature do not want to face resistance because a failed terrorist attack makes the targeted victims stand up. New York, DC and San Francisco will get knives to bombs while states with open carry and shall issue will just get bombed. Texas will survive on reputation alone.

  9. Yep it’s a mess. And we’re in the last days of America in this form. I know I’m not the only one who thinks Barry Soetoro is not on our side. Keep your powder dry…

  10. I agree with the larger point here- those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

    Read VDH’s books, for his historical perspective, applied to analysis of current events, here:
    http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/

    Sometimes our neighbors see us more clearly than we do ourselves – Mark Steyn’s perspective, as in “America Alone”, is spot-on, and unflinching – http://www.steynonline.com/

    And here is another, with Middle East, and “follow the money” expertise- a brilliant, absolutely on fire intellect:
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-central-planning-solution-to-evil.html

    For the tactical news – it doesnt get better than the Long War Journal:
    http://www.longwarjournal.org/

    To quote Ralph, we are in a culture war; of freedom loving democracies and republics that honor individual freedom vs fascist tyranny of the Totalitarian State. If you can’t acknowledge that, and agree to name Islam-o-fascism as THE existential threat to human-kind of the 21st century (IMHO), then its probably best that you just go back to sleep.

    “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom – go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

    ~ Sam Adams, Philadelphia at the State House, August 1, 1776

  11. And a large, aggressive military presence in the region where the Islamic terrorists live,

    Yup. We need troops in Dearborn, MI.

    • Actually, I would be curious to see the number of people that the FBI and homeland security monitor from Dearborn alone….you know, the largest middle eastern population outside of the middle east…..

      That being said, until I’m proven otherwise, I feel that proximity to Dearborn minimizes the terrorist threat. Killing musims sorta goes against the terrorist credo.

  12. Lessons learned from Beslan:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/al_qaeda_targets_our_schoolchi.html

    Lessons learned from Kenya Mall:
    http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6501177-Are-you-ready-to-repel-a-Kenya-style-mall-attack/

    Lessons learned from Sandy Hook:
    http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6666083-Active-shooters-in-schools-How-far-have-we-come-since-Sandy-Hook/

    The question is, “how much are we doing” vs progtards playing politics like “Mothers Demand Action”.

    • Have you ever watched the NRA life of duty video series? They have some great episodes regarding this sort of domestic attack, this one of my favorites in the whole series. Its episode 8, starting at episode 1 helps but, episodes 6,7,8 are pretty much related to that exact topic. Ive been linking these a lot, but they are extremely relevant now.

    • “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Vladimir Lenin”

      I sure hope were not talking about the same thing.

      • You bet, keep the gun community so misinformed it hasn’t a chance in preserving its rights, in fact the same community will help help guarantee the long term goal of disarming the public comes to fruition when the time is determined.

  13. I hate to say it but I worry the gun loving states won’t get the chance. when the next large scale terrorist attack happens it will be answered by a chorus of sheep begging to empower ‘someone’ to do ‘something’ to keep us (and especially the children) safe. That someone will be government and the something will start with European style civilian disarmament.

  14. I think ISIS is just waiting for our next round of elections to happen in November this year before they do anything on U.S. soil. These guys are proving to be very astute about what they do and how/when they do it.
    They may have “sleepers” already planted and plotting terror attacks. There are lots of claims that jihadis have crossed the Southern Border using the influx of Central/South Americans as cover and distraction.

    Unfortunately, we won’t know if ANY of this speculation is valid until things begin to happen. So, some Americans may well die on our soil, but don’t expect this Federal Administration to ever admit that Armed Citizens might be an effective defense. They’ll probably cook-up a story that the guy who blew himself up and killed/maimed a bunch of people at the Mall of America applied for a job, got turned down, so it is “workplace violence”.

    BTW- 9/11 Truthers – Rosie O’Donnell is a big time 9/11 Truther…might want to review your standards for the company you keep.

      • @pg2 If you would provide me with some links to sources you think are credible on the 9/11 Event and Osama Bin Laden’s involvement or not, and his possible death well before Seal Team Six supposedly shot him in 2011, I will give anything you offer a fair reading.

