ShareholdersUnite Forums

Full Version: Terrorism, guns, threats, action and inaction
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.


"This is a political choice we make"


Updated by  on December 3, 2015, 8:30 a.m. ET @ezraklein

"This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America," President Obama said. "We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction."

The occasion for Obama's speech was a mass shooting. But which mass shooting? The shooting on June 18, 2015, that killed nine in Charleston, South Carolina? The shooting on May 23, 2014, that killed six in Isla Vista, California? The shooting on July 20, 2012, that left 12 dead in Aurora, Colorado? Was it Wednesday's shooting in San Bernardino, California?

In this case, it was the shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, that left nine dead on October 1, 2015. But it could have been any of the 351 mass shootings that have happened in the past 335 days. It could have been any of the more than 1,040 mass shootings that have happened since a gunman opened fire on Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, killing 27.

"This is a political choice we make," Obama said, and he was right. Sometimes we make the opposite choice.

On November 13, terrorists associated with ISIS murdered at least 129 people in Paris, France. Though the attacks occurred on another continent, reaction in America was swift and severe. In short order, 26 governors said they would bar Syrian refugees from settling in their states.

As a policy response, this was absurd. The Paris attacks weren't committed by Syrian refugees — they were committed by the people those refugees were fleeing. And if ISIS wanted to sneak terrorists into the United States, it would be easier to have them pose as European tourists than to smuggle them through the more arduous and closely scrutinized refugee process.

But the fear governors were responding to was real. The Paris attacks had left Americans afraid; they needed something done. The problem was that the attacks hadn't been in America — there was no clear security hole to close, no obvious vulnerability to address. So in the absence of policy that could make them safer, Americans turned to policies, and to politicians, that could at least make them feel safer. They demanded that something be done, and something was done, or at least governors around the country tried to do something. On Wednesday, the state of Texas sued the federal government to prevent the resettlement of six Syrian refugees.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, killing 2,996 people. It is to take nothing away from the tragedy to say that that is 1/11th the number of people killed every year by guns in America.

The country's response was sweeping. We passed the Patriot Act and created the Department of Homeland Security. We began surveilling ourselves and the rest of the world. We invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq. We spent trillions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of soldiers. Our president promised to "rid the world of evildoers," and we cheered.

But after the 351st mass shooting since the start of the year, our politicians had nothing to offer but prayers. And that's because a political choice has been made, or at least our elected officials believe a political choice has been made — they believe that what America wants done is nothing.

And maybe they're right. Polls shows majorities want a bit more gun control, but nothing radical. And past experience show those polls don't amount to enough political pressure to get anything passed through the United States Congress.

This is a choice we are making, collectively, as a country. Faced with other threats, we have made other, more radical choices. We will do almost anything, spend almost any amount, to prevent deaths from jihadist terrorism — and if Wednesday's shooting turns out to have been motivated by a similar ideology, the response may again prove aggressive, for better or for worse.

But so far, we have proven we will do basically nothing to prevent deaths from gun violence if preventing deaths from gun violence means making it even trivially harder to purchase guns. If this is just another mass shooting — a horrible string of words, but in America, an apt one — we will probably lament it, and fight over it, and then move on from it. That is our choice, and America's death toll from guns is the cost.

The Republican party is beginning to have the feel of a bank being overrun by zombies. Nurturing ignorance for two generations is taking its toll. Trump, Cruz, Carson and the Cuban kid who wants creationism taught along side evolution. Four horsemen.

The answer to the problem is really pretty simple. Reinstate the tenth Commandment. Make false witness a sin again and make those who practice it in politics and the media pay for their transgressions. This Nine Commandment standard of American politics does no one any good.


Hysteria About Refugees, but Blindness on Guns



LESBOS, Greece — For three weeks American politicians have been fulminating about the peril posed by Syrian refugees, even though in the last dozen years no refugee in America has killed a single person in a terror attack.

In the same three weeks as this hysteria about refugees, guns have claimed 2,000 lives in America. The terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs were the most dramatic, but there’s an unrelenting average of 92 gun deaths every day in America, including suicides, murders and accidents.

So if politicians want to tackle a threat, how about developing a serious policy to reduce gun deaths — yes, including counterterrorism measures, but not simply making scapegoats of the world’s most vulnerable people.


