On another note, where is the US in this gathering of world leaders against terrorism?
As I mentioned in another thread, Eric Holder was sent. Whether sending an Attorney General instead of Obama going himself (or sending the VP) is perceived as “enough” is another matter. OTOH, the U.S. is now organizing an anti-terrorist summit for the allies. And a friend in DC heard rumors that the White House thought Obama’s presence could be too distracting in dealing with what’s perceived as a very specific European spin of the larger terrorism issue.
On CNN, Fareed Zakaria just said he believes that no major US representation in Paris was a mistake. I agree.
^^ Re Post #221- I see it a bit differently.
It is kind of hard for an administration to publicly say the “war” against terrorism is over (which it has been doing) then join a march in support of a war against terrorism. War is waged by countries and defined factions in this admin’s view. Since this admin sees terrorism through the eyes of a law enforcement problem, it therefore sent the chief law enforcement officer, not the chief executive.
Thus Holder signifies the law enforcement, not ideological angle. In contrast, Europe now sees terrorism as war against western values and as ideologically-based, not as law enforcement problem…
It will be interesting to watch what BO says at this anti-terrorism summit versus what actually drives terrorism. If I were to guess he will talk economics, investment in infrastructure in the Middle East (yeah, like money is the Middle East’s problem) and the disaffected youth nonsense etc. I suspect most of what he says will be really be off in left field from what actually drives terrorism.
Interesting, thanks for your thoughts, @awcntdb. What do you think “actually drives terrorism”? And what do you think should be done to combat it?
@katliamom - I see your questions in post #224 and will get back to them. Have a few business things to do first.
If poverty and inequality in incomes were causes of terrorism, South America would be a hotbed of terrorism. The slums of Rio de Janeiro are within sight of the luxury apartments near the beach. Poverty leads to street crime, pickpocketing and robbery yes, but terrorism is based on cancerous ideologies.
Terrorism is the opposite of poverty based crime. Terror, particularly of this kind, is based on ideology of creation. In this case, it is building a world run by Shariah because that is what they see as God’s plan. They destroy to make. When people in the West blame ourselves, as in “it’s our fault they weren’t better integrated”, they play right into the hands of the terrorists.
As I noted in an earlier post, if you look at the backgrounds of terrorists they vary tremendously, with some poor and some well off, some marginalized and some integrated. The Army officer who killed people at Fort Hood was well off and integrated into society. The Tsarnaev kid on trial in Boston was in college in the state, had friends, had a social life, etc. (and, as I noted, owed his existence to the US taking his family in). The same is generally true of European terrorists: they come from a variety of backgrounds.
It isn’t poverty. It’s ideology. It isn’t nihilistic destruction but creative violence.
This is why I believe the only way to stop terror is for the Muslim communities to turn on these people, to reject what they stand for actively rather than passively. This will not be easy but the alternative starts to move toward policing all Muslims as though they are potential terrorists.
A commentator on CNN (or MSNBC, I forget) seemed to lay the greatest blame on Saudi Arabia as the root (and key fanner) of terror-fueling extremism. Did I understand that correctly? Thoughts?
I honestly don’t understand what your point here is. Are you saying we shouldn’t mention the Muslim religion when discussing terrorism? Because they are not the ONLY ones committing violent acts?
I meant to address my post above to @cobrat
“It will be interesting to watch what BO says at this anti-terrorism summit versus what actually drives terrorism. If I were to guess he will talk economics, investment in infrastructure in the Middle East (yeah, like money is the Middle East’s problem) and the disaffected youth nonsense etc. I suspect most of what he says will be really be off in left field from what actually drives terrorism.”
I have what is probably a futile hope that he won’t do that. It would be insulting, particularly to the French, to pretend that this isn’t because of a violent ideology, and if we would just all throw more money at people then it would stop.
That puts the onus on the western countries, and not where it belongs–radical, violent ideology. You believe what I do, or you die. You have offended Islam, therefore, you die. This is the only religion allowed, you say anything that insults it, your pure existence as someone of a different religion entitles you to death.
In fact, it would probably less offensive if he just classified this incident as “workplace violence”.
It’s all so scary. My 19-year-old son is doing volunteer work in the middle east. There was a car bombing in his vicinity yesterday. ISIS is thought to be responsible. I’m trying to stay calm!
I’d be worried, too, Maine. Good luck to your boy.
^^^I am a pathological worrier (according to DH), so I feel you!!
But he’ll probably be fine. He will.
^“mom” is another word for “worry”.
Your son must be very brave and generous to do such work. No doubt he’ll be fine, but it is completely logical to worry. I hope he comes home soon.
Hugs to you ML.
It makes me feel kind of small, about the silly things I worry about my kids. Are they eating enough vegetables, are they exercising enough? What if the new glasses my son just got don’t work out so well? Ridiculous.
Thanks! He’s with a good group of people, including a former Green Beret. And he so loves helping people! He was my middle child, the one who gave me gray hair. And now he has the biggest, most generous heart of anyone I know.