Reap as ye sow

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Don't put words into my mouth. I have not stated, or implied, that we should occupy other countries. that is not my answer!

The answer is proper integration of reasonable Muslims (as many are, and have done) into our society, and stop this nonsense of multi-cultural seperate enclaves (France is paying the price for that) of non-integrated Islamists, following their own agenda of customs and practices, which are alien, and opposed to our societies values. (I cited Trojan Horse Islamic anti-western faith schools in our midst, and the Pakistani community 'white trash girls' sex rings, and other practices which have been NOT tackled, and avoided, for fear of being anti mulkti cultural.)

There are enclaves in our midst where they refuse to integrate, and won't even learn our language. All serious people now see that allowing this situation to take root in our society has been a mistake. Moderate Muslims, who have properly integrated are now speaking out forcibly. One of our leading Muslim politicians has now stated that it is the duty of the Muslim community to root out, and report extremists in their midst to the authorities. THAT has been long overdue!!

You don't live in Europe, but I do, and unless theses radicals are rooted out and stopped, we will breed a fifth column in our midst (if we haven't already done so) just as France has.

All who wish to live in our country must be forced to obey OUR laws, not theirs! THAT is my overriding response!

[GURGLETROUSERS]

P.S. Sorry if message is a bit confuse,d but rushed to avoid continuing computer problems.

[boggsman1]

[mac]

GT--that is not the point that you initially made, or that I made. But I agree with you for the most part. The history of immigration in America is filled with ethnic ghettos that were, as you said, not multi-cultural. I saw this first hand in Philadelphia in the very early 1960's, when a soccer match would bring out near--British rowdyism over teams. (Manchester United, as I recall, and a Lithuanian team) But despite that, second generations have generally assimilated.

I am fine with treating radical rabble rousing in these places as probable cause, and responding in the criminal justice system. My point was not that invading Afghanistan and killing Bin Laden were not successful militarily--but that the black prisons created new terrorist faster than we were killing the old ones.

[techno900]

I wonder where the US would be if after WWII we had stuck to our own business and never set foot abroad in an effort to manage/control/defeat tyranny?

What would have the rest of the world looked like now? I am not saying that we should or shouldn't go overseas to fight for what we believe, only that it is very easy to have 20/20 hindsight regarding our successes and failures.

[pueno]

[mac]

Techno--false comparison. After World War II we rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan, and were seen as benevolent. Our efforts at infrastructure rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in huge fraud from the two puppet governments, and the bad guys blowing up what they could. It made things worse, not better. The lack of a common culture and language, and our complete lack of understanding of the Muslim world and the ongoing battle between Sunni and Shia didn't help.

There are now wars going on in how many countries? Is it just a coincidence that our interventions are mostly for oil security or as proxy wars with the Soviet Union?

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Just a note, now I've calmed down a little.

It took years for us to extradite one of the worst terrorist Islamic mosque preachers (Abu Hanza - the Hook), to America on terrorist charges. (You have just sentenced him to life imprisonment.)

Theses anti-western preachers are experts at manipulating the legal process (human rights laws) and drawing things out with interminable appeals, to prevent us from 'kicking them out.' Meanwhile they poison and radicalize our young homegrown Muslim youth against us.

As all know, flocks of these young have travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS, and many have now returned with expert knowledge of how to carry out attrocities. Our security services can't predict who will do what, but, as in France, it will be an attack on a 'soft target.'

As the president of France reasonably stated, we are at war with radical Islam.

[mac]

GT--Glad that you have calmed down--everyone reasons better. It is an unfortunate turn of language to use the word "war" when you are dealing with terrorism. Terrorism has arisen because people have lost faith in the ability and/or willingness of states to deal with their issues. And the concepts of war, which involve capture of territory, are poorly suited for dealing with terrorism.

I think you have an assumption here that you need to revisit. I don't expect to control or change the mind of someone that has been brainwashed in a madrassas funded by Saudi Arabia http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/22/us-pakistan-saudi-uae-idUSTRE74L0ER20110522

But the battle is for the involvement of the non-radical, or perhaps not yet radicalized Muslim world. This is very difficult, because there is a long-standing battle between Shia and Shiite for power. The battle is over power and hegemony, with religious arguments used to justify behavior. (Hmm, what does that remind you of). When the US tortured Muslims, whether perceived to be innocent or guilty, we lost legitimacy with the non-radical. When we tortured suspects, and destroyed the tapes, we also gave up the ability to prosecute them through the courts.

I am not sure that we can ever "win" this war--we have spent trillions on drug interdiction, and the illegal drug trade is currently worth about $360 billion in the world economy. That's more than the GDP of South Africa. Yet estimates are we interdict about 10% of the traffic.

I think that more comprehensive approaches are necessary. We need to address the funding of madrassas directly with our so-called allies. Yet we pump more money into the military in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan with commensurate help either militarily or diplomatically.

Why do you have so much trouble believing that the two brothers were radicalized by Abu Ghraib?

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Mac I can't write all I wish to without losing it, but in brief.

It's not so much what lit their fuse,(Salmon Rushdie was issued a death sentence for criticizing Islam long before current events) but what their objective is. (Was.)

They attacked the staff of a satirical publication which, rightly, was exercising their right to freedom of thought and speech. (My father was badly injured, twice, fighting for such freedom in world war two.)

Islamic militants orchestrate mass resistance to these rights of free speech, by rabble rousing when anything is said which is remotely critical of them and their faith, and have in effect silenced a lot of it. (BBC, verboten to mention anything at all critical of Islam.)

As you will know, a new political party in our country (UK Independence Party) has rapidly gained a large amount of ground. It's leader Nigel Farage, quite reasonably stated after the French massacre that, mass immigration had made it frankly impossible for many communities to integrate, and that we should defend our Judeo Christian heritage against the Islamic challenge.

He was immediately jumped on by our establishment for trying to make political capital out of the French massacre. He should have added that the political establishment is in denial! (Again, my view, and many others in our country.)