        Fair Warning: No matter how persuasive your information may be, it won’t make me like Rosie O’Donnell, but she wouldn’t like me either, so we’re even.

        Thanks!

        • Ha, nobody likes Rosie. At the same time I’ll take a pass on the homework assignment, books have been written on this subject matter and if you are sincere in your intellectual curiosity you can find all this yourself, and much more with the help of your keypad and laptop. Just be careful navigating the minefield of misinformation and disinformation that is so prevalent on the internet, and elsewhere. Good luck.

        • Ok, thanks. Was hoping for a few reliable links precisely because the Internet is such a minefield for crackpot theories, but no matter. Good endeavor for a rainy afternoon.

  15. “The question is: have we learned from the past or are we condemned to repeat it?”

    I think we all know the answer to this. Look around; it feels like we’re just repeating the last 160 years. How is it that in the age of free information, all we hear is BS?

    As for the Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? Nuke em. Time to clean the slate. These radical Muslims celebrate and long for death. I say we give them what they’re asking for. Those people are a cancer that should be removed.

      • ALL of them. There’s a reason army’s used to destroy entire populations; those you spare today will rise up against you tomorrow. It’s not pretty, it’s not just, it’s war. If you can’t destroy an idea, destroy those that would carry and subscribe to that idea. They would do the same to us in an instant, and claim it righteous by their religion. Just my two cents. Good thing I’m not in charge. I know it’s cold, but it’s the only truly logical end. If we take turns attacking each other for another 1000 years the body count will be much higher.

        • @Phil COV, There are 1.6 Billion Muslims in the World, of which 1.4 Billion are Sunnis (the Sect Parents of the ISIS super radical Jihadists) and about 162 Million Shi’ias (the Sect Al Amaliki belongs to). Of those 1.4 Billion Sunnis, about half are thought to support actively or sympathize with the ISIS Jihadists, so that’s 700 Million. Comparatively, the population of the U.S. is 316 Million and the population of The Peoples’ Republic of China is 1.36 Billion
          The idea of killing enough of the Sunnis to stop their self-proclaimed war on the West and U.S. in particular is unrealistic, not to ignore the fact it would amount to genocide on a scale that defies moral classification.
          I got curious when I read your “Nuke ’em all” comment and did some number research. I am not attacking you, just pointing-out how staggering the numbers turn-out to be,

        • DerryM
          Nice researching; that’s truly a staggering amount of people. Obviously that would be unequaled in history. You’re probably right and I’m just venting. But it does seem like the West will be fighting the Middle East for another 1000 years. Now, if the “crusades” go global, then we’re obviously outnumbered.

        • Truthfully, I was astounded when I realized the Sunnis, as a religious sect, outnumbered the whole U.S. population by 4 to 1! and even outnumbered the Chinese by an amount greater than the U.S. population.
          I am looking for a figure of how many Sunnis live in the U.S.but have only found the total figure for Muslims of 2.6 Million in the U.S. as of 2010. Probably a safe bet most of those are Sunnis.

          Apparently, the Muslims have been “in-fighting” for over a thousand years, so your prediction we may be fighting some of them for a 1000+ years is probably spot on.

          As I said once before, I am not so much scared by what they might do to us, as I am of what they might force us to become in order to defend ourselves against them.

          Other Readers: I am just quoting whole numbers and not condemning ALL Muslims Just trying to wrap my head around what we Americans (including American Muslims) have to face. Don’t like it, but the past has a terrible way of shaping the future and you can only deal with the present.

      • Also, it’s documented that Osama bin Laden viewed the 9/11 plot not as an end, but as an opening salvo. He meant to draw us into conflict with the Muslim world. His end game was to have the US fight a decades-long war of attrition that would eventually bankrupt our country and collapse our economy. Men, women and children would join the fight and their ranks would be continually replenished. It worked on the Soviets.

        • Phil, sorry but my BS detector is going off, can you share some of this documentation you are referring to which prompts you to speak your opinion as fact?

