It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.
I don't think it's unconstitutional for the FBI to begin investigating someone when they have a suspicion about them.
Let's keep in mind that the FBI didn't use any force and didn't cause any damage to a person or property. Calling their actions illegal is a stretch. Maybe the evidence would have been tossed out of court if they had tried to use it (though I don't see why), but to then turn around and say it was a criminal act and they need to be fined/fired/etc?? That's kind of ridiculous. Evidence is thrown out of courts all the time because the search was deemed illegal -- so how many times do you think the cop that collected the evidence plus his boss who okayed it get fired? Probably almost never, because it's unreasonable.
You're setting the bar way too high. If they are not causing any damage or interference to a person, and they have a reasonable suspicion, I say more power to them.
I think it's more for netbooks and stuff. They talk about a 1440p 10.1" screen. They compare it to the Atom and Core2Duo, which are not used in phones.
Someone with $300k income is also so financially conservative that they only invest in low-risk bonds over a 40 year period? Doesn't add up. People with that kind of income and that kind of time span are going to make riskier investments and do better than 5% over the long term.
You're also neglecting salary increases over the 40 year period. People making $300k early in their careers (30-40 years left) are going to grow substantially. Maybe you're a partner in a law firm, soon you'll be a senior partner and make double that. Maybe you're a doctor in a respected hospital, soon you'll have your own practice and make even more. And so on.
And as an anecdote, I know a doctor who is 35 and was just offered a job making $330k for a HALF TIME JOB (26 weeks full time, 26 weeks off) in a major hospital. If he had taken it, he would have also been able to run his own practice on the side. You are absolutely insane if you think there's a good chance he's going to be "barely rich" or whatever 40 years from now. I would agree he's not rich now, but he's living a rich lifestyle, and he's saving plenty of money. Also, he's not investing in 5% bonds, he's looking for businesses to buy or invest in.
I don't like class war rhetoric either, but let's not exacerbate it by denying plain as day facts. The reason I don't begrudge him his money is that he earned it, not that "it's not really that much anyways" or whatever.
The accumulation of wealth is supported and enabled by a well run society respecting personal property. The wealthy are those who reap the greatest benefits of society as a whole. Progressive taxes are (or at least can be) fair for this reason.
In societies that are not well run, the rich achieve great power. That is why poor countries have war lords, drug lords, terrorist networks, and rich dictators who operate with impunity. In those countries the poor are very scared of the rich. The rich are not at all worried that some poor family is going to squat on their land -- they would have their guards shoot them.
Regressive taxes place an onerous burden upon those least capable of bearing it.
I believe in having some level of welfare, but it's just as important that everybody in society contribute. And they must do it in a way that affects others beyond themselves and their small circle. The idea that the government has infinite money and exists to help one group at the expense of another has got to stop. We can't afford it. If you are too poor, pay with service.
This is why laws requiring everyone that doesn't have a compelling medical reason for getting the vaccination are justified.
No it's *how* such laws are justified. You're begging the question.
It's odd to me that there's not more of an effort to ban peanuts. Eating peanuts and using peanut oil is so minor. Nobody depends on it. Nobody has a fear of something bad happening if they *don't* eat peanuts. Yet all we say is manufacturers have to have a warning. That doesn't stop people from making homemade products and taking them to the office where someone may eat it and die, or having something be mislabeled, or the many other situations where things aren't labeled.
And with vaccination you have this huge movement going around saying "You MUST get your kids vaccinated even if you are genuinely afraid it will make them autistic. WE don't care how you feel, just do it."
How is that possible? Not eating nuts vs. fearing for your child's entire future.
When you don't vaccinate your child, it's not just your child that's at risk, it also includes all the others they are in contact with. Why the bloody hell do you think they send sick children home when parents ignore the standard "don't send sick children to school" policies?
Why is it their responsibility and not the at-risk child's parents' responsibility? Why not have a "don't send at-risk children to school" policy?
Here's an idea, if you really insist on ignoring the countless millions of case studies and instead go with one discredited quack and don't mind risking your childrens health, then keep your kids out of the schools and parks and other places where children congregate. Your disregard for their safety isn't fair to them or their parents.
Exactly, it's a question of which rights are more important. Do you want the right to go where you like, or do you want the right to stop other people from going where they like? One is personal freedom, one is fascism.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. You're an idiot.
Either you support someone's right to vote, or you do not.