The caricatures of Syrian refugees as jihadis who “want to kill us,” as one reader named Josh tweeted me, are unrecognizable to anyone who spends time with these refugees. I think some of the harshness might melt if readers could stand with me on a beach here in Lesbos and meet the refugees as they arrive on overloaded rubber rafts after a perilous journey. The critics would see that Syrian refugees are people like us, only wet, cold, hungry and exhausted.

If you think me naïve, meet a 16-year-old Syrian boy here whom I’ll call Ahmed. He lived in a part of Syria controlled by the Islamic State and decided to flee to the West after, he says, he was flogged by ISIS bullies.

Ahmed had to leave his family behind, and he can’t contact them directly for fear of getting them in trouble. I’m not sharing his real name or hometown, to avoid harming his family, but his relatives who have also fled confirmed his account.

Schools have been suspended since ISIS moved into the area, so Ahmed found a job in a pharmacy. When he ran out of a medicine one day, he went to borrow some from another pharmacy — but that was run by a woman, allowed to serve female customers only. Ahmed was arrested.

“They wanted to chop my head off because I spoke to a woman,” Ahmed explained.

Eventually, he was released, but Ahmed has seen more beheadings then he can count. The executions take place every Friday in the town square, and all the people are summoned to watch the swordsman do his work. The bodies are left on public display, sometime in a crucifixion position.

“If someone didn’t fast during Ramadan, they put him in a cage in public to starve for up to three days,” Ahmed added. Ahmed himself was accused of skipping prayers and sentenced to 20 lashes. A Saudi man administered the flogging with a horsewhip.

After that, Ahmed’s family members gave their blessing to his flight because they feared that he might be forced into the ISIS army.

So what should I tell this 16-year-old boy who risked his life to flee extremism? That many Americans are now afraid of him? That the San Bernardino murders may only add to the suspicion of Syrian refugees? That in an election year, politicians pander and magnify voter fears?

Here in Lesbos, the fears seem way overdrawn. Some of the first aid workers Syrian refugees meet when they land on the beach are Israeli doctors, working for an Israeli medical organization called IsraAID. The refugees say they are surprised, but also kind of delighted.

“We were happy to see them,” said Tamara, a 20-year-old Syrian woman in jeans with makeup and uncovered hair. The presence of Jews, Muslims and Christians side by side fit with the tolerance and moderation that she craved.


Historically, we Americans have repeatedly misperceived outsiders as threats. In 1938 and again in 1941, one desperate Jewish family in Europe tried to gain refugee status in the United States but failed, along with countless thousands of others. That was Anne Frank’s family.

So while it was the Nazis who murdered Anne, we Americans were in some sense complicit.

“We’re facing a great threat from Islamic extremists like ISIS, and we need to be smart about how we confront it,” said Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, who has focused on refugees. “By humiliating and rejecting those who are fleeing from ISIS, we create a sense of anger in much of the Middle East. The ultimate outcome of rejecting Syrian refugees is a propaganda victory for ISIS.”

If politicians want to tackle a threat to our safety, they might cast an eye not far off on desperate refugees but closer to home — on potential terrorists and also on guns. It’s absurd that the Senate refused to block people on the terror watch list from buying guns; suspected terrorists can’t easily board planes but can buy assault rifles? Presidential candidates and governors should stop fear-mongering about refugees: After all, 785,000 refugees have been admitted to the United States since 9/11 and not one has been convicted of killing a person in a terrorist act in America.

“We, too, are human, and we have a right to live,” an 18-year-old woman named Rahaf, who wants to be a lawyer, told me on a drizzly day in a camp here. “We’re not terrorists. We’re running away from war. I just want to have children who can grow up in peace.”

"After all, 785,000 refugees have been admitted to the United States since 9/11 and not one has been convicted of killing a person in a terrorist act in America"

Could it be that our culture has largely lost the ability to understand numbers? Actually, that would explain an awful lot.
Donald Trump is calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," his campaign said on Monday, until "our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Trump Wants 'Total and Complete Shutdown' of Muslims Entering U.S. - Bloomberg Politics

Let me see if I get this right. So Trump wants no Muslim entering the US anymore. Even if this would be possible, or practicable (which I very much doubt) I'm pretty sure it is actually completely counterproductive.

