Hebdo massacre shows how incredibly vulnerable our society is to Islamic terror

The Charlie Hebdo massacre demonstrates how incredibly vulnerable our society is to Islamic terror​

By Michael Snyder
January 8, 2015

If just three crazed jihadists can cause this much worldwide terror, what could thousands or even millions of them do? We live at a time when our world is becoming increasingly unstable, and thanks to the Internet hundreds of millions of people can know about a major act of terrorism within minutes of it happening. And that is what Islamic terrorists want. They want to cause fear, panic and terror, but more than anything else they want attention. They want the world to know what they did and why they did it. Even as much of the world recoils in horror in response to the massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, there are millions of radical Muslims in the Middle East that are greatly celebrating and are hailing these jihadists as heroes. This is the biggest global news story of 2015 so far, and it is going to encourage other jihadists to commit similar attacks. And without a doubt, these kinds of attacks have already been increasing. It is being reported that worldwide suicide attacks by Muslims nearly doubled from 2013 to 2014. Sadly, what we have seen up to this point is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

We live in a society that is absolutely teeming with soft targets. The United States is literally a “target-rich environment” with thousands of schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, sports stadiums and government buildings to choose from. The possibilities for Islamic terrorists are endless.

And eventually these radical jihadists are going to figure out that they can cause far more terror with bombs, chemical weapons, viruses and dirty bombs than they ever could possibly hope to with just guns.

It really is a miracle that we have not seen more Islamic terror on U.S. soil up to this point. But as organizations such as ISIS continue to grow and become more sophisticated, it is only a matter of time before we see lots more attacks like the one that just happened in Paris.

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-charlie-hebdo-massacre-demonstrates.html

IMHO, whether the brothers live or die after the attack to Jihadist terrorists is of no importance . What matters is the terror they have instilled in the French and the world for that matter. The returns for a relative cheap operation is great. Just look at how Spain, England, Canada, Australia and the U.S. are tightening up their security procedures and protocols, while the leaders of ISUL laugh up their sleeves.
Then there's the Progressive Marxist leaders who shaking in their boots, tell us that despite all the evidence it's not Muslim Jihadists terrorists, they refuse to retaliate, or at least put a dent in ISUL. What was it that Obama and his lackeys have said about the attacks? One has to wonder about the leadership of this Banana Republic is up to.

 

Well, y'know, ... "Islamic" terror.

No other religion in the world sponsors international terrorism which is ascribed to the religion.

Muslims are the only ones. Right now. Today.

(Unless maybe there's a new Jim Jones thing going on somewhere that I haven't heard about)....

In fact, no other religion that I know of encourages its adherents to kill those with no faith.

There are some very serious problems here. Islam needs to get out of the dark ages, and it can't formalize that accomplishment - quickly - it's going to start losing adherents.

And then we're gonna have some real fun, 'cause you know what they do to apostates, yes?

 

Except for the fact that there's 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world....

 

You know.... I tried to tell 'em a long time ago, the "magical" execution of Bin Laden and the supposed dumping of his body at sea was the worst possible thing the US could have done. What we should have done is drawn and quartered his body, and left his severed head dangling from a pike in the middle of the town square in Kandahar. That would have worked. Now we've lost the opportunity, and we've reinforced the jihadists' claims to weakness and corruption. I'm not saying this from an ideological standpoint, I study this stuff. This is part of what I call "social dynamics". It's kind of.... a "comparative religion" approach, if you will. We study belief systems, not just individual bits of belief, but how the interactions between beliefs cause large macroscopic shifts. These things can actually be quantified, you can plot them on a graph. And the "dynamics" approach explains the "sudden and widespread change in social perspective and behavior" that might be attached to events as significant as, say, Selma and Montgomery in 1965. Well, the ideology is there too because Islam has an enormous problem with the concept of "the law" if the only acceptable legal system amounts to a theocracy (whether that is the name by which they call the system or not). I'm not so sure the problem is the "size", I mean, how much more "additional" damage can you do with 2 million instead of 1 million? The first... I dunno.... dozen are probably going to be a convenient resting point, wouldn't you think? The real problem is the "radical clerics" like Anwar al-Awlaki (who was American-born) have street cred. There is a "culture" of belief. And, because there is a culture of belief, we can treat it like any other "culture of belief" in the sense of throwing the methods we know at its analysis - "cultural anthropology", which might take us into areas like the Cargo Cults, and "social psychology" which speaks of things like narcissistic and sociopathic behaviors, and even social dynamics. This extremist culture of belief, becomes like any other extremist culture of belief that has persisted over the years - perhaps some of the nationalist movements, perhaps some of the racial supremacy stuff, fascism.... all of those are "systems of belief", not just simple "ideologies" but actually intricately interwoven relationships between specific beliefs that can be quantized and plotted on a graph. One of the simple goals of such an exercise is to build a "tree of belief". In other words, let's say someone gave us a Quran, and we didn't know "anything at all" about Islam, and from the book we're supposed to read it and figure it out. Well, when we're reading it, as we're reading it, it becomes clear that certain quantal beliefs have "primacy", they're more important than others. Some are like "sub-beliefs" which "logically flow from" the more important main beliefs, and the purpose of us building a simple "tree of belief" is so we can actually look at the hierarchy with our own two eyes - and that's a real eye-opener if you've never tried this before, you can spot almost "at a glance" where the logical contradictions are, and which beliefs appear to be "inverted" with respect to reality, and so on and so forth. Religions are usually pretty easy this way, 'cause they don't try to hide much, their biggest problem is they use obtuse vocabulary that has to be understood, but once you get into the actual belief trees.... y'know.... you ask 1,000 Christians to define God and the only consistent answer you're going to get is "God is everything" - and the Jews and the Muslims and even the deified Buddhists will tell you the same thing, so, you can set the belief trees side by side and it becomes obvious by inspection that three of the world's five major religions have a glaring self-contradiction right at the top of the belief tree. And these self-contradictions, in the tree of belief, as it is being communicated from one individual to another, (or let's say as it's being "built" in the recipient student), are what provide the openings for justifying mass terrorism in the name of God.

And, I mean, all those words, I coulda just said....

(snicker)

==> "Killing in the name of God". <==

^^^

 

Nah...better we did what we did.

That dirt bag wasn't even worth the time it took for the bullet to enter his body.

Better we ignore him forever.

AboveAlpha

 

The Jews tried that with Jesus and it only created a new religion, I think what we did with Bin laden was a better less evil solution

 

it's sad that we have to phrase it like that "Muslims are the only ones. Right now. Today."

Jewish and Christian religious fanatics have also killed in this God's name.... as history has shown, so is it really the religion... or the one God of all these Abrahamic faiths that they all believe in that is the problem?

.

 

Quite. How much blood has been spilled for Israel for example?

 

Certain Christians did some very nasty things during the Inquisition. If you could go back and time and witness that, would you be calling for the outlawing or eradication of the religion of Christianity like some (not necessarily you) are calling for the outlawing/eradication of Islam today? And if not, what's the difference?

 

But it's also a fallacy to cherry pick some anecdotes and hastily generalise to "no difference".

 

The point is, you can't judge a religion by the actions of a few, only considering a certain time frame. If I were living during the Inquisition, I still would have hated to see Christianity eradicated, or I wouldn't have wished for it, because I'm capable of recognizing when a religion is temporarily hijacked by cults who have perverted it.

 

Ahem.... it obviously didn't work. "Evil" is not the issue. You can not play these games through a moral prism of your own definition. Success is the issue. You want the terrorism to stop? Be successful. Focusing on the "evil" is a waste of time.

ps That's one of the reasons our mil is set up the way it is. They don't have to worry about the evil, they're given a mission and they're asked to return with success. And when they can focus on that, they do a real good job.

 

guns are easy, NBC warfare and comedy are hard. much like burglars and other criminals they go for soft targets and big payoffs for the least amount of investment.

before 9/11 airliners were soft targets, now people get their buttski kick for talking back to a flight attendant.

- - - Updated - - -

there are more Catholics.

 

you want to lower America to the terrorists level, I want America to remain above them.... were better then they are, lets keep it that way

.

 

I would dispute that the relatively aggressive and totalitarian nature of Islam is due to it being "temporarily hijacked by cults".

 

The West just shed its totalitarian nature rather recently (and after much bloodshed). How quickly we denounce those who we used to be.

 

Christianity lends itself to separation of church and state. Islam doesn't. Besides, yes we should denounce bad ideologies even if our ideologies were similar in some possibly minor respects in the past.

 

But it's not happening today. Anywhere. Anywhere on the planet. The Hindus don't to this, the Sikhs don't do this, the Tamils don't do this, the only other people who do this kinda thing are down in Africa and they're Muslims too.

Nah, the evidence says this is Islamic terrorism, plain and simple. Someone's trying to impose something on us that we don't want, and they think bombs is gonna get it for 'em.

And that's the stupidest thing about all of this, the terrorism isn't even going to work. It's not even going to make a dent in the equation on the best of days, and on an ordinary day you'll get ten pounds of backlash for every pound of flesh you manage to extract.

 

No. You're wandering. We're talking about public terrorism. That's something very specific. It's not the government of Israel raining down white phosphorous on the Palestinians, that's not what we're talking about and please don't try to divert the topic.

We're not talking about "blood being spilled". We're talking about public terrorism. Unidentified anonymous shooter walks in, takes a dozen lives, walks out. No one knows who or why till much later.

 

Christian Fanatics are not in as grand of a scale as the Muslim Fanatics, but yes, it is still happening today.... look at the Abortion bombings and Doctors killed at their own churches

Hitler was pretty recent....

we have also heard of many Mosques being bombed too lately, wrong is wrong no matter the side

the fact that Christians HAVE done it in the past shows that not all Christians are evil, same is true of Muslims

it's the religious fanatics that are the issue

theists need to stop with the crazy killings....

.

 

w...t....f....? We shed what? What are you talking about?

We're talking about our vulnerability to Islamic terrorism.

You can read through these threads. People in this country are willing to jump right into this thing and take a position based on nothing more than domestic politics - in other words a position of such extreme ignorance that the whole thing becomes a farce. I just heard one joker in another thread say he couldn't get on board with the anti-Islamic-terror thing because there were already too many fascists on that ship. Y'know.... I would say yeah, we have some areas of vulnerability. Anytime you can get this many "learned" colleagues to spout strong opinions on something they know next to nothing about, there's a considerable problem.

 

What I fear is the Muslims religious fanatics will set off the Christians religious fanatics and then the rest of us will be stuck with another holly war happening all around us

lets hope it never comes to that

 

"Rumsfeld&#8217;s Iraq &#8220;crusade&#8221; revealed"

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/18/rumsfelds-iraq-crusade-revealed/

"I wonder what&#8217;s worse: a defense secretary who puts Old Testament quotes on progress updates on an invasion of a Muslim country or a defense secretary who thinks this will add to his president&#8217;s knowledge and expertise. The lethal combination of a Christianist president and a cynical coterie helped make the Iraq debacle happen."

 

One guy? Two? Ten at most?

But he wasn't doing it in the name of his religion. Religion has no respect for national boundaries. If you were looking for a term that describes trans-national warfare of this type, what would you call it?

Mosque bombings? In the US? I heard of one that just got vandalized out here near Riverside someplace, but I haven't heard of a bombing lately. Our FBI doesn't much like bombs. Really, they don't.

Hm.... I mean, even something like the KKK isn't "really" a religion, even though there are elements thereof and etc, and, there's a whole bunch of people who "claim" to be Christian (or even specifically Catholic or something) whose level of practice is near-nil...

What we're seeing here is a "denomination" of Islam (the fundamentalist Sunni version, mostly) attempting to define by force what constitutes Islam.

And, if there's no other voices in the mix, I guess their definition will stand.

 

one is one too many, you can't say "NONE" is my point, sadly religious fanatics are always there, just waiting for someone to set them off... even in Christianity

I did not say Mosques in the USA, the USA is not the only place where we have Christians in this world

Christians supported Hitler in the beginning because he was raised Christian and disliked the Jews.... thankfully a point came that even Christians hated the man

.