        • I recalled that report, too, but could not remember the source or year. Thank-you for finding and posting the link!

        • So anything coming from CNN settles it, right? Wow. If this passes for credible proof for you, you are either an agenda shill, or really, really naïve.

        • PG2

          It’s the first thing that came up in a quick search. Feel free to perform your own search. The video was released to Al-Jazerra and reported in the US by CNN and others. Here are some others.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/bin-ladens-war-against-the-us-economy/2011/04/27/AFDOPjfF_blog.html
          http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/05/03/even-in-death-did-osama-bin-laden-win/

          I don’t claim to speak Arabic or to have spoken with ObL himself, but it seems between the reported news from 2004 and a quick glance at history my assessment has been adequately defended.
          Now, why are we arguing about this? What exactly have I said that has you doubting me, and more importantly, why? I haven’t said that they win. I haven’t said that we lose. I haven’t said that we shouldn’t have fought them. I have said that we should have annihilated them. But DERRYM reasonably brought me back down to Earth on that one.
          Secondly. Please sight what about my comments would show naivety or an agenda.

        • Phil, we’re not arguing anything, at least I’m not. I was pointing out that you are speaking your opinion in terms of fact, when they are clearly not. There are also credible reports of bin laden denying the attacks, and there are credible reports of him having late stage kidney disease in 2001, and credible reports of his death as early as 2002. If you want to believe, or maybe you have a financial reason for believing, that a dying man in cave could outsmart and outmaneuver the greatest intelligence and military the world has ever known, well go for it. You’ll still never be able to explain Bldg 7 to anyone who can form a critical thought.

        • Hilarious Phil, running like a roach when the lights(facts)turned on. Oh well, didn’t expect much more.

  16. I can just see the jihadis shaking in their boots as they watch two withered old men singing in high pitched feminine voices about their Remingtons.

  17. Wow, few of my posts removed, maybe a little too close to home with my controlled opposition comments? Guess I’ll take that as a signal that my suspicions are correct.

  18. Yes they are cowards, because they are afraid to stand up and protect the children.

    They hide their actions in shadows and voting booths. Elect corrupt anti-gun politicians, who write anti-gun laws and gun free zones. Anti-gun people are gutless wonders. They refuse to stand up with a weapon to protect anyone, including kids! They think taking your gun away, (dis-arming VICTIMS), is the proper response to a world of criminals and foreign nationalist.

    Lets label them what they are! “Pie in the sky crazies.”

    Then the whole bunch denies their responsibility.

  19. I’m surprised by some of the responses here. Eradicating Muslims? Yeah that will work and not just breed more terrorists.

    Ever seen those videos of army hummers driving around the middle East in towns, ramming civilian vehicles out of the way so as not to stop and risk getting ambushed?

    Ever picture that happening to you in your town? Militarized police driving around plowing through vehicles?

    Ever seen the police kill or jeopardize innocents to get criminals?

    Or raid the wrong house and kill innocents?

    We’ve seen all these things before. People here complain endlessly (and correctly) about police militarization. People complain about innocents being harmed for nothing like ruby ridge or Waco. Or the paper delivery women getting lit up during the dorner thing.

    We complain about no knock raids and wrong address raids. And there’s nothing wrong with these complaints.

    But what is important to remember is that it’s these kinds of things that produce extremists or terrorists or whatever word you want to use. Why do you think militias turned up at the Bundy ranch? Even if he might have been in the wrong, people are fed up.

    And this is from rare and milder incidents than what’s happing in the middle east as a result of foreign armies occupying and fighting.

    If things were as bad here as they are there, we’d be shooting at the police. We’d be on survivalist/prepper websites learning how to disable armored vehicles with thermite or how to make explosives.

    Terrorists are created. I’m sure there are a few who take their religion too seriously and would be willing yo attack oversees. But how can you think that’s the norm? The average american has no clue what’s going on when it comes to politics or the world. You think the average middle easterner cares about some country across the world when they have to focus on the daily grind of putting food on the table for their kids?

    Well they do care when that foreign country is blowing up their innocent family members and wrecking their home, their car and ruining their lives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *