Quote:Nothin' wrong with a little self medication from time to time.  

 

I think the concept of the "War on Terror" is really the discussion that needs to be had.  The gun issue is also important.  But I tend to grow weary of discussing it over and over again.

 

To my recollection, we've never really discussed the "War on Terror", and I think it would be a good discussion.  Have you noticed, with every one of these acts of violence, we talk about the terrorist, then we talk about the victims, then we talk more about the terrorist, and then we move on.  The media absolutley sucks at actually discussing the causes of terrorism, potential reasons for why these people do what they do, and what can be done to solve the problem.

 

Trump's idiocy of keeping muslims out won't work, and is not a true discussion.  So, if any trumpette wants to weigh in, please provide my depth then your simpleton candidate has.  Or at least, link him saying something more than we need to keep muslims out.

 

Otherwise, I'd like to hear some thoughts...  Starting with this:

 

What do you think are the causes that have resulted in us declaring a "War on Terror"?  And is a "War on Terror" even the right approach?  I mean, look how much an abject failure our other so called "Wars" have been...  I'm lookin' at you drugs, poverty, et all...

 

To answer your first question, I do think that the "final nail in the coffin" so-to-speak was the attack on 9/11.  Events that happened after that are directly a result of us finally saying "enough is enough" regarding terrorist attacks.  As far as the causes leading up to us declaring the War on Terror, what immediately comes to my mind is the hostage crisis in Iran.  However, there were events leading up to that which are really the root cause.  It basically boils down to predominately Muslim countries choosing a government that follows religious (in this case Sharia) law.  As the world became more "Westernized" there were some that were so much against what "Westernized" was really all about.

 

To answer your second question, that's pretty difficult.  At what point should we impose and enforce our version of Freedom on other countries?  As an example, because a certain country and their people think that women should have to dress a certain way (hijabs) or outlaws gay activity with the consequence of death.  Does that mean that we need to invade them and "fix" their country?  I would say no.  However, if a country harbors people (including their own government) that want to kill us or our allies because we don't follow their beliefs, then I have a problem with that.

 

Quote:1.)The father shouldn't have been in the country.


2.) if you publicly swear allegiance to a foreign power or terrorist cell and express the desire to harm Americans your citizenship should be revoked.


3.) San Bernardino was a migrant here on a fiancé visa.


4.) boston: asylum seekers.


5.) 9-11 over stayed student visas in some cases.


Is there a magic bullet? No. Are there logical steps that we should take as a country? Yes.


Stop importing people from parts of the world that don't share our basic values.


All those that do come into the country must be affirmatively vetted over long periods of time.


The importance of assimilation and maintaining our culture can never take a back seat to PCism.

 

1.  Why?

 

2.  I can agree with this, but what's the point?  He did it as he was committing the crime.

 

3.  Only one was a migrant, the other was a citizen.

 

4.  So is there any reason that they shouldn't have been allowed asylum prior to the bombing?  After all, both migrated here at a young age.

---