Nope! In the past, people have said stuff like "I support someone's right to vote as long as they are men." Today we say "I support someone's right to vote if they are 18+ and not a felon."
So.. you're wrong. It's not either/or.
Frankly, the idea that any American would support the financial and political backing of a man who murders people who disagree with him is the furthest thing from the American ideal that I can even conceive of.
You're ill-informed. It's not because people disagree with him, it's because they are Islamic fascists who want to kill him and terrorize the whole world.
Stop impoverishing people you don't know because you're afraid of their opinions.
LOL, what?? Sad really. What you should really do is talk to the radical Muslims and ask them to stop impoverishing themselves and their fellow countrymen because they are afraid of other people's freedom.
I don't see any necessary connection between (just to be concrete in my example) Russia adopts Sharia law, and whether or not Russia forcibly occupies Chechnya.
The Chechen resistance is a jihad to establish Muslim self-rule in Chechnya. But jihads don't necessarily stop when their immediate objectives are achieved, and when they do stop they're not necessarily at the borders that non-Muslims had established.
My point is that maybe the religious arguments that people find compelling when they're under seige by Russia, would be such compelling arguments if they were able to live in peace and independence.
Ah, but can they live in peace and independence? Or will there be another excuse later on.. Russia is stealing their natural resources, Russia is corrupting their political parties, etc. Look at Pakistan's relationship with India where you see the exact same arguments, and of course the underlying theme that no true Muslim will submit to Hindu-Zionist power (i.e. work together, give up terrorist "strategic depth", all that crazy stuff). Perhaps India would have been better off treating Pakistan as Russia treats Chechnya. They'd have the same amount of terrorism but wouldn't have to be in a nuclear arms race and wouldn't have to have a million troops permanently stationed the border.
My point is basically that two things are unusual about the Russian suicide bombers, presumably: their religion, and how much Russia is pissing on their region. And maybe its the pissed-on attribute that's a stronger impetus for their suicide bombings than is their religion.
In what sense is Islam an unusual religion for suicide bombers?
Anyway, my problem with your statement is you are ignoring the wealth of Islamic terrorism examples we have to draw from. Heck just a few days ago a teenager blew himself up in Pakistan to kill some Shias. In case you're unfamiliar with it, let me give you a little background info. Shias are a minority Muslim sect in Pakistan. The Sunnis are not being "pissed on" in any way shape or form. They dominate Pakistan in the army, in politics, in civil rights, etc.
My point is, perhaps Chechen terrorists are motivated by Russia's actions towards them, but to pretend that their religion plays no role in how they respond to Russia's actions is ludicrous. And perhaps more importantly, their culture, and the Islamic influence on their culture, plays a HUGE role in determining what actions by Russia are deemed provocative to begin with. Here's a great 3-part article on the interactions of the Bolsheviks with the Muslim population.
I'm not saying Chechnya is at fault or that they are morally wrong for resisting Russian rule (I'm not saying the opposite either). I'm just saying you should not ignore Islam's influence on their culture and more importantly their relationship with other cultures.
So that's the only possible way a cheater flag could be applied to his account?
When I'm playing Black Ops there are friendly little reminders on the loading screen that network manipulation is cheating and will be caught. How are you so sure this case involves achievements and not something else?
If you give a damn about democracy, you can write your congressperson and senator and ask them to do the right thing and put Mubarak on notice that he will not have the support of the United States if he continues to suppress democratic will in Egypt.
You're confused. You can "give a damn" about democracy, but still not support Islamist movements against Western allies. You understand that the world is not black and white, right?
Judging from the links you've posted, it seems like perhaps the biggest problem is their aging population. Maybe the debt is getting so big that, though it's 0% interest right now, in the future they'll have to refresh the debt at some point and won't be able to get 0% with a declining economy and increased social spending.
All I'm saying is the size of the debt doesn't make it inherently dangerous. If people were willing to lend them $trillions at 0%, it seems like a good idea to take advantage of it.
What their high speed rail shows is that their government is able to focus and bring whatever resources they need to bear on the problem at hand. It's like the Manhattan Project. Could it be done today? Probably not in the US, but China would do it.
It's weird though that things mass produced by machine are cheaper to make in China and ship over here than to make here, also with machines, which are already made here.
I mean really, how much human labor goes into a hammer? The whole thing can be done by machines.
I suppose it comes down to other factors like interest rates and state support or something. It would be interesting to see a study of it.
Japan has kept interest rates at 0% or 0.1% for over a decade. They carry tons of debt on purpose because it's incredibly cheap and it keeps their currency competitive. It's one of those things you have to do if you're a major export economy.
I mean who cares if you have debt as 1000% of GDP if the interest rate is 0% and people are still willing to buy it?
The only reason we are talking 'terrorism not killing' is because you've circularly defined suicide attacks to be all we are talking about.
No.. suicide bombing is an example of an act that is widely accepted as terrorism. It's not the only act of terrorism or the definition of terrorism. Please don't twist my words.
If you really want to talk about 'terrorism not killing' then, in America at least, Puerto Ricans commit nearly 20x more acts of terrorism than do muslims.
That was in the past and has largely died down and was pretty much confined to Puerto Rico.
People care about what threatens them. A Puerto Rican terrorist is infinitely less likely to blow up Chicago O'Hare airport than a Muslim terrorist.
Similarly, the most widespread terrorist outfits in the US today are... environmental/animal rights groups. Not sure if it's accurate to lump them together but to me they seem pretty similar. Of course their terrorism has almost no chance of affecting you unless you work in an animal testing lab or something like that.
The number one group threatening everybody equally, though, is Muslim terrorism.
I say "just happen to be" in that the fight over Chechnya is not one of Muslim vs Christian/Atheist. It is one of Chechen vs Russian. Islam is certainly part of the identity of Chechnya, but it is not the reason why they want to be independent.
You honestly think if Russia were an Islamic state that the Chechen independence movement would have the same tone and character? The same message? The same people doing the fighting? Google "chechnya shaheed" and see what the people involved think about the purpose of the terrorist acts we're discussing. Here's a nice link: http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=422
Although materially poor, you were always helping brothers to go on Jihaad. Your love for Allah led you to write poems on Islam and Jihaad. You returned to Chechnya upon hearing the call of Jihaad a second time and, despite difficulties, you were successful in entering Chechnya for the second time.
Yep sounds like your typical independence movement, nobody reading that would ever guess it was rooted in a conflict with Muslims. Religion doesn't even enter into it.
And don't fool yourself, in this context jihad doesn't mean "inner struggle" it means holy war against the infidel.
If a Kurd blows himself up in Iraq, it's not Islamic terrorism, it's Kurdish nationalism terrorism. And that's what is going on in Chechnya.
It kind of depends what motivated the blowing up doesn't it? A Sunni blowing up a Shia marketplace is likely to be Islamic terrorism. Muslims in Chechnya blowing up airports to push for an Islamic state independent of the kuffar Russians, that's absolutely Islamic terrorism.
No I don't like the weapon-of-choice reaction either. But you need some reaction. If mosques are breeding grounds for terrorism, monitor them and arrest terrorists, which the FBI has been doing pretty well in this country. If another country is a breeding ground for terrorism, punish it. We haven't done that too well, but after our foolish attempts at spreading democracy we kind of stumbled onto the drone attack program and I think that's doing pretty well.
I'm just saying, to pretend that terrorism doesn't affect you and to suggest everybody just shrug it off and ignore it seems... wrong. I don't think it's possible or desirable to do that as a human society.
Depends what you mean by treating people as terrorists. Extra security precautions? Extra attention with monitoring?
Nobody really knows how terrorism is created, but the idea that monitoring innocent people encourages sympathy toward terrorism doesn't seem likely to me. It's like saying extra background checks for sex crimes for priests is encouraging pedophilia.
What you seem to me to be presupposing is that there is no problem in the Muslim community that even needs to be addressed.
Not universally, but sometimes. Read what I replied to, the context is pretty obvious. Do you really think the means in which you kill someone is more important than why you kill someone?
And this gets back to the point about wtf does it matter if they are suicide attacks or just regular attacks?
Suicide bomb attacks are pretty much unequivocally terrorism. It's a useful metric in that sense.
Actually your question is far afield from my point, but I'll take you up on it because it is quite easy.
Far afield from your point??? You asked the question!
Christians. At least 10x more people killed by christians than any other group.
Yeah that's probably true, but totally irrelevant. We're talking about terrorism, not killing. That's why I was hesitant to address your point about "massacres" because it's such a general term.
The goal of religious terrorism is never to get people to convert.
I just read an article about Christians in Pakistan converting to Islam because they feel it will make them safer.
Guess what. Pakistan is a Muslim state. A lot of the religious terrorism there has *nothing to do* with regional autonomy or anything like that. Sure they have separatists. That's a real issue as well. But your claim that it's *never* to get people to convert is ridiculous! Punjab is the heartland of Pakistan and it's very, very safe. It controls the army, it receives most of the federal wealth, it steals the resources of other provinces at will. When Punjabi Muslims burn down a Christian village, it's not because they feel like they are losing control of the country to Christians (less than 2% of the population).
The issue is that ethnic Chechens feel the region should be autonomous. They just happen to be predominately Muslim.
"Just happen to be" as in it's coincidence? I'm not sure what you mean.
Now, there are plenty of radical Chechens out there and are fighting aver religion, but most of those don't operate in Russia, they went to Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't understand how you can say they "just happen to be" Muslim, as if it's of no real import, and then follow up with their recent actions in the global jihad, which they would absolutely not be part of if they were not Muslim. And likewise they would not draw support from the Muslim world in their own local struggle if they were not Muslim.
Or wasting trillions on a war that only delivers more eager recruits into the hands of your enemies by destroying their homes, families and livelihoods.
How odd, usually destroying the homes families and livelihoods of your enemies is considered a good thing. The terrorists are certainly happy when they are able to do that to us. I guess they are just... umm.. deceiving themselves when they are happy that their attack causes lots of damage?? I don't get it.
The Russian government have just given the organisers of this attack an effective middle finger whilst shouting "It takes more then that to scare a Russian".
Haha.
Nothing the US has done against terrorism in it's past has ever been quite as effective
The drone program is the finest piece of anti-terrorist machinery we have. It's so beautiful. I don't like Obama too much but I give him credit for expanding its use in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
it proves to the organisers of this attack that there was no real effect, no disruption of services, no over-reaction that will burn a lot of money
Russia knows the effectiveness of force and punishment. There are punishments going on every day in Russia and Chechnya.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.
I don't think it's unconstitutional for the FBI to begin investigating someone when they have a suspicion about them.
Let's keep in mind that the FBI didn't use any force and didn't cause any damage to a person or property. Calling their actions illegal is a stretch. Maybe the evidence would have been tossed out of court if they had tried to use it (though I don't see why), but to then turn around and say it was a criminal act and they need to be fined/fired/etc?? That's kind of ridiculous. Evidence is thrown out of courts all the time because the search was deemed illegal -- so how many times do you think the cop that collected the evidence plus his boss who okayed it get fired? Probably almost never, because it's unreasonable.
You're setting the bar way too high. If they are not causing any damage or interference to a person, and they have a reasonable suspicion, I say more power to them.
I think it's more for netbooks and stuff. They talk about a 1440p 10.1" screen. They compare it to the Atom and Core2Duo, which are not used in phones.
Someone with $300k income is also so financially conservative that they only invest in low-risk bonds over a 40 year period? Doesn't add up. People with that kind of income and that kind of time span are going to make riskier investments and do better than 5% over the long term.
You're also neglecting salary increases over the 40 year period. People making $300k early in their careers (30-40 years left) are going to grow substantially. Maybe you're a partner in a law firm, soon you'll be a senior partner and make double that. Maybe you're a doctor in a respected hospital, soon you'll have your own practice and make even more. And so on.
And as an anecdote, I know a doctor who is 35 and was just offered a job making $330k for a HALF TIME JOB (26 weeks full time, 26 weeks off) in a major hospital. If he had taken it, he would have also been able to run his own practice on the side. You are absolutely insane if you think there's a good chance he's going to be "barely rich" or whatever 40 years from now. I would agree he's not rich now, but he's living a rich lifestyle, and he's saving plenty of money. Also, he's not investing in 5% bonds, he's looking for businesses to buy or invest in.
I don't like class war rhetoric either, but let's not exacerbate it by denying plain as day facts. The reason I don't begrudge him his money is that he earned it, not that "it's not really that much anyways" or whatever.
The accumulation of wealth is supported and enabled by a well run society respecting personal property. The wealthy are those who reap the greatest benefits of society as a whole. Progressive taxes are (or at least can be) fair for this reason.
In societies that are not well run, the rich achieve great power. That is why poor countries have war lords, drug lords, terrorist networks, and rich dictators who operate with impunity. In those countries the poor are very scared of the rich. The rich are not at all worried that some poor family is going to squat on their land -- they would have their guards shoot them.
Regressive taxes place an onerous burden upon those least capable of bearing it.
I believe in having some level of welfare, but it's just as important that everybody in society contribute. And they must do it in a way that affects others beyond themselves and their small circle. The idea that the government has infinite money and exists to help one group at the expense of another has got to stop. We can't afford it. If you are too poor, pay with service.
On the other hand, for all that work, someone would net 1 identity/password. Having them all centralized in a password file gives you thousands.
This is why laws requiring everyone that doesn't have a compelling medical reason for getting the vaccination are justified.
No it's *how* such laws are justified. You're begging the question.
It's odd to me that there's not more of an effort to ban peanuts. Eating peanuts and using peanut oil is so minor. Nobody depends on it. Nobody has a fear of something bad happening if they *don't* eat peanuts. Yet all we say is manufacturers have to have a warning. That doesn't stop people from making homemade products and taking them to the office where someone may eat it and die, or having something be mislabeled, or the many other situations where things aren't labeled.
And with vaccination you have this huge movement going around saying "You MUST get your kids vaccinated even if you are genuinely afraid it will make them autistic. WE don't care how you feel, just do it."
How is that possible? Not eating nuts vs. fearing for your child's entire future.
Why do you think that is?
When you don't vaccinate your child, it's not just your child that's at risk, it also includes all the others they are in contact with. Why the bloody hell do you think they send sick children home when parents ignore the standard "don't send sick children to school" policies?
Why is it their responsibility and not the at-risk child's parents' responsibility? Why not have a "don't send at-risk children to school" policy?
Here's an idea, if you really insist on ignoring the countless millions of case studies and instead go with one discredited quack and don't mind risking your childrens health, then keep your kids out of the schools and parks and other places where children congregate. Your disregard for their safety isn't fair to them or their parents.
Exactly, it's a question of which rights are more important. Do you want the right to go where you like, or do you want the right to stop other people from going where they like? One is personal freedom, one is fascism.
If we restricted voting to taxpayers with a positive annual income tax burden, you'd have a point.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. You're an idiot.
Either you support someone's right to vote, or you do not.
Nope! In the past, people have said stuff like "I support someone's right to vote as long as they are men." Today we say "I support someone's right to vote if they are 18+ and not a felon."
So.. you're wrong. It's not either/or.
Frankly, the idea that any American would support the financial and political backing of a man who murders people who disagree with him is the furthest thing from the American ideal that I can even conceive of.
You're ill-informed. It's not because people disagree with him, it's because they are Islamic fascists who want to kill him and terrorize the whole world.
Stop impoverishing people you don't know because you're afraid of their opinions.
LOL, what?? Sad really. What you should really do is talk to the radical Muslims and ask them to stop impoverishing themselves and their fellow countrymen because they are afraid of other people's freedom.
I don't see any necessary connection between (just to be concrete in my example) Russia adopts Sharia law, and whether or not Russia forcibly occupies Chechnya.
The Chechen resistance is a jihad to establish Muslim self-rule in Chechnya. But jihads don't necessarily stop when their immediate objectives are achieved, and when they do stop they're not necessarily at the borders that non-Muslims had established.
My point is that maybe the religious arguments that people find compelling when they're under seige by Russia, would be such compelling arguments if they were able to live in peace and independence.
Ah, but can they live in peace and independence? Or will there be another excuse later on.. Russia is stealing their natural resources, Russia is corrupting their political parties, etc. Look at Pakistan's relationship with India where you see the exact same arguments, and of course the underlying theme that no true Muslim will submit to Hindu-Zionist power (i.e. work together, give up terrorist "strategic depth", all that crazy stuff). Perhaps India would have been better off treating Pakistan as Russia treats Chechnya. They'd have the same amount of terrorism but wouldn't have to be in a nuclear arms race and wouldn't have to have a million troops permanently stationed the border.
My point is basically that two things are unusual about the Russian suicide bombers, presumably: their religion, and how much Russia is pissing on their region. And maybe its the pissed-on attribute that's a stronger impetus for their suicide bombings than is their religion.
In what sense is Islam an unusual religion for suicide bombers?
Anyway, my problem with your statement is you are ignoring the wealth of Islamic terrorism examples we have to draw from. Heck just a few days ago a teenager blew himself up in Pakistan to kill some Shias. In case you're unfamiliar with it, let me give you a little background info. Shias are a minority Muslim sect in Pakistan. The Sunnis are not being "pissed on" in any way shape or form. They dominate Pakistan in the army, in politics, in civil rights, etc.
My point is, perhaps Chechen terrorists are motivated by Russia's actions towards them, but to pretend that their religion plays no role in how they respond to Russia's actions is ludicrous. And perhaps more importantly, their culture, and the Islamic influence on their culture, plays a HUGE role in determining what actions by Russia are deemed provocative to begin with. Here's a great 3-part article on the interactions of the Bolsheviks with the Muslim population.
I'm not saying Chechnya is at fault or that they are morally wrong for resisting Russian rule (I'm not saying the opposite either). I'm just saying you should not ignore Islam's influence on their culture and more importantly their relationship with other cultures.
So that's the only possible way a cheater flag could be applied to his account?
When I'm playing Black Ops there are friendly little reminders on the loading screen that network manipulation is cheating and will be caught. How are you so sure this case involves achievements and not something else?
If you give a damn about democracy, you can write your congressperson and senator and ask them to do the right thing and put Mubarak on notice that he will not have the support of the United States if he continues to suppress democratic will in Egypt.
You're confused. You can "give a damn" about democracy, but still not support Islamist movements against Western allies. You understand that the world is not black and white, right?
Despite their intentions, they can't keep the yen down. Look at the 5 year graph: http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en&safe=off&q=CURRENCY:JPYUSD&ei=NiQ_TfSrAoOdlgf9-4nvAg&sa=X&oi=currency_onebox&ct=currency_onebox_chart&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQ5QYwAA
The yen is up 40% on the dollar.
Judging from the links you've posted, it seems like perhaps the biggest problem is their aging population. Maybe the debt is getting so big that, though it's 0% interest right now, in the future they'll have to refresh the debt at some point and won't be able to get 0% with a declining economy and increased social spending.
All I'm saying is the size of the debt doesn't make it inherently dangerous. If people were willing to lend them $trillions at 0%, it seems like a good idea to take advantage of it.
What their high speed rail shows is that their government is able to focus and bring whatever resources they need to bear on the problem at hand. It's like the Manhattan Project. Could it be done today? Probably not in the US, but China would do it.
It's weird though that things mass produced by machine are cheaper to make in China and ship over here than to make here, also with machines, which are already made here.
I mean really, how much human labor goes into a hammer? The whole thing can be done by machines.
I suppose it comes down to other factors like interest rates and state support or something. It would be interesting to see a study of it.
Japan has kept interest rates at 0% or 0.1% for over a decade. They carry tons of debt on purpose because it's incredibly cheap and it keeps their currency competitive. It's one of those things you have to do if you're a major export economy.
I mean who cares if you have debt as 1000% of GDP if the interest rate is 0% and people are still willing to buy it?
The only reason we are talking 'terrorism not killing' is because you've circularly defined suicide attacks to be all we are talking about.
No.. suicide bombing is an example of an act that is widely accepted as terrorism. It's not the only act of terrorism or the definition of terrorism. Please don't twist my words.
If you really want to talk about 'terrorism not killing' then, in America at least, Puerto Ricans commit nearly 20x more acts of terrorism than do muslims.
That was in the past and has largely died down and was pretty much confined to Puerto Rico.
People care about what threatens them. A Puerto Rican terrorist is infinitely less likely to blow up Chicago O'Hare airport than a Muslim terrorist.
Similarly, the most widespread terrorist outfits in the US today are... environmental/animal rights groups. Not sure if it's accurate to lump them together but to me they seem pretty similar. Of course their terrorism has almost no chance of affecting you unless you work in an animal testing lab or something like that.
The number one group threatening everybody equally, though, is Muslim terrorism.
I say "just happen to be" in that the fight over Chechnya is not one of Muslim vs Christian/Atheist. It is one of Chechen vs Russian. Islam is certainly part of the identity of Chechnya, but it is not the reason why they want to be independent.
You honestly think if Russia were an Islamic state that the Chechen independence movement would have the same tone and character? The same message? The same people doing the fighting? Google "chechnya shaheed" and see what the people involved think about the purpose of the terrorist acts we're discussing. Here's a nice link: http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=422
Although materially poor, you were always helping brothers to go on Jihaad. Your love for Allah led you to write poems on Islam and Jihaad. You returned to Chechnya upon hearing the call of Jihaad a second time and, despite
difficulties, you were successful in entering Chechnya for the second time.
Yep sounds like your typical independence movement, nobody reading that would ever guess it was rooted in a conflict with Muslims. Religion doesn't even enter into it.