Violence and terrorism springs up mainly in communities that feel isolated, alienated, excluded. Go to the banlieu's of Paris, or Amsterdam west, or any rough parts of almost major city in Europe, and you almost enter another country. Of course in the Middle East things are far worse. Disfunctional politics (mostly supported by the West, by the way) and economics leaves large parts of society with no place, no role, while sectarism, often of a violent nature, is blasted into their living rooms via 80+ satellite channels.

Now, there are what, 5, 6, perhaps even 12 million muslims in the US. With hysteria like this, are we going to push a few of them over the edge?

But of course they can still buy all the automatic weapons they like, even if we think they're too dangerous to board a plane...

Trump is too much of a winner in order to have any understanding of what it feels like being a loser, feeling not to have any stake in society (rightly or wrongly).

This is only going to make things worse. We need to make the Muslim community our ally in this struggle, not alienate them.


The big hole in Obama’s Islamic State strategy


By David Ignatius Opinion writer December 7 at 1:00 PM

At the center of President Obama’s strategy for dealing with the Islamic State is an empty space. It’s supposed be filled by a hypothetical “Sunni ground force,” but after more than a year of effort, it’s still not there. Unless this gap is filled, Obama’s plan won’t work.

Otherwise, Obama made a reasonable case in his speech to the nation Sunday night. He’s right to argue for patience and persistence in fighting the Muslim terrorists, rather than “tough talk.” He’s correct that the United States shouldn’t feed the jihadists’ fantasies with “a long and costly ground war.” And especially right that we’ll be safer at home and abroad if most Muslims are allies against the extremists.

David Ignatius writes a twice-a-week foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive

But there was a mysterious black box in the middle of Obama’s speech. Here’s how he tried to explain it: “The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, special forces and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory.”

What “local forces” is Obama talking about? If he means Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria, yes, they’ve performed admirably. In Kurdish areas. They don’t want to clear and hold the Sunni heartland of the Islamic State, nor should they. If Obama is talking about the Shiite-led Iraqi military, their performance is still just barely adequate, even backed by American air power, and they’re disdained and mistrusted by the Sunnis of Ramadi, Fallujah and Mosul. If he’s talking about the Islamist brigades in Syria armed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, it’s still not entirely clear whether they’re friend or foe.

The disturbing fact is that a strong, reliable, indigenous Sunni ground force doesn’t exist yet in Iraq or Syria. The United States has been trying to fix this problem since the fall of Mosul in June 2014, with very little success. We’re like the joke about the starving economist who needs to open a can of beans on a desert island and posits: “Assume we had a can opener!”

Consider the false hopes and missed connections over the past year: In Iraq, U.S. trainers were dispatched to Al Asad and Al Taqaddum air bases in Anbar province to train thousands of Sunni tribal fighters. The tribesmen mostly didn’t show up, and no wonder: The Shiite-led government in Baghdad still refuses to approve a Sunni “national guard” with real power. In Syria, Congress authorized a $500 million plan to train and equip a largely Sunni force to fight the Islamic State. Only a few hundred signed up, instead of the expected 5,000, and the first wave of fighters walked into a trap and was savaged by jihadists in northern Syria.

Why have these efforts gone so badly, and what needs to be fixed? Basically, I’d argue that Sunnis don’t trust an America that turned their world upside down in the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Tribal leaders have been our default Sunni strategy ever since: We’re trying now to use them as mercenaries against the Islamic State. But it’s a corrupt bargain on both sides.

Filling this Sunni vacuum with new self-confidence will be the work of a generation, but it must start now, for it’s an essential part of defeating the jihadists. The West’s best think tanks should be working on this problem; the Arab world’s brightest young activists should be making plans for governance and economic development. Global institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should be developing plans for trusteeship, reconstruction and governance.

It’s 1944 in the Arab world: Defeating the jihadists demands the creation of a healthy Sunni body politic.

What would a revived Sunni heartland in Iraq and Syria look like? Well, you can get a pretty good idea by examining Iraqi Kurdistan. It flowered under a U.S. no-fly zone known as “ Operation Provide Comfort” that started in 1991. Under this protective cover, investment, security and political stability came together in a virtuous cycle.

When we think about the future of Iraq and Syria, we should have in mind vibrant Sunni provinces that, like Kurdistan, are part of a loose federal state. In building a strategy for defeating the Islamic State, creating this “Sunnistan” will be the long pole in the tent.