And don't fool yourself, in this context jihad doesn't mean "inner struggle" it means holy war against the infidel.
If a Kurd blows himself up in Iraq, it's not Islamic terrorism, it's Kurdish nationalism terrorism. And that's what is going on in Chechnya.
It kind of depends what motivated the blowing up doesn't it? A Sunni blowing up a Shia marketplace is likely to be Islamic terrorism. Muslims in Chechnya blowing up airports to push for an Islamic state independent of the kuffar Russians, that's absolutely Islamic terrorism.
No I don't like the weapon-of-choice reaction either. But you need some reaction. If mosques are breeding grounds for terrorism, monitor them and arrest terrorists, which the FBI has been doing pretty well in this country. If another country is a breeding ground for terrorism, punish it. We haven't done that too well, but after our foolish attempts at spreading democracy we kind of stumbled onto the drone attack program and I think that's doing pretty well.
I'm just saying, to pretend that terrorism doesn't affect you and to suggest everybody just shrug it off and ignore it seems... wrong. I don't think it's possible or desirable to do that as a human society.
Depends what you mean by treating people as terrorists. Extra security precautions? Extra attention with monitoring?
Nobody really knows how terrorism is created, but the idea that monitoring innocent people encourages sympathy toward terrorism doesn't seem likely to me. It's like saying extra background checks for sex crimes for priests is encouraging pedophilia.
What you seem to me to be presupposing is that there is no problem in the Muslim community that even needs to be addressed.
Not universally, but sometimes. Read what I replied to, the context is pretty obvious. Do you really think the means in which you kill someone is more important than why you kill someone?
And this gets back to the point about wtf does it matter if they are suicide attacks or just regular attacks?
Suicide bomb attacks are pretty much unequivocally terrorism. It's a useful metric in that sense.
Actually your question is far afield from my point, but I'll take you up on it because it is quite easy.
Far afield from your point??? You asked the question!
Christians. At least 10x more people killed by christians than any other group.
Yeah that's probably true, but totally irrelevant. We're talking about terrorism, not killing. That's why I was hesitant to address your point about "massacres" because it's such a general term.
The goal of religious terrorism is never to get people to convert.
I just read an article about Christians in Pakistan converting to Islam because they feel it will make them safer.
Guess what. Pakistan is a Muslim state. A lot of the religious terrorism there has *nothing to do* with regional autonomy or anything like that. Sure they have separatists. That's a real issue as well. But your claim that it's *never* to get people to convert is ridiculous! Punjab is the heartland of Pakistan and it's very, very safe. It controls the army, it receives most of the federal wealth, it steals the resources of other provinces at will. When Punjabi Muslims burn down a Christian village, it's not because they feel like they are losing control of the country to Christians (less than 2% of the population).
The issue is that ethnic Chechens feel the region should be autonomous. They just happen to be predominately Muslim.
"Just happen to be" as in it's coincidence? I'm not sure what you mean.
Now, there are plenty of radical Chechens out there and are fighting aver religion, but most of those don't operate in Russia, they went to Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't understand how you can say they "just happen to be" Muslim, as if it's of no real import, and then follow up with their recent actions in the global jihad, which they would absolutely not be part of if they were not Muslim. And likewise they would not draw support from the Muslim world in their own local struggle if they were not Muslim.
Terrorism is all about getting a reaction; if you react to the terrorists, then the terrorist have won.
If your society has no reaction to widespread death and destruction, then what are the terrorists trying to win? You already live in hell.
Or wasting trillions on a war that only delivers more eager recruits into the hands of your enemies by destroying their homes, families and livelihoods.
How odd, usually destroying the homes families and livelihoods of your enemies is considered a good thing. The terrorists are certainly happy when they are able to do that to us. I guess they are just... umm.. deceiving themselves when they are happy that their attack causes lots of damage?? I don't get it.
The Russian government have just given the organisers of this attack an effective middle finger whilst shouting "It takes more then that to scare a Russian".
Haha.
Nothing the US has done against terrorism in it's past has ever been quite as effective
The drone program is the finest piece of anti-terrorist machinery we have. It's so beautiful. I don't like Obama too much but I give him credit for expanding its use in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
it proves to the organisers of this attack that there was no real effect, no disruption of services, no over-reaction that will burn a lot of money
Russia knows the effectiveness of force and punishment. There are punishments going on every day in Russia and Chechnya.